Retaliation Against ProfessionalsWho Report Child Abuse By Katherine Hine, J.D.

INTRODUCTION

Since before the time of Freud, professionals who report child abuse, especially child sexual abuse, have been subjected to various forms of retaliation. Although the 1970s produced federal and state legislation providing ostensible immunity to those who report child abuse, strong disincentives to reporting persist and new ones have emerged. Neither the 1970s statutory mandates nor First Amendment principles have prevented a substantial backlash against mental health professionals, attorneys, documentary participants, journalists, police officers, prosecutors, judges and child advocate volunteers. The nature of the retaliation is such that only a few individuals need be targeted before large numbers of professionals are silenced.

Historical Links Between Cycles of Child abuse Awareness and Professional retaliation

Reports of forensic writings concerning child sexual abuse date back to the 1550s in France, but cycles of professional retaliation repressing such information have also been in play for centuries.1 Harvard’s Judith Herman (1997) describes the ebb and flow of child abuse study and reporting as being “one of episodic amnesia.”2 Olafson, Corwin, and Summit (1993) likewise describe the cyclical suppression of public and professional awareness of child sexual abuse, noting that “information about the prevalence and impact of sexual abuse may constitute unwelcome news on all shades of the political spectrum.”3

Masson (1984)and others have described Freud’s turn of the century recognition of the prevalence of childhood sexual abuse in his patients and his subsequent abrupt change of attitude. When Freud announced his “childhood seduction” theory recognizing the reality of parental abuse to the psychoanalytic establishment of Vienna, Freud’s colleagues threatened to destroy him professionally (Summit, 1989). Although his “childhood seduction” theory had deep roots in the writings of European physicians Tardieu, Bernard, and Lacassagne (Olafson, Corwin, & Summit, 1993), Freud, when faced with the threat of retaliation in his profession, realigned his thinking to conform to that of his colleagues–transforming his earlier position into one in which the responsibility for incestuous longings would fall squarely on the shoulders of the child, and in which actual adult-child sexual interaction would become merely a childish fantasy. Ferenczi (1955), one of Freud’s students, insisted throughout his life that Freud’s original theory had been correct. Freud not only continued to adamantly disagree, he joined his colleagues in casting aspersions both as to Ferenczi’s professionalism and his sanity (Masson, 1984).

Societal willingness to begin lifting the cloak of denial enveloping child physical abuse emerged in 1962 with the publication of”The Battered Child Syndrome” (Kempe et al, 1962) in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Previous work by physicians other than Kempe and his colleagues had raised the issue of an unexplained link between multiple fractures of the long bones and chronic bleeding under the skull in children, which in turn led to much speculation about how leg fractures could be a complication of subdural hemorrhaging. Few had dared to consider the obvious by looking to traumatic causation until the 1962 publication. In describing the newly coined term, “battered child syndrome,” Kempe noted that the phenomenon had likely remained unrecognized, undiagnosed and “inadequately handled by the physician because of hesitation to bring the case to the attention of the proper authorities.”4 There is also reason to believe that Kempe had first-hand experience of the reasons that a physician would have such hesitation.5

Existing Statutory and Constitutional Mandates do not Protect Speech or Other Activities on Behalf of Abused Children

In arguing the necessity for immunity for child abuse reporters, Paulsen (1966) described possible reasons why a physician might hesitate to report accusations.An abusive father or mother, facile with explanations, often escapes discovery… Some physicians have regarded reporting as a breach of the special confidential relationship between physician and patient, and still others have failed to report either because they did not know to whom to report, or because they had no reason to believe that reporting would result in benefit to the child.In recognition of the growing awareness of child abuse and problems associated with its reporting, Congress enacted the Child abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5101-5106).

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act provided in part that as a condition for receiving federal assistance, each state would be required to enact legislation mandating immunity for those who reported child abuse. In response, all states enacted immunity provisions for good faith reporting of suspected abuse.6 The burden was never said to be upon the reporter to prove the existence of the abuse, or even probable cause. By 1978, fears of being sued unjustly for libel or other sanctions were said to be groundless, as even without the federally mandated statutory immunity provisions the common law and all of our decisional authority already confers such immunity, and there is no American case that even suggests that there may be liability for a good faith report of the kind required by battered child statutes. (Besharov, 1978)

Apart from whether Besharov’s broad assertion was correct at the time, substantial recent anecdotal evidence, to be described herein, clearly refutes the notion that reporters of abuse are always safe from retaliation. Besides the problem of not knowing to whom to report–for example when government officials within the system are abusive to children,7 professionals and other reporters of the 1990s are now faced with the possibility of state misdemeanor prosecutions for reports deemed to have been made in “bad faith”8Related to concerns about liability for reporting specific instances of abuse are concerns about liability for simply discussing the issue as an intellectual pursuit. Although some might assume that the First Amendment provides absolute protections for all manner of free public and private discourse, such assumptions have historically proven to be erroneous, particularly when the topic of the speech is controversial or unpopular.9

Just as speech of certain types or by certain individuals has been historically susceptible to unlawful punishment by the states, there are emerging too many examples of such retaliation to ignore, suggesting that speech by child advocates has become an easy target during the 1990s.

Targets and Methods of retaliation

The longest-standing target of retaliation against professional child advocates appears to be the mental health professional. An understanding of how this retaliation developed requires a certain grasp of the reactions that began to take place as reports of children suspected of being abused or neglected increased twenty-fold, from approximately 150,000 to 3 million, between 1963 and 1993 — this increase occurring at the same time that adult victims of child abuse were seeking healing in support groups and in the offices of mental health professionals.10It is common and usual for any reform movement, after it achieves a certain measure of public support and sympathy (as did child protection during the 1970s and 1980s) to be subjected to an opposition movement. In the context of child protection, that opposition movement has come to be known to child advocates as “The Backlash” (Myers, 1994, Conte, 1994, Hechler, 1988).

As backlash movements do generally, the anti-child protection backlash presents itself as being unopposed to the publicly accepted goals of the reform movement. After all, it can be politically unwise to openly oppose the concept of child protection. Therefore, only the methods of child protection are said to be disputed by such backlash groups as the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF), the Children’s Rights Council, and Victims of Child abuse Legislation (VOCAL).

In 1988, Dr. Anna Salter, a renowned clinical psychologist, received a grant from the New England Commissioners of Child Welfare Agencies to study the research methods and conclusions of often-quoted apparent backlash psychologists Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefieid.11 When Salter published her treatise entitled “Accuracy of Expert Testimony in Child Sexual abuse Cases,” about Underwager and Wakefield’s scientific methods (or lack thereof), Salter made very specific and detailed findings indicating that Underwager and Wakefield cite research that “simply does not say what they say it does,” maintain positions as factual “when there is no research evidence to substantiate their claims,” “simply ignore contrary evidence,” “make numerous logical errors,” and use citations that “are so filled with errors it is difficult to find many of them.” Worse, she found that “the inaccuracies were uniformly in the service of strengthening Underwager and Wakefield’s case against children who report child sexual abuse” (Salter, 1988).

Wakefield complained about Salter’s study to the Ethics Committee of the American Psychological Association which voted unanimously in July 1989 to dismiss the complaint against her “as entirely without merit” (Salter, 1998).

