Click to enlarge
No, I'm not saying Joy's post is stupid. It's something completely different. After we beat their defamation claim, we made a motion to make them pay our legal expenses. We won. That is straightforward. What is stupid is their opposition to our motion. Well, I know why they opposed: the Witches of Ellsworth hate to pay a penny to clean up their mess just as they hate to pay for anything they can just take from someone.
These idiots made a poor excuse of a response to our motion for legal fees. As they have been doing, they bang the libel drum in their opposition, saying because they don't like what is said about them, it is libelous. Unfortunately, they forgot that what they don't like people saying they did is the truth - and the truth isn't libel.
Nor is it libel to think someone is not a "warm and nourishing" person. Nor is it libel to call someone a "dried up cunt" or "the Witches of Ellsworth" - particularly if those persons are public figures who have a weekly radio show, web site, newspaper, video and audio recordings as well as a cable TV program.
And when the plaintiff in a libel action dismisses their case with prejudice (which SRF did), the courts say: "Hey buddy, you can't say you were libeled - you dismissed your case with prejudice! If you had a case, why in hell did you dismiss?"
The Opposition to Motion for Attorney Fees I will deconstruct here addresses our right to make the Spiritual Rights Foundation pay our legal expenses. I wonder what the SRF argument about libel has to do with legal expenses, or anything else? Well, the court did as well - SRF was defeated soundly, as they deserved. The court awarded what we asked for.
Here is a few excerpts of the SRF Opposition. If you are holding a drink, please put it down so you won't spatter your screen when you laugh out loud.
=====================================
The plaintiffs are a church (sic), a hypnotherapy institute owned and operated by the church, the three directors (and ministers) of the and the directors of the institute.
The defendants are former members of the church and former students of the institute.
The defendants maintain blogs and create videos that they post to YouTube, which are dedicated to exposing the alleged abuses of the church and the institute and to shut them down.
The defendants accused the plaintiffs of a wide range of unethical, immoral, abusive, and criminal behavior.
The language used to further their cause sometimes passed beyond all standards of decency (for example, referring to some of the plaintiffs as "dried up c-nts"') and even included incitement to violence (for example; that the church buildings should be "burned down"). Also included were comments about one of the plaintiffs children that used terms so disgusting that they will not be repeated here.
People who were trying to post statements in support of plaintiffs were denied access to the defendants blog.
Plaintiffs' counsel sent to defendants a demand to cease from the defamatory and outrageous comments. Defendants ignored the demand. Plaintiffs then filed suit.
At no time did defense counsel request an extension of time for filing a response to complaint.
If defense counsel would have requested it, plaintiffs' counsel would have granted it; as it is plaintiffs' counsel common practice to grant such requests from opposing counsel.
The defendants' response was a demurrer and the ASM. Both pleadings were supported by two volumes, each containing hundreds of pages (each are over two and a quarter inches thick), and included printouts from websites, pleadings from divorce cases, entire motions from unrelated cases, newspaper clippings, articles, advertisements, and 200 pages of his own clients' blogs, and much more.
Footnotes:
Edited for the sake of decency.
Attached as Exhibit One is a true copy of a page from Defendant Joy Faith Butler's
blog dated January 20, 2009 [highlighted]; See Declaration of Kshanti Livingston in Opposition,page 1, lines 26-28, page 2, lines 1 -5 ; and see Declaration of Molly Livingston in Opposition, page 1, lines 26-28, page 2, lines 1-4.
Plaintiffs Memorandum of P's & A's in Opposition to Motion for Attorney Fees 2
Here is an item-by-item deconstruction:
=====================================
The defendants maintain blogs and create videos that they post to YouTube, which are dedicated to exposing the alleged abuses of the church and the institute and to shut them down.
Yep, we do indeed operate blogs. But only Joy makes videos for YouTube. They would have known that if they took the time to look at YouTube.
