A mishmash of informed snark, piquant opinions, refined nastiness, occasional schmaltz, & tawdry graphics, served up continuously since 2006 by COSMIC CONNIE, aka CONNIE L. SCHMIDT. Covering New-Age/New-Wage culture & crapitalism, pop spirituality & religion, pop psychology, self(ish)-help, alt-health hucksterism, conspiranoia, business babble, media silliness, Scamworld, politix, & related (or occasionally unrelated) matters of consequence.
Showing posts with label frivolous lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label frivolous lawsuits. Show all posts
I'm probably only the four-millionth or so person
to mention this, but have you noticed a certain hyper-sensitivity in many of the conservative/libertarian manly men (and a
few proud and defiant women) -- you know, the ones who are
currently infesting the political and cultural landscape with
their bright red caps and fact-devoid social media memes? Have
you observed, as I have, that they seem to have awfully thin skins --
especially when you consider their derisive sneers about the
oppressive, America-threatening "political correctness"
of the left, and their screeds about wimpy liberals (aka
"snowflakes") who are hypersensitive to
"triggers" and have an insatiable need for "safe
spaces?" I have previously danced around the theme of
right-wing snowflakery, e.g., in this May 2016 post (trigger
warning: contains nekkid Donald Trump picture). But it's a matter
that has captured my attention more fully in light of rabid Republican "strategist" Devin Nunes'
comic $250 million lawsuit against Twitter, a made-up mommy, and
a fake cow. (And I'm probably only the
four-millionth or so person to publicly write about this, but I
never claimed to be a groundbreaker.)
Anyway. From the Vox article linked to just above:
A member of Congress since
January 2003, Nunes is perhaps best known nationally first
for his involvement in the Benghazi investigation and second for his dogged defense of Donald
Trump, upon whose transition team
Nunes served. It was Nunes, for example, who wrote the 2018 memo on wiretapping that many Trump supporters believed
would permanently damage special counsel Robert Mueller’s
investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign. (It didn’t.)
So it stands to reason that Twitter users less enthralled
with Trump would tweet things about Nunes that were perhaps
less than cordial — like calling him a “presidential
fluffer and swamp rat,” for instance. (In fact, a tweet
using those very words was included in the lawsuit.)
But in the 40-page complaint filed on Monday, Nunes argues that tweets like
that and the two parody Twitter accounts were not merely
examples of Twitter being Twitter. Rather, he argues that the
social media platform served as “a portal of defamation”
by permitting parody accounts of his mother and his imaginary
bovine to exist on the platform.
The operative word, seemingly missed by Nunes
and his lawyer, is "parody." Which, you know, is protected in the United States by the First Amendment and whatnot. Parody and other forms of sometimes unpopular speech are not protected everywhere, of
course. In Russia (to name but one example of other places in the
world where freedom of expression is not exactly a sacred cow), a
person might, thanks to a new law recently signed by Trump's dom
bromantic partner Putin, conceivably be
prosecuted for parody, since it is by its nature disrespectful,
and if your parody or satire disrespects Putin or the Russian
government, well, then, shame on you, Господин or девушка Smarty-Pants.
But the US isn't Russia... not yet, anyway.
Here
is the direct link to the fake farm animal's Twitter account, which has more Twitter followers than the real Devin.
Goodness, that must trample on his ego. If you're on Twitter and
haven't done so already, why not go ahead and follow that cow?
I've herd that she's very nice, the crème de la crème.
Who feels more "hard done by": libs or
cons?
Defamation cases are nearly always about hurt feelings, and a sense of being hard done by, as much as they are
about actual damages. (A tip of the hat to an ancient post on the Kung Fu Monkey blog, which I've cited here before, for the "hard done
by" theme. Ah, "that sweet crack pipe of moral
indignation.") For me, this latest legal looniness brings up
an argument that has been going on for a few years regarding who
is in fact more hypersensitive: liberals/left-wingers or
conservatives/right-wingers. TheTylt.com -- to name but one
of countless examples -- has tackled this matter, running two
surveys that I know of a couple of years ago -- this one and this one. Spoiler: the
right-wingers won the sensitivity sweepstakes both times.