Underwager and Wakefield then filed a defamation suit in United States District Court against Salter and others who had “come to believe” that “Underwager is a hired gun who makes a living by deceiving judges about the state of medical knowledge and thus assisting child molesters to evade punishment” (Salter, 1998, p. 20)12

The District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for Salter et al.(Attorney Patricia Toth, a co-defendant in this case was then director of the National Center for Prosecution of Child abuse, a project of the American Prosecutors Research Institute.)Dissatisfied, Wakefield and Underwager appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In April 1994, the court affirmed the decision of the District Court, noting that Underwager and Wakefield’s work has “not been well received in the medical and scientific press.” The Seventh Circuit further ruled that Underwager and Wakefield would not be allowed tosilence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation. (Salter, 1998, p. 120)

Despite their lack of success in silencing Salter and her co-defendants, Underwager and Wakefield, and others like them, are frequent paid presenters at continuing legal education and other programs for professionals? in fact, their views may be the only ones on the topic of child sexual abuse ever heard by some attorneys and judges. In any event, for reasons that go beyond the scope of this article, there always seems to be an audience for statements that minimize the seriousness of child sexual abuse.Increasing hostility to those who advocate for children, or Who simply study or discuss the credibility of children,w5 began to be observed in the media (American Psychological Association, p. 1) in the early 1990s as the FMSF began to enjoy considerable success in influencing media coverage of child abuse issues (Stanton 1997).

In 1991, the year before the formation of the FMSF, more than 80 percent of news coverage in the popular press about child sexual abuse was weighted toward histories of survivors and the nature of childhood trauma. However, by 1994 more than 80 percent of news coverage had begun to focus on “false” accusations and the newly coined concept of “false memory syndrome” (Stanton, 1997).Mental Health professionals By the late eighties and early nineties, a new wave of attack upon mental health professionals began. The identified abusers of adult victims of child abuse began to avail themselves of new third party liability theories upon which they based litigation against their adult children’s therapists.16 17 Bowman and Mertz (1996) describe with alarm the recent emergence of these increasingly novel legal theories formulated specifically for use in lawsuits in civil court seeking damages against therapists treating adult child sexual abuse survivors — patients who are, for the most part, satisfied with the targeted therapist. The intensity of the attack on mental health professionals escalated in 1997 with the bringing of federal indictments against Houston mental health professionals Judy Peterson, Ph.D., Richard Seward, M.D., Gloria Keraga, M.D., Sylvia Davis, M.S.W., and hospital administrator George Jerry Mueck, CPA. The defendants faced possible sentences of life imprisonment without parole apparently because the government disagreed with the diagnosis and treatment of seven patients who claimed to have been falsely convinced that they had been victims of childhood abuse. Following five months of testimony in 1998 and 1999 by 33 government witnesses and dozens of audio and video tapes offered in evidence, a mistrial was declared in February, 1999 after the dismissals of all but 11 jury members. The results of an informal jury poll showed that, despite the fact that the defense had not yet presented its case, the jurors were strongly inclined toward acquittal.18 On March 1, 1999, the government dismissed all charges against the five defendants. However, the legal costs for the defendants and the government were staggering.19

Pennsylvania clinician Jim Singer was stripped of his professional license in apparent retaliation against his efforts to assist a 15-year-old suicidal child who had disclosed incidents of sexual abuse. His suit against various entities in the State of Pennsylvania instrumental in the removal of his license at one time reached a federal Court of Appeals.20

Singer’s case prompted then Congressman (now Governor) Tom Ridge to comment in a letter asking U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to address Singer’s case:Dr. Singer has been labeled a criminal. He has lost his license, and he has spent thousands of dollars pleading his case, thus depleting his resources. This case is a perfect example of what is quickly becoming a national problem. Child advocates have stated that although child abuse continues to increase, the number of cases reported has decreased. The reason is simple. Mandated reporters fear retaliation, and their fear is legitimate enough that they are willing to risk children’s lives by ignoring the abuse.21Although an ethics complaint filed with the American Psychological Association was dismissed, Singer continues, as of this writing, to be unable to practice as a clinician.Other clinicians against whom apparently spurious civil suits have been filed include: Dr. Kathleen Failer22 a well-known researcher and co-author of a judicial training curriculum sponsored by the American Bar Association and the National Organization of Women Legal Defense Fund; Memory and abuse author Dr. Charles Whitfield23 former Treating abuse Today editor, David Calof.24 and Dr. Laura S. Brown, former professor of clinical psychology at the University of Washington.25Those clinicians who testify, especially if they do so repeatedly in family court, have become equally vulnerable to litigation; e.g., Linda Palmer26 and Cecilia Owens-Beckham of Oklahoma27 and Dr. Mary Froning of the District of Columbia28 Even making a report apparently too favorable toward the credibility of the abuse disclosing child can provoke retaliation; i.e., Dr. Pamela Hall of New Jersey29 Dr. Leslie Rudy of Ohio,30 Susan Jones, formerly of New Hampshire,31 Dr. Virginia Humphrey of California,32 and Dr. Daphne J. Timmons and Dr. J.W. Scott Wallace of North Carolina33 Although Drs. Timmons and Wallace were vindicated, Christopher Barden, an attorney who has filed many suits against therapists, states that such victories are rare.34Attorneys In her 1992 testimony to Congress about the desperate need for judicial training on child sexual abuse, Attorney Joan Pennington, director of the National Center for Protective Parents in New Jersey, mentioned attorneys Garnett Harrison and Alan Rosenfeld as having either lost their licenses or been subjected to severe disciplinary sanctions in connection with representing parents trying to protect their children from child sexual abuse.35

The Oklahoma Supreme Court in April of 1997 issued a public reprimand to this author, then legal advisor for Stop Child abuse Now (SCAN), for alleged “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”36 in connection with her activities as a citizen child advocate. The United States Supreme Court summarily denied certiorari in October 1997.37 The child, on whose behalf this author had acted with “altruistic motives,” according to the Oklahoma Supreme Court,38 was held to have been sexually abused, and as of December 1995, was not required to visit his abusers or their sympathizers except under supervision.39

In 1997, Georgia attorney Laura Burton, on behalf of a client, filed a federal claim against various government officials including a state court judge alleging 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and RlCO Act violations arising from a child custody case in which the identified child abuser received custody.40 Since that time she reports having been threatened with prosecution for wiretapping, found in contempt for publicly quoting from a public court order, assessed fines aggregating close to $100,000, and, as of this writing, is facing professional disciplinary action.41Documentary Participants Attorney Randy Burton, president of the Texas-based child advocacy organization Justice for Children, along with others including HBO, was sued in the early nineties for his role in a documentary entitled “Women on Trial.”42