We do indeed expose the abuses of SRF and ISHI Hypnosis. However, we tell our side of the SRF story. Only Angela Silva and Robin Dumolin have the power to shut down the Spiritual Rights Foundation - or maybe the government will do that for them.
These idiots made a poor excuse of a response to our motion for legal fees. As they have been doing, they bang the libel drum in their opposition, saying because they don't like what is said about them, it is libelous. Unfortunately, they forgot that what they don't like people saying they did is the truth - and the truth isn't libel.
Nor is it libel to think someone is not a "warm and nourishing" person. Nor is it libel to call someone a "dried up cunt" or "the Witches of Ellsworth" - particularly if those persons are public figures who have a weekly radio show, web site, newspaper, video and audio recordings as well as a cable TV program.
And when the plaintiff in a libel action dismisses their case with prejudice (which SRF did), the courts say: "Hey buddy, you can't say you were libeled - you dismissed your case with prejudice! If you had a case, why in hell did you dismiss?"
The Opposition to Motion for Attorney Fees I will deconstruct here addresses our right to make the Spiritual Rights Foundation pay our legal expenses. I wonder what the SRF argument about libel has to do with legal expenses, or anything else? Well, the court did as well - SRF was defeated soundly, as they deserved. The court awarded what we asked for.
Here is a few excerpts of the SRF Opposition. If you are holding a drink, please put it down so you won't spatter your screen when you laugh out loud.
=====================================
The plaintiffs are a church (sic), a hypnotherapy institute owned and operated by the church, the three directors (and ministers) of the and the directors of the institute.
The defendants are former members of the church and former students of the institute.
The defendants maintain blogs and create videos that they post to YouTube, which are dedicated to exposing the alleged abuses of the church and the institute and to shut them down.
The defendants accused the plaintiffs of a wide range of unethical, immoral, abusive, and criminal behavior.
The language used to further their cause sometimes passed beyond all standards of decency (for example, referring to some of the plaintiffs as "dried up c-nts"') and even included incitement to violence (for example; that the church buildings should be "burned down"). Also included were comments about one of the plaintiffs children that used terms so disgusting that they will not be repeated here.
People who were trying to post statements in support of plaintiffs were denied access to the defendants blog.
Plaintiffs' counsel sent to defendants a demand to cease from the defamatory and outrageous comments. Defendants ignored the demand. Plaintiffs then filed suit.
At no time did defense counsel request an extension of time for filing a response to complaint.
If defense counsel would have requested it, plaintiffs' counsel would have granted it; as it is plaintiffs' counsel common practice to grant such requests from opposing counsel.
The defendants' response was a demurrer and the ASM. Both pleadings were supported by two volumes, each containing hundreds of pages (each are over two and a quarter inches thick), and included printouts from websites, pleadings from divorce cases, entire motions from unrelated cases, newspaper clippings, articles, advertisements, and 200 pages of his own clients' blogs, and much more.
Footnotes:
Edited for the sake of decency.
Attached as Exhibit One is a true copy of a page from Defendant Joy Faith Butler's
blog dated January 20, 2009 [highlighted]; See Declaration of Kshanti Livingston in Opposition,page 1, lines 26-28, page 2, lines 1 -5 ; and see Declaration of Molly Livingston in Opposition, page 1, lines 26-28, page 2, lines 1-4.
Plaintiffs Memorandum of P's & A's in Opposition to Motion for Attorney Fees 2
Here is an item-by-item deconstruction:
=====================================
The defendants maintain blogs and create videos that they post to YouTube, which are dedicated to exposing the alleged abuses of the church and the institute and to shut them down.
Yep, we do indeed operate blogs. But only Joy makes videos for YouTube. They would have known that if they took the time to look at YouTube.
We do indeed expose the abuses of SRF and ISHI Hypnosis. However, we tell our side of the SRF story. Only Angela Silva and Robin Dumolin have the power to shut down the Spiritual Rights Foundation - or maybe the government will do that for them.
What we do is give people the information to make up their own mind. If that means the people would rather go elsewhere for their spiritual and hypnosis needs, that is their own decision.