Moreover Trump is apparently making good on the promise/threat that he spewed forth in his recent two-hour-plus rant to the Conservative Political Action
Conference: a vow to sign an executive
order that would punish colleges and universities that "do
not support free speech" by denying them federal research
funds. The initial promise was a direct response to a February
19, 2019 incident on the campus of the University of California
Berkeley in which a man who was not a Berkeley student was on
campus expressing his support of Trump, whereupon another man,
who was not a Berkeley student either, punched him. The punchee,
one Hayden Williams, was paraded around by Trump as a hero at the
CPAC rant, the poster child for liberals' oppression of
conservatives on campus.
Never mind that Berkeley was, in fact, already providing a solid
platform for conservatives and pro-Trumpsters. In this case, the
conservative org Turning Point USA was, with the university's
permission, recruiting students to the cause. And never mind that
many universities already have free-speech guidelines
and policies that allow non-liberal expression on their campuses. Those inconvenient facts didn't stop the right-wing
whining following the punching, and didn't stop Trump from his
subsequent grandstanding.
Also never mind the fact that, according to the Chicago Trib
article I cited a couple of paragraphs ago, "it's unclear
what type of free speech limitation could trigger a loss of
federal research funding. White House officials declined to
provide specific cases of free speech suppression." The
guiding sentiment behind the EO seems to be that by golly, it's
time that someone stepped up and protected (conservative) free
speech!
Here's an opinion piece,
published on March 4, 2019 in the wake of the CPAC rant,
explaining why Trump is missing the point, once again.
...Because almost across the board
institutional missions center on scientific discovery,
knowledge and learning, institutions of higher education are
a key mechanism for fostering democratic education. Campuses often subscribe to John Stuart Mill’s notion that a
university is a “marketplace of ideas,” where educators
offer “balanced perspectives” so that students can “hear
the other side” on every issue.
However, academic freedom guidelines specifically say that
faculty members need not always cover “the other side” if
the standards of the discipline deem that other side to be
untrue. When topics seem to be settled, with a right answer
having emerged through science and ethics, faculty can focus
on the knowledge produced. A white nationalist view, for
example, does not merit debate within the campus marketplace
of ideas.
In the aftermath of the Charlottesville, Va.,
tragedy, these
disagreements have taken on a deeper significance, as those
of us who work within higher education navigate increasingly
polarized contexts for teaching, learning and research.
Public discussions of these issues have been dominated by legal analyses of the First Amendment, without sufficient
attention to philosophical discussion of disagreement, truth
and the democratic purposes of higher education.
College faculty and campus leaders are caught between wanting
to be nonpartisan and promoting their institution’s
missions, which often prioritize excellence and truth...
On the other hand, if colleges and unis are
mandated by executive order or law or whatever to allow free
speech, religious schools such as Liberty University, which also
receives federal research funds, might have to allow satanists
and abortion-rights advocates to speak on their campuses. So
there's that. Could be interesting.
Misusing the courts to capitalize on being hard done
by
It's not unusual for thin-skins who have the resources to try to
use the legal system to fight back against real and imagined
slights, generally via multi-million dollar
"defamation" lawsuits. Trump is one notable and obvious
example; a few of those defamation lawsuits are listed in this article,
though the piece also covers some of his other infamous and
yuuugely expensive legal dramas.
Another recent example is the "Covington kid," the
MAGA-cap-sporting Catholic school student Nicholas Sandmann, whose parents sued the New York Timesfor $250 millionand, more recently, CNN for $275
million, for the news outlets' initial coverage of an incident in
which their kid confronted an elderly Native American activist
and some shouting Black Hebrew Israelite cultists. (Never mind
that the NYT and CNN and most other mainstream outlets revised
their stories as new info came to light.) Part of the plaintiffs'
argument was that the media are biased against Donald Trump and
conservatives. Ah, snowflakes. No two are alike, and yet at some
level they all are.
And now there's Devin and that fake mama and that bogus bovine
and, of course, that very real social media platform, the latter
of whom possesses the actual deep pockets that Devin and his
legal team hope to mine.