Produced by actress Lee Grant, the film suggested that there was corruption among Houston family court judges who frequently changed custody of allegedly abused children to their identified abusers.Journalists Michele Landsberg, a Toronto Star columnist who has declined to write sympathetically at the behest of individuals claiming to have been falsely accused of child abuse, has written columns criticising the scientific claims of backlash spokespersons. Possibly because her newspaper supports her, she does not characterize her experiences as “retaliation,” but indicates thatthe Freyds43 and other lovely people have attempted to bombard my paper with frequent, verbose, obsessive complaints, and their Canadian counterparts have done the same. At times, they’ve threatened to take me to the Ontario Press Council (a voluntary non-judicial tribunal for complaints against the press) but have not actually succeeded in doing so … despite some typically false information that the Freyds attempted to spread on the Internet.44Katy Butler, a free-lance writer who covered the Ramona v. Isabella trial for the Los Angeles Times and a contributing editor for Family Therapy Networker, was asked by Newsweek to write a story about the backlash. Butler was subjected to such “a we!l-organized action”45 by FMSF proponents to block the story, that Newsweek ultimately declined to have Butler do the piece.The Southeast Oklahoma News reported extensively on events leading up to and including the aftermath of the March 5, 1995 murder of two-year-old Ryan Luke, the grandson of Don Luke, a rival newspaper editor. The death of the child quickly became a high-profile story throughout Oklahoma and continued to be so, even after the April 19, 1995, Oklahoma City bombing.46

News editor/publishers Kathy and Steve McGilberry found that they could no longer tolerate being boycotted by their advertisers, the pre-April 19, 1995 bomb threats to their facility, and other threats of violence they began receiving following their reporting. As they continued reporting on the trials which involved missing DHS records, alleged witness tampering, and grand jury investigations connected with Ryan Luke’s death, the McGilberrys ultimately experienced pressure of such a level that by the end of 1997 they discontinued their newspaper.47

Police Officers Police officer Art Acevedo suffered damage to his career due to another 1995 ruling of the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The Court’s opinion made it clear that other interests outweighed Art Acevedo’s First Amendment rights to expose and to try to rid the Department of a child molesting officer, as well as other corruption he allegedly found in the Muskogee Police Department.48

(AUTHOR NOTE: The unusual degree of danger associated with exposure of corruption in law enforcement precludes the citing of further examples.49)

Prosecutors Woody Allen, whose sexual abuse defense apparently employed many typical backlash strategies, brought a grievance against prosecutor Frank Maco due to Maco’s press conferences and a letter Maco had faxed to judges presiding over the Mia Farrow/Woody Allen custody/visitation proceedings. On July 17, 1997, following several years of disciplinary proceedings in which prosecutor Maco had been charged with violations of Rule 8.4(d) of the Professional Responsibility Code (“conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice”) a Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee voted 12 to 1 to dismiss the complaint.50

However, even though Maco was vindicated and although backlash litigation and/or grievances against professionals who are financially able to defend themselves zealously rarely win … it is still costly to defend a court action even when you are innocent. In addition, this type of strategy has a chilling effect on all of those who would like to help the protective parent, but are afraid of the expense of defending in a civil lawsuit. 51

Other prosecutors have not fared as well. A Michigan prosecutor gave a newspaper interview toward the end of a criminal trial in which he criticized a judicial decision excluding expert testimony about child sexual abuse and other evidence. Although the prosecutor had reason to believe the interview would not be published until after the jury came to a verdict, and although a hearing panel dismissed the complaint against him, he was ultimately subjected to a reprimand by his disciplinary board.52

Judges In Ohio, as recently as June 1999, Cuyahoga County Juvenile Judge Robert A. Ferreri was suspended from the practice of law and removed from the bench immediately and without pay for his public criticism of two court administrators who had allegedly lied about the success of a juvenile detention program, and for his disclosure during a television interview that the county juvenile detention center was allegedly routinely covering up beatings.53

In Connecticut, a convicted child sexual abuser accused Judge Charles Gill of being in violation of a judicial canon requiring him to disqualify himself in situations “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned?4 The alleged basis of the bias was Judge Gill’s status as co-founder of the National Task Force for Children’s Constitutional Rights and his service on the Connecticut Bar Association Crime Victims Committee. After a thorough analysis of every aspect of the sexual offender’s argument; the appellate court concluded that there was no reason to question Judge Gill’s not disqualifying himself on the basis of alleged bias. In Belgium, where the function of magistrates is more investigatory than purely adjudicatory, the efforts of popular Magistrate Jean-Marc Connerotte were crucial in finding alive two girls who had been abducted by convicted rapist Marc Dutroux. (The bodies of 2 other young girls murdered by Dutroux had previously been found.) in 1996, the Belgium Supreme Court removed Magistrate Connerotte from office, purportedly for attending a fund raising dinner for the families of the murdered girls.55Volunteers Private citizens who act in a volunteer capacity as child advocates as well as professionals who act purely as private citizens when advocating for children are also vulnerable to retaliation.56

Civil suits against citizen organizations involved in court watching activities, particularly where the proceedings being watched involve allegedly abused children or children from violent homes, are far from unknown.57 Instances of retaliation against foster parents who become overly critical of the child protection system are usually only documented privately,58 but at least one newspaper has reported on this phenomenon.59

CONCLUSION

Retaliation against those who report incidents of child abuse is nothing new. However, since the early 1990s, retaliation against mandated reporters and those who advocate for children in other arenas appears to be on the increase. These accounts of retaliation establish that the immunity statutes and strategies that were once the cornerstone of child abuse reporting legislation contain serious flaws. The fact that substantial numbers of careers in child protection have been destroyed or cut short has repercussions beyond the individual lives affected. The “chilling effect” upon speech that is a frequent subject of legal opinions about the First Amendment, may be best expressed by the testimony of child advocate and protective mother, Dianna Carroll, referring to attorneys who try to assist child advocacy organizations.They come under fire very frequently. We have attorneys holding seminars on how to defend a pedophile, which includes how to dissect the child on the stand. And nobody touches them with a ten-foot pole. However, if someone tries to come forward in behalf of children, they get their hands slapped, forewarned. It’s just not worth it. 60

About the AuthorKatherine Hine, J.D., is a family law attorney licensed in Ohio and Oklahoma. She is a board member of the Ross County Network for Children, the Ross County Family Violence Council, and Our Children Our Future Charitable Foundation. She has published articles on the child protection system, prepared amicus curiae briefs, conducted custody trials involving allegations of abuse, and argued appeals in family violence cases affecting children. She is a single mother of four children, two of whom still live with her at home in Chillicothe, Ohio.