==================================
The defendants accused the plaintiffs of a wide range of unethical, immoral, abusive, and criminal behavior.
Sure! Hasn't every victim of the Spiritual Rights Foundation? What's so new about that? I haven't even told half the story!
===============================
The language used to further their cause sometimes passed beyond all standards of decency (for example, referring to some of the plaintiffs as "dried up c-nts"') and even included incitement to violence (for example; that the church buildings should be "burned down"). Also included were comments about one of the plaintiffs children that used terms so disgusting that they will not be repeated here.
Well, I'll describe the disgusting, vile, repulsive, immoral language used against the members of the "church" and I'll also mention there was real threats to violence as well as real violence conducted there.
==================================
The defendants accused the plaintiffs of a wide range of unethical, immoral, abusive, and criminal behavior.
Sure! Hasn't every victim of the Spiritual Rights Foundation? What's so new about that? I haven't even told half the story!
===============================
The language used to further their cause sometimes passed beyond all standards of decency (for example, referring to some of the plaintiffs as "dried up c-nts"') and even included incitement to violence (for example; that the church buildings should be "burned down"). Also included were comments about one of the plaintiffs children that used terms so disgusting that they will not be repeated here.
Well, I'll describe the disgusting, vile, repulsive, immoral language used against the members of the "church" and I'll also mention there was real threats to violence as well as real violence conducted there.
So how many of you were verbally abused by leaders at the Spiritual Rights Foundation? How many of you were subjected to racial epithets (me, for one)?
How many of you faced insults to your families, your spouses, your career choices and any damn thing you ever did or thought of doing?
How many of you were cursed at for hours?
How many were reduced to tears after a verbal waterboarding?
How many endured the most inhuman, cruel and prolonged psychological torture that could be inflicted - more than would be allowable by the Geneva Conventions?
And how many were worked nearly to death, with the promise of "Arbeit Macht Frei"?
How many of you faced insults to your families, your spouses, your career choices and any damn thing you ever did or thought of doing?
How many of you were cursed at for hours?
How many were reduced to tears after a verbal waterboarding?
How many endured the most inhuman, cruel and prolonged psychological torture that could be inflicted - more than would be allowable by the Geneva Conventions?
And how many were worked nearly to death, with the promise of "Arbeit Macht Frei"?
A few students were spared conviction and punishment handed down by the Academy for Psychic Studies Kangaroo Kourt but none of the ministers and most of the long-time students were not.
How many? Well of all the ex-members of SRF, most of them faced at least some kind of arbitrary and hostile behavior directed towards them - usually for flimsy reasons or no reason at all. Almost all the ex-members I know were subjected to hours and hours of degrading humiliation in front of a crowd of Spiritual Rights Foundation followers in the guise of a "healing session".
That "healing" was repeated over and over again like a blond shampooing her hair, until the "healer" - usually Bill Duby or Angela Silva with the immoral support and snide commentary from Robin Dumolin, got distracted by something else: like a squirrel.
And as for the comments, they were made by people named "Anonymous" - which means "without a name" and who happen to not be me or Joy. Besides, it's not libel to call the Witches of Ellsworth "dried up CUNTS" or "the Witches of Ellsworth" or any part of anatomy or bodily discharge anyway.
As for the buildings being "burned down", that is a figurative statement from someone who wanted to preserve what they found valuable about the SRF doctrine, while removing those who pervert it (meaning the Witches of Ellsworth). Any idiot who read that comment would have seen that.
Unfortunately, The Academy for Psychic Studies is polluted with idiots who lower expectations for idiots everywhere.
===============================
People who were trying to post statements in support of plaintiffs were denied access to the defendants blog.
OK, so the pic of Joy's blog should body-slam this claim to the ground. When SRF supporters invaded Joy's YouTube page, they left comments that threatened her safety. As a result, those comments were removed and the invading SRF supporters banned until they promise to stop the flaming. Reinstatement was always open to them.