If you want a good laugh, read the lawsuit. I have been
trying to find a dowloadable PDF of the document that includes
the filing/court stamps, indicating that it was actually filed
and the date and time that this occurred. The document to which I
linked does not seem to be that, but it was uploaded to Scribd by
Fox News on March 18, and seems to be the reference point for all
of the chatter about it. It begins by trying to lay out the case
that Twitter has been purposely defaming
poor Devin and continues to do so, and that furthermore Twitter has it out for all Republicans.
1. Twitter is an information content
provider. Twitter creates and develops content, in whole or
in part, through a combination of means: (a) by explicit
censorship of viewpoints with which it disagrees, (b) by
shadow-banning conservatives, such as Plaintiff, (c) by
knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly
abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice
and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby
facilitating defamation on its platform, (d) by completely
ignoring lawful complaints about offensive content and by
allowing that content to remain accessible to the public, and
(e) by intentionally abandoning and refusing to enforce its
so-called Terms of Service and Twitter Rules – essentially
refusing to self-regulate – thereby selectively amplifying
the message of defamers such as Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom and
Devin Nunes’ cow, and materially contributing to the
libelousness of the hundreds of posts at issue in this
action.
2. Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this
case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct,
imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a
publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political
operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon. Twitter knew
the defamation was (and is) happening. Twitter let it happen
because Twitter had (and has) a political agenda and motive:
Twitter allowed (and allows) its platform to serve as a
portal of defamation in order to undermine public confidence
in Plaintiff and to benefit his opponents and opponents of
the Republican Party...
And so on, and so forth, adding up to yet
another fine red whine. Alas, poor Devin, and oh, those poor,
put-upon Republicans.
This bit, which occurs towards the end and wraps up the counts
for which the plaintiff is demanding so much money, made me
chuckle.
COUNT IV – COMMON LAW CONSPIRACY...
... 54. Beginning in February 2018 and continuing through the
present, Mair, Devin Nunes’ Mom and Devin Nunes’ cow,
acting as individuals, combined, associated, agreed or acted
in concert with each other and/or with one or more
“clients” or other donors, non-profits, operatives or
agents of the Democratic Party (whose identity is unknown at
this time) for the express purposes of injuring Nunes,
intentionally and unlawfully interfering with his business
and employment as a United States Congressman, and defaming
Nunes. In furtherance of the conspiracy and preconceived
plan, the Defendants engaged in a joint scheme the unlawful
purpose of which was to destroy Nunes’ personal and
professional reputations and influence the outcome of a
federal election.
Nunes is asking for a minimum of
$250,000,000 for the alleged attempts to destroy his reputation,
but is certainly open to the idea of receiving much more, should
it please the court. On
his monologue on March 19, 2019, Stephen Colbert said that Nunes' legal team came up with that figure by
applying a scientific legal formula: they took the dollar amount
that Nunes' reputation is actually worth, and added $250,000,000
to it. That sounds about right.
Less than 24 hours after being launched, that
account had more than 30,000 followers. And although as of this
writing the account still contains a solitary tweet, the
following is making its way steadily to 44,000.
I am well aware that there is an ongoing debate
about several issues related to social media, and one of these
issues is the question of whether or not platforms such as
Facebook and Twitter are indeed biased against conservatives. A poll taken late last year by
Hill.TV and American Barometer indicated that a majority of American voters
thought that the social media giants have a systemic bias against
conservative views. Unsurprisingly, the poll was heavily divided
along party lines, with Republicans overwhelmingly likely to view
tech companies as being biased against conservatives. Media
bias is a perennial issue that is
worthy of exploration and analysis, but frivolous defamation
lawsuits by whiny politicians and other public figures are not
helpful at all. Conspiranoia strikes deep...again
All of the talk about conspiracy to defame reminds me very much of
another defamation flawsuit from a few years back, one in which I was the top-named defendant. It didn't
make the mainstream news, of course, and was barely a blip in the
blogosphere, but if you think I am going to pass up an
opportunity to sneer about it, you are very much mistaken. As you
may know, the suit did not go very well for the plaintiff, Not-Doktor Leonard Coldwell,
aka LoonyC, the stupidest and most evil man in Scamworld; his
attorneys advised him to drop the case, and he did. Nor did his previous attempt to sue a critical blogger (my pal
and co-defendant in the aforementioned case, Salty Droid) go very
well; his rent-a-lawyer in that one
dropped out of the case early on, and the whole thing was
dismissed because LoonyC never showed up for any hearings. Yet he
has continued to boast about his powerful legal team and about
his steadfast willingness to fight and defeat anyone who dares to
"defame" him.