ENDNOTES

1. ARCH Advocate (1993) Dr. Karel Pyck, Chair of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Leuven, Belgium is quoted on p. 5 of the Summer, 1993 newsletter, back issues of which may be ordered through ARCH (Alliance for the Rights of Children), P. O. Box 3826, Merrifield, Va. 22116. 2. Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books. p. 7. Herman goes on to explain that controversy inevitably follows the study of psychological trauma, particularly trauma caused intentionally by human agents, because, “[l]t is very tempting to take the side of the perpetrator. All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering.” And so it seems, that “After every atrocity one can expect to hear the same predictable apologies: it never happened, the victim lies; the victim exaggerates; the victim brought it upon herself; and in any case it is time to forget the past and move on. The more powerful the perpetrator, the greater is his prerogative to name and define reality, and the more completely his arguments prevail.” (Herman, 1997, pp. 7-8) 3. Olafson, E. Corwin, D. & Summit, R. (1993). Modern History of Child Sexual abuse Awareness: Cycles of Discovery and Suppression. Child abuse & Neglect, 17, pp. 7-24; p. 19. 4. Siegel, B. (1991). A Death In White Bear Lake. New York. Bantam Books. pp.202-212. 5. David Chadwick, M.D. (1994) reports that Dr. Kempe was initially criticized quite harshly for his child abuse work, as were such notables as Roland Summit, Richard Krugman, Christopher Hobbs, and William Hart. Dr. Chadwick also notes that he has himself been criticized and that “it is likely that men who engage in child abuse work will often encounter criticism along with their more numerous and (often) less powerful female colleagues” (p. 130). Chadwick, D. (1994) A Response to “The Impact of ‘Moral Panic’ on Professional Behavior in Cases of Child Sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual abuse, 3(I), 127-131. 6. A typical statutory grant of immunity is expressed by Oklahoma’s I 0 Ok. St. Sec. 846(G), which refers to the good faith, and 10 Ok. St. Sec. 7105 which promises professionals and other reporters “immunity from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed. Any such participant shall have the same immunity with respect to participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from such report.” 7. Gill, C. (1991) Essay on the Status of the American Child, 2000 A.D.: Chattel or Constitutionally Protected Child-Citizen? 17 Ohio Northern L. Rev. 543-579, 552, 555. Judge Charles Gill has noted that in his home state of Connecticut “[i]t is conceded that sixty percent of such calls [regarding child abuse] are not afforded any response” and ‘[n]ot only are child abuse and neglect wrong, but the nation’s lack of an effective response to them is also wrong. Neither can be tolerated. Together they constitute a moral disaster.” 8. Washington, D.C.-based National Clearinghouse on Child abuse and Neglect Information reports that, except for Arizona, which enacted such legislation in 1989, the post-FMSF 1990’s have seen the following states criminalize child abuse reports that are “knowingly” “false”: Arkansas (1997); California (1998); Colorado (1997); Delaware (1995); Florida (1993); Idaho (1997); Illinois (1997); Indiana (1996); Iowa (1994); Louisiana (1995); Massachusetts (1993); Michigan (1997); Minnesota (1998); Missouri ( 1996); North Dakota ( 1997); Ohio ( 1996); Oklahoma (! 998); Tennessee (1996); Texas ( 1998); Virginia (1997); and Washington (1998). Before much of this legislation was enacted, attorney Sherry Quirk warned in the American Coalition for abuse Awareness, now One Voice, Position Paper on CAPTA that “bad faith” is so vague and ill defined that such statutory efforts at apparent retaliation will effectively stop much child abuse reporting. She further stated that: “CAPTA should not single out mandated reporters of crimes against children for possible retaliation by alleged criminals or other members of the backlash. No other crime legislation imposes similar risks of legal retaliation, loss of license, or harassment as does [sic] the proposed changes to CAPTA. Few professionals can risk the legal expenses or loss of livelihood that accused perpetrators and other backlash representatives have already imposed despite current protections.” Position paper available through ACAA/One Voice, 1835 “K” St. NW Suite 960, Washington, D.C. 20006. 9. E.g., DeJonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 255 (1937)(the state had, in violation of the First Amendment, punished speech during a Communist Party meeting that was critical of jail conditions, during a time of often overzealous anti-Communist sentiment); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) (the state [Alabama] had in violation of the First Amendment punished lawyer speech informing African Americans of their civil rights). Political climates change, however, and courts have, for example, more recently been able to acknowledge the First Amendment right to speak out against racism without the speaker being deemed to have violated his professional code. For example, the Oklahoma Supreme. Court acknowledged the right of an attorney to be free of bar discipline under Rule 8.4(d)’s “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” after the attorney gave a newspaper interview in which he referred to a federal judge as a racist. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n. v. Porter, 766 P2d 958 (Ok. 1988). The same Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to even acknowledge the existence of a First Amendment issue in State ex tel. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. Hine, 937 P2d 996 (Ok. 1997) where the speech involved allegations that a state agency was failing to protect an allegedly abused child. The Oklahoma court imposed sanctions for Hine’s speech under Rule 8.4(d), as is noted herein below. Although one of the justice’s opinions in Porter indicates that the First Amendment protects such speech even if it had been proven that attorney Porter’s “remarks were false in fact” [Porter at p. 970], the Oklahoma justices in the Hine opinion never address the truth or falsity of Hine’s statements, even though the Hine trial panel had found that Hine “had a good faith belief in the truth” of her statements. State v. Hine, Trial Panel report, Professional Responsibility, Tribunal, OBAD # 1240, SCBD #4155 (I 996). 10. U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, report No. 104-117 to Accompany S. 919, i 04th Congress, 1st Session, Calendar No. 149, legislative day, July 10, 1995, p. 13. 11. Underwager and Wakefield are known for their longstanding practice of giving testimony exclusively on behalf of accused pedophiles as well as for their roles as national spokespersons for organiStions whose goal appears to be the silencing of child abuse reports. Underwager received considerable notoriety upon the publication of an article that appeared in 1993 in a Dutch pedophilia journal. Underwager was quoted as saying, when asked whether pedophilia is a responsible choice for an individual, “Certainly it is responsible… Pedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian I believe it is God’s will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people.” (Paidika, 1993) In the same interview, Wakefield opined that “It would be nice if someone could get some kind of big research grant to do a longitudinal study, of, let’s say, a hundred twelve-year old boys in relationships with loving pedophiles. Whoever was doing the study would have to follow them at five-year intervals for twenty years.”