My blog has always been an open forum where great and insightful posts from many live in harmony with erudite comments like "Fuck You".
Besides, Blogger does not and never had a mechanism to exclude or "block" any particular individual from commenting. Our blogs accept all comments.
That the Witches would look into their cauldron to conjure up a bogus and utterly idiotic legal argument to violate the First Amendment Rights of their victims has publicly exposed The Witches of Ellsworth as exactly the kind of people they claim they are not.
===============================
Plaintiffs' counsel sent to defendants a demand to cease from the defamatory and outrageous comments. Defendants ignored the demand. Plaintiffs then filed suit.
At no time did defense counsel request an extension of time for filing a response to complaint.
If defense counsel would have requested it, plaintiffs' counsel would have granted it; as it is plaintiffs' counsel common practice to grant such requests from opposing counsel.
What they left out was a small but highly important fact: a judge granted SRF an ex parte motion (meaning the motion was made without our presence at the hearing or even telling us a hearing would be held) changing the time to respond from 30 days to 20 days.
This is an official court order we must obey. That we could ignore the order and just ask the plaintiff for more time is absurd.
===============================
Plaintiffs' counsel sent to defendants a demand to cease from the defamatory and outrageous comments. Defendants ignored the demand. Plaintiffs then filed suit.
At no time did defense counsel request an extension of time for filing a response to complaint.
If defense counsel would have requested it, plaintiffs' counsel would have granted it; as it is plaintiffs' counsel common practice to grant such requests from opposing counsel.
What they left out was a small but highly important fact: a judge granted SRF an ex parte motion (meaning the motion was made without our presence at the hearing or even telling us a hearing would be held) changing the time to respond from 30 days to 20 days.
This is an official court order we must obey. That we could ignore the order and just ask the plaintiff for more time is absurd.
Click to Enlarge
The same judge who would hear our motion for attorney fees granted this motion and was expecting he'd hear back in 20 days. I guess the Witches were hoping he would forget - kind of like my teenage niece hoping I'd forget about the Marlboro's and Stoli in her bedroom.
It's amazing that SRF will go to any lengths to browbeat, intimidate and otherwise bully anyone who exposes their perverted practices and exploitation. Actually, it isn't. We saw that kind of behavior for a decade. Why would they change now?
Anyway, when we responded in 20 days as ordered with a Demurrer and Special Motion to Strike (an anti-SLAPP motion) with all the exhibits necessary to support our position, they complain we didn't ask for more time.
Only the mentally deficient martinets of the Spiritual Rights Foundation would change the rules of the game to their advantage, then complain mightily when we follow those rules - and win.
It's amazing that SRF will go to any lengths to browbeat, intimidate and otherwise bully anyone who exposes their perverted practices and exploitation. Actually, it isn't. We saw that kind of behavior for a decade. Why would they change now?
Anyway, when we responded in 20 days as ordered with a Demurrer and Special Motion to Strike (an anti-SLAPP motion) with all the exhibits necessary to support our position, they complain we didn't ask for more time.
Only the mentally deficient martinets of the Spiritual Rights Foundation would change the rules of the game to their advantage, then complain mightily when we follow those rules - and win.
SRF's attempt at legal cleverness only resulted in them getting a sledgehammer right in the face - which is no less than they deserve.
==========================
The defendants' response was a demurrer and the ASM. Both pleadings were supported by two volumes, each containing hundreds of pages (each are over two and a quarter inches thick), and included printouts from websites, pleadings from divorce cases, entire motions from unrelated cases, newspaper clippings, articles, advertisements, and 200 pages of his own clients' blogs, and much more.
Yeah, we responded with a lot of stuff. That supporting material came from the Spiritual Rights Foundation's official newspaper, the SRF official website, ads from SRF official leaders offering their official services, news accounts related to SRF officials and their truant children, rulings (not pleadings) from the child custody cases (not divorces) of at least one SRF official, motions from the child custody cases I cite here (and SRF hopes those cases did not happen). We had to add our entire blogs because SRF misstated and distorted what is written here.