Arguably the majority of defamation lawsuits fail, at least in
the US. It's complicated, and I don't
claim to be anything remotely resembling an expert on these
matters. But it seems that more than likely, Devin Nunes doesn't have a very strong
case, in part because he is a
politician and a public figure, and America has a long history of
protecting those who make fun of our politicians. Also, Twitter
is merely distributing, not creating, the offending content. But
some have warned that even if Nunes loses the lawsuit and the
probable appeal, he is creating an opening for the Supreme Court
to reconsider its previous rulings on defamation and public
officials. As a lawmaker, Nunes is in a unique position to
introduce legislation that could very well have a chilling effect
that would make Putin proud.
For now, it seems nothing will stop either Nunes or his
detractors from... oh, you knew this was coming, didn't you?...
milking this matter for all it's worth. But it's worth noting
that last year Nunes was a co-sponsor of HR 1179, the
"Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act." Cory Doctorow on Boing-Boing made sport of this (as well as the now-defunct fake-mama Twitter account).
Nunes is upset that he was called a
"herp-face," and is really upset about a human centipede meme that depicted Nunes, Trump and Putin as
generic, labeled stick-figures with their mouths grafted onto
one-another's anuses. This tweet may just be the greatest
exhibit ever filed in a lawsuit.
It's a very good thing to have a little comic
relief in the midst of the horror and chaos that is swirling all
around us, but let's hope that the right-wing snowflakes don't
have the last laugh.
Addendum, 5 April 2019:
Republican strategist Elizabeth "Liz" Mair, who besides
Twitter is actually the main defendant in Nunes' silly complaint,
wrote a serious editorial about the real threats to free speech
for all of us. It was published in USA Today. Here 'tis. Related on this Whirled: Vintage whines from
conservative conspiranoid snowflakes
Now more than ever, your donation is needed
to help keep this Whirled spinning. Click here to donate via PayPal or debit/credit
card.
If that link doesn't work, send PayPal payment directly to scrivener66@hotmail.com or tocosmic.connie@juno.com If PayPal, be sure to specify that your contribution is a gift. Thank
you!
Last night I did something I hadn't done in a
very long time: I removed a published post from this blog. Nobody
told or asked me to remove the post. Nor did anyone threaten
legal action or worse. Moreover, the post had only been up about
four hours, and in that time, according to Blogger's helpful
stats-tracking, only one person had read it, indicating to me
that Whirled Musings is as wildly popular as ever. I just can't
keep up with the demand.
But after talking about it with my husband, I had some serious
second thoughts, given how unhinged and litigious the subject
appears to be (not to mention how apparently well-backed
financially he is). From all indications he is a serial scammer,
but has positioned himself as an American hero, which has earned
him a significant following of people who are all too willing to
throw their hard-earned money into his various political and
social "causes." He's a genius at raising money. What
happens to the money after he raises it is a matter that I'll leave
to the big investigative journos for now.
I'm not giving myself short shrift or being falsely modest, but
merely honest, when I state that like much of the content on this
Whirled, my deleted post wasn't breaking any new ground. I was
only reporting and linking to other credible sources about this
man and his many schemes. But I simply don't have the resources
to deal with any serious blow-back at this point.
What really sticks in my gut about this matter is
the fact that this guy has become such an advocate/activist for
"free speech," even starting a crowdfunding page,
supposedly to protect free speech, though apparently the real
purpose is to pursue legal action against platforms (e.g.