More information can be found in Dallam, S.J. (1997). Unsilent witness: Ralph Underwager and the FMSF. Trauma (Treating abuse Today), 7(1), 31-39. 12. Underwager v. Salter, 22 F3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 1994). 13. Underwager’s 1995 Vita claimed presentations to at least twelve attorney associations between 1987 and 1995 in the states of Minnesota, Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Kentucky, North Dakota, New York, Tennessee, North Carolina, Indiana, and Nebraska, as well as in Australia, apart from numerous presentations to media, law enforcement, and legislative bodies. He and Wakefield also presented a “Child abuse Sex Crimes Seminar” in Oklahoma City, OK. on October 26, 27, and 28, 1995, although professional continuing education accreditation was withdrawn for child abuse professionals other than attorneys. 14. Successful techniques of the FMSF and its members include providing public lectures, scientific conferences, on-line discussion groups, presentations to bar associations, a newsletter, and an 800 number. Actions taken by members include picketing clinicians’ offices and homes, and the filing of defamation suits, grievances and ethics complaints against attorneys and clinicians advocating for children. 15. Freyd v. Whitfield D.C. Md., No. L-96-627 Memorandum opinion of Judge Benson Everett Legg entered July 18, 1997, at p. 2. Similar harassment of clinician David L. Calof, former editor of the journal, Treating abuse Today is described in Calof’s 1998 article in Ethics & Behavior. 16. On page 2 of”Issue 12: Should Practitioners Be Concerned About Legal Risks When They Work with Family Violence?” the APA Presidential Task Force states, “At least one advocacy group is known to have mounted a campaign to promote lawsuits against psychotherapists by providing instructions and supportive materials for initiating legal action…” 17. E.g., Ramona v. Isabella, No. 61898 (Ca. Super Ct. May 13, 1994). 18. McGonigle, H. (1999, July 14). One Voice Update, P. 5. 19. Since this was a criminal trial, legal costs were not covered by the defendants’ insurance carriers. Legal costs for the 5 defendants amounted to nearly $3,500,000. The government’s costs to prosecute this case very likely exceed this amount. 20. Personal communication with Edward D. Martino. (July 23, 1997). Citizens Commission on Crime, 5010 Horseshoe Pike, Honey Brook, Pa. 19344. 21. Letter dated April 12, 1994 from Congressman Tom Ridge to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. 22. Kathleen Faller, the University of Michigan Family Assessment Clinic and several other members of its staff were targeted with a series of lawsuits filed by the same attorney due to plaintiffs’ being unhappy over the Clinic’s work and conclusions in connection with forensic child abuse assessments. According to Detroit defense attorney, Gregory Curtner, only one of the cases proceeded to trial: Champney v. Faller, Case No. 95-4760CK, consolidated with Ct./Claims Case No. 95-15781CM in the Circuit Court for Washtenaw County, Michigan, with judgment rendered in favor of the defendants. The remaining cases were dismissed at the pre-trial level. 23. Freyd v. Whitfield, id. 24. In addition, to going after his daughter’s therapist, Chuck Noah along with other Seattle FMSF members mounted a picketing campaign against David Calof, Editor Emeritus and founder of Treating abuse Today. “Although Calof, never treated Noah or his child, he was targeted as a subject of attack because of his writings. Noah and others local members of FMSF repeatedly harassed Mr. Calof, his staff and his clients. Calof’s attorney A. Stephen Anderson went to court numerous times to obtain and enforce protective orders to try to prevent Calof’s practice from being destroyed and protect client access to his services.” Dallam, S. j. (1998). The criminalization of psychotherapy. Treating abuse Today, 8(5), 15-27. For more information see Calof, D. (1998). Calof has also been harassed through attempts to depose him in cases in which he has no connection. See: Boone v. Olsen, & Calof (June 12, 1999) Case No. 44203-1-L, Ct./App. State/Washington, Div. 1. 25. See: Symposium: Science and Politics of Recovered Memories. (1988). Ethics & Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 2. In addition to her extensive publishing, Dr. Brown also practices clinical and forensic psychology in Seattle, Washington and has been instrumental in the development of theory in feminist psychotherapy. Brown’s office has been picketed by a member of the FMSF. 26. Personal communication with Linda Palmer. Formerly of Tulsa, Oklahoma, Palmer is a licensed professional counselor and a highly-skilled and experienced child sexual abuse clinician, evaluator, and expert witness qualified in several states who has persuasively testified on behalf of the prosecution in child abuse cases. Palmer has given opinions about child sexual abuse that differ from that which was desired by the attorney or client who hired her, and has been known to testify on occasion that particular child abuse allegations seem improbable. She is also known not to hesitate to testify on behalf of a child’s credibility when the allegations appear to be probable and consistent. Palmer, like other children’s clinicians who testify in domestic relations cases in which the abuse of her patients is an issue, began to find during the mid-1990s that cross-examinations of her had become increasingly personally insulting, more invasive of her personal life and had at times consisted of veiled threats to her license. Palmer also began to accustom herself to vicious stalking and death threats by the identified perpetrators themselves and decided to become armed. She began to be aware that unnamed persons were accusing her of professional misconduct, but that Michael Blazi, of the Oklahoma I.p.c Board had, on occasion, concealed from her, the nature of these complaints, if any, that were supposedly lodged against her. Follow-up letters from her attorney produced no further information. Palmer was eventually told that there were no such complaints, but the facts had little to do with the courthouse rumor mill, and for the first time, two judges in two different counties within a six-week period disqualified Linda Palmer as an expert on child sexual abuse. Palmer has weathered savage false rumors that she is a lesbian, her vehicle has been tampered with, and her guard dog was mysteriously injured. When Palmer testified on behalf of a child, it was not unusual for her to be subjected to disciplinary complaints initiated by the alleged child-abusing parent against whom she had testified. Palmer has found on occasion that when she testifies on behalf of a child’s credibility, that other identified sexual offenders from other cases in which she has testified, are present in the courtroom–glaring at her during her testimony. As the judiciary began for the first time in 1997 to refuse to allow Palmer to testify as an expert, it became apparent by 1999 that continuing to practice in Tulsa was no longer an option, as the backlash had systematically destroyed her practice. 27. Following her testimony supportive of the credibility of two reportedly severely abused children, the Oklahoma Supreme Court attacked the professional integrity of Cecilia Owens-Beckham at least partially on the basis of a supposed inconsistency in her belief that the children were both ritually and sexually abused and her reported refusal to turn over videotapes of her child patients to the children’s attorney who did not believe the children. Kahre v. Kahre, 916 P2d 1355 (Ok. 1995) The Oklahoma Supreme Court then removed the children from the custodial parent and returned the Kahre children to the person whom they said had terrorized them. Owens-Beckham is not believed to do therapy with children any longer or to testify on their behalf. Witnesses reported that sheriFf’s deputies were needed to physically “reunite” the children with their alleged abuser at the time that Judge Charles Humble turned custody over. Dianna Carroll reports that approximately 500 citizens signed a petition or grievance letter alleging improprieties in this case allegedly committed by Judge Humble. No official action was ever taken to discipline Judge Humble in any manner as a result of the petition or grievance of the citizens. 28. August 6, 1999 interview with Mary Froning. Dr. Froning, the mental health professional who treated the daughter of Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, reports that Erich Foretich, the identified abuser of the daughter [Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F2d 941 (4ti’ Cir. 1988)], initiated a civil suit in 1990 against Froning and others in the amount of approximately $175 million dollars. The suit was dismissed on April 8, 1993 (Foretich v. Froning, Case No. 90-0466, U.S. Dist. Ct./Dist./Columbia). Foretich persisted with licensing board complaints against Froning in the District of Columbia, Maryland and through the American Psychological Association. The complaints in D.C. and Maryland were found to be without merit, but the APA reprimanded Froning for publicly discussing the case, though with permission from the custodial parent. 