Defending a defamation suit is hard work. I can tell you that from my first hand experience. Filing a defamation suit is something any idiot can do. Angela Silva and Robin Dumolin proved that in spades.
=================================
The most troubling thing about this whole mess is that the Spiritual Rights Foundation not only showed their true colors, they showed they haven't learned a thing over the years.
Angela Silva filed lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit against the likes of Amazon and Yahoo just because she didn't like anyone speaking about what really happens under her warped and self-serving leadership.
Those lawsuits were dismissed and the results Angela wanted never came about.
Steve Sanchez's book sold well, all copies sold out. Amazon still lists the positive reviews for his book and offers used copies for sale.
Yahoo and Google still list several sites who speak of the dark side of the Spiritual Rights Foundation moon.
Why they think a guy like me would roll over and play dead is beyond me.
While I was there, they saw me embroiled in a really nasty legal battle for my inheritance. In short, I caught my sister stealing. A lot.
After finding a very skilled attorney, a fierce battle between someone discovering the truth and another person trying to conceal it ensued.
Sound familiar?
Well, the Witches of Ellsworth, knew all about that.
They knew how hard I fought. They knew I understood the law and the process well. However, Robin Dumolin believes she knows the law even better and certainly provided expert commentary on a matter she was too sparsely educated and inexperienced to understand. Angela Silva didn't know a damn thing either, having dropped out of the fourth grade but that didn't stop her from misusing the legal system anyway.
It didn't matter. They tried to intimidate me, thinking I would just give up.
In the end, they gave up.
Well, as Rev. Bill Duby always said: if God be for you, who can be against you?
In the case of the Spiritual Rights Foundation/Academy for Psychic Studies there is so much against them, you have to wonder if God or anyone at all is for them.
===========================
What I find most disgusting in this Academy for Psychic Studies comedy of errors is found in the footnote to William Rogers' opening statement:
See Declaration of Kshanti Livingston in Opposition,page 1, lines 26-28, page 2, lines 1 -5 ; and see Declaration of Molly Livingston in Opposition, page 1, lines 26-28, page 2, lines 1-4.
Are those names familiar?
Those two are by no stretch, parties to the defamation action filed by the Witches of Ellsworth Street. However, that didn't stop the Witches from using two young women as human shields against an incoming legal onslaught of their own making. The Witches have shown they have no hesitation to sacrifice the reputations of two of their youngest supporters (at least, they were supporters at the time) in their quest for self-preservation. If you are looking for honor and morality at the Academy for Psychic Studies, save yourself some time and don't even begin looking. You'll never find it there.
Just as they used the follower's minor children as pawns in the manipulation of marriages and as unassuming foils in the subsequent divorces, the Witches continue to assert an unnatural and perverse influence on their follower's adult children when it serves the Witches' purposes.
Utterly disgusting but absolutely apparent to all who see it. Apparent, that is, to all but the deluded faithful few of the Academy and so incompetently obfuscated by the Witches, their denials only raise more suspicion.
Their total and overwhelming defeat at the even hand of justice has not only upheld the legal rights of all former members, it has confirmed to me the Witches have done all the things they say they haven't and they are indeed all they say they are not.
As a championship boxing match analogy goes: The scorecard reads after round 9: Angela, Robin, Debi, Molly keep walking into your jab, thinking they can get to you. Score it 100 to 0! Either they have to deliever a knockout blow soon, or the referee is going to stop the fight...Oh wait, they dropped their lawsuit....They couldn't get up and answer the bell in the 10th round or in court, so its a victory for Mike and Joy! There's champs and chumps...I'm sure the Witches of Ellsworths street and their remaining spiritual detainees have twisted it in their minds that they came out the winners. All saying to each other, "You the man,..you the man!"
ReplyDeleteI believe thats called punch drunk.. Or in the witches case, drunk on power and blind to the truth. The Spritual Wrong Foundation would make for an epic reality show.