Facebook) that he feels have "censored" him. He has
already raised tens of thousands of dollars for this cause. But,
like so many other folks I've observed, it appears that he
believes "free speech" only applies to him and his
allies. He has threatened and harassed and even doxxed some of
his critics and detractors, and has then turned around and sued them
(and crowd-funded his legal costs). His litigiousness, as
well as his double standards about free speech -- not to mention
his right wingnutty political and social opinions and his love of
(actual) fake news -- remind me very much of a nutcake I've previously dealt with. But this guy has a much greater following than that
nutcake.
So I'll leave it to others to do the heavy lifting on this one:
those who either have the backing of a strong legal team or who
are lawyers themselves. Meanwhile, I'll go on being an advocate
of free speech, even if it's speech I don't like.
PS ~ Free speech doesn't mean consequence-free speech,
as whiny, blubbery conspiracy peddler Alex Jones learned again
when the courts handed a victory to plaintiffs in a
defamation suit against him. The
plaintiffs in question are families of the Sandy Hook shooting
victims, who alleged that they faced frightening threats and
harassment as a result of Jones' continual public claims that the
shooting was a hoax, The court ruled that Jones' fake-news org
Infowars must turn over internal documents to these families.
Now more than ever, your donation is needed
to help keep this Whirled spinning. Click here to donate via PayPal or debit/credit
card.
If that link doesn't work, send PayPal payment directly to scrivener66@hotmail.com or tocosmic.connie@juno.com If PayPal, be sure to specify that your contribution is a gift. Thank
you!
I might as well finally break in the merry month of May on this
Whirled, since the month is already almost half over. Gosh, where does
the time go? Since I'm on deadline with a project and occupied
with other matters of consequence, this will just be a brief
update about imprisoned serial scammer Kevin Trudeau, who likes
to be called KT, but whom I like to call Katie. In my previous blog post on April 20
(scroll down to "Selling GIN from the clink"), I caught
you up on, among several other things, some of the civil court
action (Case number 1:03-cv-03904), sharing with you that Katie
has been whining to the court because the court-appointed
receiver, Robb Evans, hasn't been filing taxes for all of Katie's
bidness entities on a timely basis, and also hasn't filed a
status report in a heck of a long time. I gave you a link to that
fine whine, but here it is again in case you haven't seen it yet
or want to review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/262276155/Trudeau-Civil-Case-Document-879-and-Exhibits-Trudeau-Motion-to-Compel-Receiver-to-File-Tax-Returns-and-File-a-Status-Report-04-01-15
Both stories quoted Katie as saying, "I have been stripped
of all ego, arrogance, defiance and pride and for this I am very
thankful, as it has made me a better person."
Well, let me tell you, I was shocked and dismayed to discover
that some of you people are laughing at this. Poor Katie. Don't
you cynics think it is at all possible that he has truly changed?
Don't you remember that Christmastime McMiracle he experienced while still
partying and whooping it up at the MCC in Chicago in 2013? Don't you think it is possible that it was a true
miracle and that it changed him forever from the inside out? You
don't believe such a thing happened with our Katie?
Me neither.
But really, it's okay if you laugh. Katie himself was just
talking about ha-ha moments on his Facebooks the other day (thank
you to my dear friend Julie Daniel for pointing this out to me). Here you go:
And I was so inspired by Saint Katie's message about the value of laughter that I
had to hear the Monkees sing about it. But I'm going to give you more than a Monkees' song, and more than the
Chicago media gave you. I'm going to give you links to the latest court
docs regarding Katie and the receiver and all of those un-filed
tax returns and whatnot. 1. First, there's the RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
RESPONSE INSTANTER (which is pretentious legalese for
"immediately"), a
motion in which the receiver also asks the court give Trudeau
extra time (well, one day extra) to file his response to the
response. This motion and the attached Exhibits were filed on
April 29, 2015, in response to Trudeau's insistence that the
receiver file the proper tax returns for the Trudeau entities.