29. August 5, 1999 personal communication with Dr. Pamela Hall. After having reported apparent anal penetration of a child by a mother’s police officer boyfriend to New Jersey’s DYFS, Dr. Pamela Hall reports that the Court in the custody case took custody from the mother despite a psychological evaluation done by a court appointed expert indicating that the child’s main problem was not the alleged anal sodomy, but that his parents did not get along. Following her loss of custody the mother reported Hall to the New Jersey Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association, alleging that Hall had made an improper custody recommendation. Hall was censured and ordered to practice for a period of time only under supervision of a psychologist having no expertise in her sub-specialty. Hall reports that she then sought a review of the censure, and in a 2-1 decision, was successful in having the censure and restrictions removed. She reports being unwilling to again be involved in a child abuse case, at least on the “front line.” 30. November 11, 1997 personal correspondence from Dr. David J. Tennenbaum to Dr. Leslie Rudy, who had recently prepared a report to an Ohio court expressing her belief in the credibility and basic consistency of a child who had disclosed alleged sexual abuse by his father. Dr. Tennenbaum was the court-appointed psychologist in the same case, and although a well-known and respected pediatrician and child sexual abuse expert had previously also given testimony that the same child was credible and consistent about the alleged abuse and had suffered physical trauma consistent with sexual abuse, Dr. Tennenbaum’s letter accuses Dr. Rudy of having “discount[ed] the entire known history; it is this blatant appearance of being a ‘hired gun’, disregarding alternative hypotheses, that constitutes, in my opinion, unprofessional conduct …. Please be advised that I have offered comments regarding your report to [the identified perpetrator’s] attorney, having taken the liberty of forwarding a copy to the Guardian ad Litem, and have suggested to [the identified perpetrator’s] counsel that your approach in this matter warrants review by the State Board of Psychology, having suggested also that malpractice issues deserve consideration.” Unlike Dr. Tennenbaum, Dr. Rudy is a published researcher in the area of the suggestibility of children’s disclosures of abuse. Although she appears to have an easy rapport with children, Dr. Rudy has recently decreased the amount of time she devotes to individual therapy with children. Dr. Tennenbaum also initiated an unsuccessful professional grievance in Ohio against this author because he objected to a closing argument she had made in her role as attorney for one of the parties in the case. 31. Hungerford v. Jones, 722 A2d 478 (N.H. 1998) appears to be the latest in a series of lawsuits and appeals occasioned when the father of one of Jones’ adult patients became aware that he was being accused of child sexual abuse. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire determined that a clinician owes a duty to family members of patients, even though the clinician may not know them and have treated them. The New Hampshire Supreme Court had earlier affirmed the trial court’s decision refusing to admit the testimony of Jones’ patient (Hungerford’s daughter) that the allegations of abuse were true. State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 134, 697 A2d 916, 930 (1997). 32. Shea v. Humphrey, Case No. 667 330, San Diego Superior Ct. A jury verdict was reportedly entered on August 28, 1996 for compensatory damages in the amount of $1.2 million, “the largest in the state in a case in which a clinician was sued over false allegations of molestation” (San Diego Union-Tribune). The Krueger article also reported that the jury was still deliberating on the issue of punitive damages. Sheav. Humphrey was filed after years of litigation with the allegedly abused child’s mother who ultimately lost custody to the identified abuser. The child had recanted during in-court testimony and various newspaper accounts described proceedings in which a congressman and other influential persons appeared during court proceedings to show support for the allegedly abusive father. See: San Diego Union-Tribune (November 15, 1992) Lowery Role at Hearing according to Anne Krueger’s “Dad Wins Award over Sex Charges” reported in the August 29, 1996 Challenged. 33. Charlotte Observer (1998, August 20, p, lC). A Mecklenburg, North Carolina jury found Tiimmons, a psychologist, and Wallace, a psychiatrist, not liable, following a seven-week trial for malpractice in Greene v. Wallace, a suit brought by attorney Christopher Barden. 34. Barden, who claims to use a technique called “Science Intensive Litigation,” is quoted on the Internet: “in fact, ‘science intensive litigation’ is highly successful. In each and every Daubert/Frye hearing where SIL methods have been used – – we won. In every family case where SIL methods have been used – – we won. In every criminal case where SIL methods have been used – – we won. Of the 50 some civil cases in which SIL methods have been applied we have lost only one (being [allegedly] outspent $1.2 Million to $40,000 in that lone case).” (E-mail message from rcbarden@aol.com forwarded to the author on 8/4/99) 35. Pennington, J., August 6, 1992 testimony before the Judicial Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. The disbarment of Garnett Harrison was in connection with Harrison’s representation of a protective parent in Newsome v. Newsome, 557 So.2d 511 (Miss. 1987). 36. Oklahoma Rules/Professional Conduct 8.4(d). This is the same Rule 8.4(d) used in Connecticut against prosecutor Maco in Allen v. Maco cited previously. The New Jersey Supreme Court has observed that Rule 8.4(d)’s prohibition against “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice” has so many vagueness problems that it should only be used when there is at least another ethical violation. In re Hinds, 449 A2d 483, 498 (N.J. 1982) l-line was accused of having communicated accurate information that a state judge’s supervised visitation order in LeFlore County, Oklahoma was being ignored to the state trial judge who issued the order. Declining to address or even mention the First Amendment issues that were raised, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s opinion indicated that even though the judge had testified he was not prejudiced by Hine’s actions and needed to know the information that Hine had provided, that Hine should be publicly reprimanded for speaking the truth and should have know!~ that only her silence would serve the interests of justice in that particular case. State of Oklahoma ex tel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Hine, 937 P2d 996 (Ok. 1997). 37. Hine v. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association, USSC Case No. 97-140. 38. State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Hine, 937 P2d 996, 999 (Ok. 1997). 39. Perry v. Perry, Dist. Ct./LeFlore County, Ok. Case No. JFD-91-619. 40. Wrightson v. Shingler et al., Case No. 1:97-CV-0466-JEC, U.S. Dist. Ct./Northern Dist./Ga., Atlanta Div. 41. Personal correspondence, Victoria Pierce and Laura Burton, July 27, 1999. 42. Huckabee v. HBO, Inc., No. 93-00116, Harrison v. HBO, inc. No. 93-052010, and Hebert v. Grant, No. 93-041705, 127th Jud. Dist. Ct./Harris County, Texas. The first two suits resulted in summary judgment at the trial level. Hebert was settled. When the aggrieved plaintiffs appealed, in Ct./App. 14th Jud. Dist. , Houston, Tx. [Case Nos. 14-96-01528-CV and I 14-96-01529-CV, respectively] the summary judgments granted in favor of the free speech rights of the defendants were affirmed in both cases. The plaintiff in Huckabee has continued appealing and the Texas Supreme Court is, as of this writing, considering whether to allow submission of the plaintiff’s petition for review. 43. Pamela and Peter Freyd, after being made aware by their daughter, a respected University of Oregon psychologist and researcher, that Peter had committed sexually inappropriate behaviors, became two of the founding members of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (founded on March 1, 1992). They were also unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit against Dr. Charles Whitfield referred to hereinabove. 44. Personal correspondence from Michele Landsberg to author, August 5, 1999. 45. Stanton, M. (1997, July/August). U-Turn on Memory Lane. Columbia Journalism Review, pp. 44-49. 46. During 1995 through the present there has been extensive press coverage of the Ryan Luke murder and its sequelae in the Tulsa World, Oklahoma Observer, and the Daily Oklahoman. The circumstances of Ryan’s death led to resignations of various public officials (including an assistant district attorney), an extensive grand jury investigation of official misconduct attributed to various public agencies and officials including attorneys and a judge, several prosecutions for murder, and extensive child abuse reform legislation. The Southeast Oklahoma News was the only publication known to have published the documentary evidence suggesting an apparent connection between the exposure of misconduct in connection with Ryan Luke’s death and the Oklahoma City bombing. The Southeast Oklahoma News, in a June 16, 1995 article titled “April 19 Call: ‘Look What You Made Us Do'” published a copy of a telephone bill showing a call made to a prominent spokeswoman about the Ryan Luke case, from a Rubbermaid Specialty Products plant located near a highway running between Junction City, Kansas and Perry, Oklahoma, believed to have been the route of the truck containing the Oklahoma City bomb. The article states that the spokeswoman, Catherine Tyler, reported the call which allegedly threatened retaliation for her having spoken out on the morning of April 19, 1995, to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation an hour or two prior to the bombing. 