The receiver argues that it has not filed tax returns for
entities over which it either has no control, or for which
Trudeau or his agents have not turned over the records. In
response to Trudeau's demands for a new status report, the
receiver explains the reasons for decreased frequency of status
reports. Here is that link: https://www.scribd.com/doc/265231640/Trudeau-Civil-Case-Document-882-and-Exhibits-Receivers-Motion-for-Leave-to-File-04-29-15-PDF
There is still nothing new on the criminal case, court doc-wise,
anyway. Trudeau's appeal (regarding his conviction and ten-year
prison sentence), which was heard in February, has still not been
decided. At the moment I have a feeling that Katie's time in the
cage will not be as prolonged as many may have hoped.
I will have more soon.
PS ~ For those of you who are wondering about the profoundly
stupid defamation lawsuit filed against me (and a few other
defendants; I also wrote about that on my April 20 blog post, under "Cosmic Connie and the terrible, horrible,
no-good, very bad lawsuit"), there's not really any new news
to report at the moment. It appears that where this suit is
concerned the plaintiff is, for all practical purposes, in
hiding, as is often the case with him, so things are kind of on
hold for the time being. Meanwhile, I'm still responding on a
timely basis to whatever is thrown my way as a result of this
totally groundless case. I'm not in hiding, and I hope
to have some real news soon.
Meanwhile, I suggest we all take the Monkees' advice, and...
LAUGH! And if you need any more inspiration for laughter,
look no further than this. Ho,
ha, ha, ha!
It's been a while since I've paid homage to the
wackadoodle shenanigans of serial scammer Kevin Trudeau's former
b.f.f. and alt-health spokesnut, "Dr." Leonard Coldwell, the former Bernd Klein, aka Bernd Witchner (Witchner
was the last name of a former wife of Bernd's; he used the name
Bernd Witchner on his German passport at one time). For those of
you who aren't up to speed on Lenny C's name changes, seriously
questionable credentials (I'm being polite for the moment) and
other iffy background issues, I refer you to my very first blog
post about him, first published in May 2012 and updated in
September of the same year. Here is the link. Go read it if you need it. I'll wait.
I've written quite a few times about Coldwell since then --
mostly about his crazy rants on Facebook, including his rants
against me (more on that below). More revealing posts have
actually come from other bloggers, among them, Salty Droid, Bernie at GINtruth, and Omri Shabat at Glancingweb. These guys have
tackled some of the more distasteful allegations that have come
out about Coldwell, based in part upon a 2007 police report that,
while not resulting in any charges (and the most serious charge
would have been something called "forcible fondling"),
nonetheless seems very much like a smoking gun.
Yesterday, February 14, Bernie
wrote about Coldwell again (actually it
was already February 15 for Bernie, since he's in Japan and many
hours ahead of the U.S.). It appears that Coldwell
has outdone himself in stupidity, having sent an unsigned,
undated draft of a legal document to Bernie, titled
"COMPLAINT AT LAW FOR DEFAMATION PER SE."
The draft, a defamation complaint against "Omri Shabat a/k/a
Jason Michael Jones," is silly on many levels. First off, it
was a little crazy to send it to Bernie -- who, as I mentioned,
resides in Japan -- since he is not even listed as a party to
the prospective lawsuit. But even sillier is the declaration
that Salty Droid, aka Jason Michael Jones, who writes the Salty
Droid blog, is the same person as Omri Shabat, who writes the
Glancingweb blog.
Of note, the document centers around Omri's blog
posts, not Jason's. Also of note, Omri is in Israel, and Jason,
aka Salty Droid, is not. Granted, Omri's style is somewhat
similar to Salty's (though with a distinct
English-as-a-second-language note lacking on Salty's, and there
are other things, such as ads that the little fake robot would never
allow on his blog, and a few other major differences). Omri
has his own style and approach. He is not Salty. Salty is not
Omri.
It's amusing that the document mentions all of
Coldwell's dodgy creds, including his "honorary degree of
Doctor of Humanities." Bernie
wrote about that recently as well. That
"degree" is from an iffy, unaccredited religious
"university" called Louisiana Baptist University. Coldwell's history of harassment The February 14 missive is far from the first
harassing communication Bernie has received from the Coldwell
camp. Previously he received rants and threats from Coldwell via
Facebook, usually by private message, and Coldwell also wrote about
him on numerous Facebook threads, claiming that Bernie is
mentally ill and dangerous. That is pretty much the same claim
Coldwell makes about virtually all of his critics, including me,
though some of us get extra special treatment. (Now I'm going to
digress a little, but only for the next three paragraphs, and mainly for the benefit of those who might not be familiar with the background story.)
As I've mentioned a few dozen times, and I have screen shots to
back it all up, Coldwell has told actionable lies about me,
such as claiming that I am a former prostitute who has AIDS and
has given "bad STDs" to her customers. Here's a post from Salty about one of Coldwell's
numerous rants about me. In this rant
Coldwell simply says I'm an ex-hooker with STDs, and that I'm
being paid by Big Pharma to discredit well-meaning natural cure
experts such as Lenny. All lies. Coldwell also says that I
am a cancer that needs to be gotten rid of, which has always
sounded to me as if he is trying to incite others to harm me.
Here's a post from Bernie regarding one of Coldwell's more
recent, and one of his most ludicrous, lies about me. In this one, Coldwell says I'm an AIDS-sick
prostitute who now has cancer too because I'm jealous. He also
tells the worse-than-stupid lie that I tried to get his buddy
Peter Wink (Kevin Trudeau's ex-marketing guy) to fix me up on a
date with Coldwell, and when Coldwell refused I flipped out and
went on a hate rampage against Coldwell and Wink.
I know I've written about these before, but I thought it was a
good idea to post reminders, for the benefit of newbies, such as
lawyers who might be trying to make a decision about whether they
really want to represent a lying psychopath. You're welcome,
lawyers. If any of you are interested, I have dozens of screen
shots of rants and threats Coldwell has made against me.
Anyway, as I said, Bernie had previously been getting most of his
communications from Coldwell via Facebook. But now Lenny has
stepped up his game. There's that silly "defamation
claim," f'rinstance. And before that, he had sent Bernie a
more direct threat: a draft of a cease-and-desist letter from an
attorney who is associated with the law firm Merritt Webb. Merrit
Webb is a name Coldwell had been waving around for a few months
as the firm that will be filing a class-action lawsuit on his
behalf against Kevin Trudeau. Here's
a link to Bernie's hilarious blog post about that. Once again, Loony made a blunder because the document
was clearly listed as a "proposed letter." In
fact, this is exactly how it was headed: DATE/PROPOSED LETTER
In the email, Coldwell claimed that Interpol is after Bernie too,
but there was no mention of that in the Proposed Letter. In any
case Bernie never received a signed copy of the letter by post
from the law firm, only the draft via email from Coldwell.
Salty Droid has had his own round of fun with Loony, who famously
put a bounty on Jason's head back in September 2012. I've also
told this story here before, but this is for the benefit
of those who are new or who would just like to relive good times.
Coldwell actually offered $500 to the first person who could send
him Salty Droid's real name and a current address. All of this
info had been made available by Salty/Jason himself long before
that, and was easily available on the Web. Coldwell even offered
an extra $100 if the person could also send him a recognizable
photo of Jason. Here's
Jason having fun with that.
Coldwell is all about the confused and mistaken
identities. In a March 2013 Facebook discussion, a wacko
Trudeau/GIN defender named Eric Graves wrote a scathing comment
in response to Coldwell calling some of his detractors
"impotent cowards." The comment is not my style at all
and I have never accused Coldwell of any of the things of which
Eric accused him, but for some reason Coldwell thought it was I.
And he threatened me. (My apologies for the language, but I am
trying to make a point.)