47. Personal communication on August 13, 1999, with Catherine Tyler, of McAlester, Oklahoma. 48. Acevedo v. The City of Muskogee 897 P2d 256 (Ok. 1995). 49. New York City police corruption exposed by Frank Serpico in the 1970s and Joe Trimboll in the late 1980s and 1990s, is described in McAlary, M. (1994). Good Cop, Bad Cop. New York: Pocket Books. McAlary also offers disturbing criticisms of the Knapp and Mollen commissions charged with investigating the corruption. 50. Allen v. Maco, Grievance Complaint No. 93-0322. 51. Pennington, 1992. 52. Grievance Adm’r v. Riley, No. 94-185-GA (Mich. A.D.B., 5/21/97), also reported in the September/ October, 1997 Ohio Municipal Service, Vol. 9 Issue 5. 53. Bradshaw, J. (1999, June 10). Comments Cause for Suspension. Columbus Dispatch. 54. State of Connecticut v. Robert Montini, 52 Conn. App. 682, 694-696 (! 999). 55. Maclean’s, (October 28, 1996) Anger Engulfs Belgium’s Child-Sex Probe. Vol. 109 No. 44, p. 33. Judge Conerotte is said to be “widely praised as the sole shining light in a discredited justice system.” Gino Russo, father of one of the murdered children is quoted as saying in reference to the removal of Magistrate Connerotte, “This decision is like spitting on the tombs of Julie and Melissa.” 56. E.g., Hine cited hereinabove. 57. E.g., Thompson v. Cargyle, Case No. A 97-05642, Ct./Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio (defamation suit naming Lea Webb, president of the Cincinnati Chapter of the National Organization for Women, dismissed at the trial court level on the basis of summary judgment (currently on appeal); Aylward v. Alliance for the Rights of Children, Case No. IP 95-0595-C-T/G (U.S. Dist. Ct./So. Dist/ lndiana, indianapolis Div.) (suit against the Virginia based child advocacy organization ARCH, that had formed in response to the incarceration of Dr. Elizabeth Morgan, dismissed at the trial court level). 58. Personal communication on August 3, 1999 with Catherine Tyler regarding the removal of a foster child from the home of model foster mother, Linda McDaniel, following McDaniel’s activism in the Ryan Luke grand jury proceedings. 59. “Retaliation Code”. (1995, August 28). Indianapolis Star. This editorial opinion critical of Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration (FFSA) included the following statement. “If you know someone who is a foster parent in Marion County, you’ve probably heard about the retaliation code. lt’s not in writing, but it goes something like this: Don’t make waves and you’ll get along fine. Cause problems and you’ll receive no more foster kids. lt’s what keeps foster parents in line, suppresses their criticism…” 60. Transcript of the June 19, 1996 testimony of Dianna Carroll before the Trial Panel of the Professional Responsibility Tribunal in Hine cited hereinabove. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.REFERENCESAmerican Psychological Association. Issues and dilemmas in family violence. Issue 12: Should practitioners be concerned about legal risks when they work with family violence. Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family. Http://www.apa.org/pi/ pii/famvio/issue 12.html.Anger engulfs Belgium’s child-sex probe. (1996, October 28). Maclean ‘s, 109(44), 33. April 19 call: “Look what you made us do.” (1995, June 16). Southeast Oklahoma News.ARCH Advocate. (1993, Summer), p. 5. Alliance for the Rights of Children (ARCH), P.O. Box 3826, Merrifield, VA 22116.Besharov, D. (1978). The legal aspects of reporting known and suspected child abuse and neglect. 23 Villanova Law Review, 445,475.Bowman, C. & Mertz, E. A. (1996, Jan.). Dangerous direction: Legal intervention in sexual abuse survivor therapy. Harvard Law Review, 109, 549.Bradshaw, J. (1999, June 10). Comments cause for suspension. Columbus Dispatch, 8C.Calof, D. (1998). Notes from a practice under siege: Harassment, defamation, and intimidation in the name of science. Ethics & Behavior 8(2), 161-187.Chadwick. D. (1994). A response to “The impact of ‘moral panic’ on professional behavior in cases of child sexual abuse.” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 3(1), 127-131.Charlotte Observer. (1998, August 20), p. 1C.Child Abuse and Neglect State Statutes Series, 1(5). National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, 330 “C” Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20447.Conte, J. (1994, Summer/Fall). Child sexual abuse: Awareness and backlash. The Future of Children, 224-233.Ferenczi, S. (1955). Confusion of tongues between adults and the child: The language of tenderness and passion. In M. Balint (Ed.) Final Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psycho-analysis. London: Hogarth Press, pp. 156-167.Gill, C. (1991). Essay on the status of the American child, 2000 A.D: Chattel or constitutionally protected child-citizen? Ohio Northern Law Review, 17, 543.Hechler, D. (1988). The Battle and the Backlash: The Child Sexual Abuse War. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.Kempe, C.H., Steele, B.F., Silverman, F.N., Silver, H.K., & Droegemueller, W. (1962, July 7). The battered child syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association.Krueger, A. (1996, August 29). Dad wins award over sex charges. San Diego Union-Tribune.Lowery role at hearing challenged. (1992, November 15). San Diego Union-Tribune.Masson, J. (1984). The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory. New York: Farrar, Strauss, & Giroux.McAlary, M. (1994). Good Cop, Bad Cop. New York: Pocket Books.McGonigle, H. (1999, July 14). One Voice Update.Myers, J. (I 994). The Backlash, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Olafson, E. Corwin, D. & Summit, R. (1993). Modem history of child sexual abuse awareness: Cycles of discovery and suppression. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 7-24.Geraci, J. (1993). Interview: Hollida Wakefield and Ralph Underwager. Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia, 3, 2-12.Paulsen, M. (1966). The legal framework for child protection. 66 Columbia Law, Review, 679, 710.Pennington, J. (1992, August 6). Testimony Before the Judicial Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.Quirk, S. Position Paper. American Coalition for Abuse Awareness (ACAA)/One Voice, 1835 “K” St. NW Suite 960, Washington, D.C. 20006.Retaliation Against Professionals Who Report Child AbuseReport No. 104-117 to Accompany S. 919. (1995, July 10). U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 104th Congress,1st Session, Calendar No. 149, p. 13.Retaliation Code. (1995, August 28). Indianapolis Star.Salter, A. (1988). Accuracy of Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: A Case Study of Ralph Underwager and Hollida Wakefield. New England Commissioners of Child Welfare Agencies.Siegel, B. (1991). A Death in White Bear Lake. New York: Bantam Books.Stanton, M. (1997, July/August). U-Turn on memory lane. Columbia Journalism Review; 44-49.Symposium: Science and politics of recovered memories. (1998). Ethics & Behavior, 8(2).CASELAWAcevedo v. The City of Muskogee, 897 P2d 256 (Ok. 1995).Allen v. Maco, Grievance Complaint No. 93-0322. July 1997, Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee.Aylward v. Alliance for the Rights of Children, Case No. IP 95-0595-C-T/G (U.S. Dist. Ct./So. Dist./Indiana, Indianapolis Div).Boone v. Olsen, & Calof (1999, July 12). Case No. 44203-1-L. Ct./App. State/Washington, Div. I.Champney v. Failer, Case No. 95-4760CK, consolidated with Ct./Claims Case No. 95-15781CM, Circuit Court/Washtenaw County, Michigan.Dedonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 255 (1937).Foretich v. Froning, (U.S. Dist. Ct./Dist./Columbia) No. 90-0466.Freyd v. Whitfield, Case No. L-96-627, D.C. Md.Grievance Adm ‘r v. Rile;}’, No. 94-185-GA (Mich. A.D.B., 5/21/97), also reported in the September/October, 1997 Ohio Municipal Service, 9(5).Harrison v. HBO, Inc. No. 93-052010, Ct./App. 14th Jud. Dist. Case No. 114-96-01529-CV.Hebert v. Grant, No. 93-041705, 127th Jud. Dist. Ct./Harris County, Texas.Hine v. State of Oklahoma ex tel. Oklahoma Bar Association, USSC Case No. 97-140.Huckabee v. HBO, Inc., Harris County Dist. Ct. Case No. 93-00116, Ct./App. 14th Jud. Dist Case No. 14-96-01528.Hungerford v. dories, 722 A2d 478 (N.H. 1998).In re Hinds, 449 A2d 483 (N.J. 1982).Kahre v. Kahre, 916 P2d 1355 (Ok. 1995).Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F2d 941 (4th Cir. 1988).NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963).Newsome v. Newsome, 557 So.2d 511 (Miss. 1987).Perry v. Perry, Case No. JFD-91-619, Dist. Ct./LeFlore County, Ok.Ramona v. Isabella, No. 61898 (Ca. Super Ct. May 13, 1994).Shea v. Humphrey, Case No. 667 330, San Diego Superior Ct.State of Connecticut v. Robert Montini, 52 Conn. App. 682, 694-696 (1999).State of Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Association v. Hine, 937 P2d 996 (Ok. 1997).State v. Hine, Trial Panel Report, Professional Responsibility Tribunal, OBAD # 1240, SCBD #4155 (! 996).State v. Hungerford, 142 N.H. 110, 697 A2d 916 (1997).Thompson v. Cargyle, Case No. A 97-05642, Ct./Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio.Underwager v. Salter, 22 F3d 730 (7th Circ. 1994).Wrightson v. Shingler et al., Case No. 1:97-CV-0466-JEC, U.S. Dist. Ct./Northern Dist./Ga., Atlanta Div.STATUTES10 Ok. St. Sec. 846(G)10 Ok. St. Sec. 710542 U.S.C. Sec. 198342 U.S.C. Sec. 5101-5106) Section 4(b)(2)Rule 8.4(d) Rules/Professional Conduct