Was it Lenny or Amy? Or does it even matter any more? An email I received this morning, February 15,
makes me think it is possible that Loony's emotionally troubled
young assistant/live-in lover Amy Chappell (who has more recently been going by
the name Amy King, at least on Facebook) was the one who sent the
email about the "defamation claim" to Bernie. The email
I received was sent out on 8:56 PM on Friday, February 14, many
hours AFTER Bernie published his blog post about the matter. The
date stamp on Bernie's blog post says February 15, but remember
that Japan is many hours ahead of the U.S. -- 15 hours ahead of
me (I'm on Central Time) and 14 hours ahead of Coldwell (Eastern
Time). Here's Amy's message:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Amy Chappell
Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:56 PM
Subject: Dr. C filed Lawsuit for Libel/Slander/Defamation-
Document Attached
To:
Hello,
I just decided since there were some absurd doubts about some
criminal rumors made some time ago (some IBMS Coaches were
even believing there could be truth to some ridiculous
posts), I wanted you to have first knowledge that we have
filed one of many lawsuits to come. Please keep this email
and document confidential. Please see the attached document
below.
We really appreciate those who have been loyal and trusting
in Dr. C
Thank you,
Amy Chappell
Keep this email confidential? Why? If a lawsuit was filed, it's
public knowledge. Plus, Coldwell himself has been crowing about
the "lawsuits" on Facebook. Perhaps Amy just didn't
want Coldwell to know that she sent out an email blast about this
"confidential" matter. Anyway, if you want to know a
little more about Amy, here
she is in action at a Coldwell boot camp in October 2012, explaining why she turned her back on her family and
ran away to be with Coldwell, whom she utterly idolizes, and
apparently vice versa (in the video just linked to, he describes
her as the most important person in his life). Listening to Amy, it is clear that this is a young
woman with serious problems. But that doesn't let her off the
hook when it comes to harassing bloggers. I just hope for her sake that she wakes up someday.
Frankly it's hard to tell at this point whether Coldwell or Amy
sent the missive to Bernie, because the email address from which
Bernie received the document simply says "IBMS VIP,"
and also because as we know, Coldwell has sent out similarly daft
things too. But I suppose it really doesn't matter, because Amy
has become little more than an extension of Coldwell, and even if
she acts independently on his behalf he is still going to
ultimately be held responsible. Update, 20 February 2014 According to the Cook County Record Legal
Journal, the defamation suit was actually filed. Here is the record so far, although I do not have a copy
of the actual complaint that was filed (or any of the subsequent motions and other documents).
The journalist, who presumably got her info from the court
docket, reported that Omri Shabat is also known as Jason Michael
Jones, so I assume that made it into the final cut. She also reported that the plaintiff claims that his "medical practice" was damaged.
I have no
idea what if anything Jason is doing about any of this, nor do I
have any idea what if anything Omri is doing about it. It is up
to them to make public statements when and if they wish. Stay
tuned...
Update, 1 March2014 I did a little experiment a few days ago -- the afternoon of
February 26, to be exact. I took this post down temporarily. Just
this one, mind you, and none of the others. Nobody told me to do
it, and I wasn't intimidated into doing it. I simply wanted to
see if "anyone" would notice and if there would be any
response whatsoever. The very next day, there was. I learned that
the Feds are coming after me and that I am probably going to end
up in the same jail cell as Kevin Trudeau. Great! I'll interview
Katie and use that in the Trudeau biography that
everybody is telling me I should write. Lemons to lemonade,
bitches!
Anyway. It's good to know that Lenny reads my blog
and has his minions take "screen shuts." I'm a little
disappointed that I've apparently been downgraded from
"Cosmic slut" to simply "the slut," but oh,
well. Oddly enough, though, it seems he isn't getting a whole lot
of support from his Facebook friends about these lawsuit threats. Or any support, actually.
And here's something to keep in mind. Even if every blogger or
other writer who has criticized or questioned him were suddenly
silenced, it wouldn't change who and what Coldwell is (a
foul-mouthed, totally unprofessional megalomaniac with no
credible C.V., and that's just for starters), and who and what he is not
(a real doctor, for instance). It wouldn't change his outrageous claims about his credentials, his cancer "cure" rates, and his multiple "doctorates" -- and those claims are
all over the Internet and were being discussed and ridiculed long
before I'd even heard of the little twerp. And it wouldn't change
the actionable lies he has told about me... and yeah, I have
"screen shuts" too. He is and probably always has been
his own worst enemy, and I think that at some level he knows it.
I have a feeling that his "legal team" knows it too.
As for me, I find that this song is going through
my head these days...