I am posting this group of Amazon arguments since Amazon won’t let me defend myself on their website- although they allow me to be bashed continuously. I felt that this group of exchanges is important- and so I wanted to put it on my blog for posterity. I am NOT the only one who got banned- as Gaston, Douglas, Jennet Bartha, and even CritThink over and over have been banned all along- it is just that Critthink keeps making changes to his/her account and signs back on with a different name. I wont play such games. However, it is obvious that this group needs to create as much hoopla as they can- and so I thought I would help them by putting the stuff on my blog for them for the world to see.)

————————————————————————————————–
Posted on Aug 20, 2013 11:02:12 AM PDT

ac2012 says:
Felicity Lee: “Oh….. we need ‘proof’ here -”

Yeah, that’s kinda how accusing someone of mass child molestation and murder works. It requires ‘proof’, not the conviction of your belief based on what you read in 22 Faces.

Felicity Lee: “but, on the book ‘Sybil Exposed’, you all swear that every word written by an incompetent and agenda driven journalist is ALL true without being able to present a shred of evidence.”

Haven’t mentioned Sybil Exposed or Debbie Nathan, because I haven’t read it. I’d tend to trust her professionalism and logic more than yours or Byington’s – see Karmakazes post below on how she used credible first hand sources. You do seem to have a special hate for Debbie Nathan, don’t you?

Felicity Lee: “Well, here we a book written by the author – taken from first hand accounts of Jenny –

Take your own advise and do your own research.”

We see on the Dr. Phil show Jenny stating the she knew nothing about a mind-control Nazi. So ‘first hand account of Jenny’ is highly suspect. No doubt Byington explains this away as an alter and a repressed or twisted memory, a convenient mechanism for Byington to weave and support her own ridiculous fan-fiction inspired by Corydon Hammond.

Give me passports, credible eyewitnesses, court records, property records, receipts and physical evidence of Dr. greenbaum’s proximity to Jenny Hill (never mind his actual existence).

Felicity Lee: “And, quite frankly – my dear – my personal thoughts, ideas, and beliefs are just that – MINE.”

Uh huh. They’re YOURS and that’s what – A basis to accuse people of vile crimes? Good enough to imprison innocents?

Felicity Lee: “It is another ‘skeptic’ type of attack – as if ‘you’ have the power to ’cause’ people to think people who believe any of this are not credible?”

The evidence (or lack thereof) stands on its own. It doesn’t require ‘me’ (ugh, now I’m overusing single quote marks), and of course I have no power to make people believe something they don’t want to.

” – ac2012 – Aleister Crowley2012 – I get that profile name – good fit.”

Oh, this again! Cry witch, Goody Lee, and the pitchforks shall follow!

Felicity Lee: “Yes, I am realistic. You have no power here. Your pointing out whatever you can find in this book – out of context – in a lame attempt for others to judge people by their beliefs only demonstrates that those very small and out of context statements are ALL you have to try to silence this book – not much at all – when you take a look at the list.”

Um, the list is only the surface. They’re the most glaring and obvious problems with 22 Faces. And yeah, that list is more than enough to deem 22 Faces a worthless crock.

Felicity Lee: “the list actually demonstrated your inability to objectively review written work, you ignorance and/or knowledge of cultural/ritual/spiritual life – as well as you prejudices.”

I’m fairly well-read and knowledgeable on spiritual/ritual/cultural matters. I’m pretty sure I can objectively examine a claim in 22 Faces. I’ll admit to being biased against raving lunatic conspiracy thought, but as I’ve said many times, give me solid evidence to the contrary and I’m happy to admit error.

Felcity Lee: “It is not your business what others believe or think.”

Crimes are a public concern. If Judy Byington believes a mass governmental Freemason satanic murder cult is roving the land, she’s perfectly entitled to believe it – she IS NOT ENTITLED TO HAVING IT GO UNQUESTIONED OR UNCHALLENGED. If Judy Byington wants me to believe Jenny Hill’s parents have been involved in their crimes and should be jailed, it IS MY BUSINESS as a US citizen. I have an interest in our justice system working properly and protecting abuse victims and the falsely accused.

You’re trying to equate 22 Faces with a religious belief. That makes zero sense.

Felicity Lee: ” well, what about the rest of the book – huh? “You have been here nearly a year and have talked about only this small list – I will take it that the rest of the book is great”

See above. That list is enough to deem 22 faces invalid. And there’s much better horror fiction out there, so if ‘the rest of the book’ means writing style, plot, characterization, themes – sorry, not my cuppa, but you go ahead and enjoy it.

————————————————————————————————-

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2013 11:06:46 AM PDT
Felicity Lee says:
There goes the spinning again – not effective enough with just CT/Altus/sock puppets, we now have Karmakaze – cohort and Doug Mesner follower of Satanic Temple – sidekick.

CT – needing some help spinning these ‘pink elephants’ –

Reality-check – I asked for just one copy of anything from those 500+ sources listed in the book by Nathan – and, guess what – you all could not even produce ONE – not very convincing – that book is a fraud.

You all are hypocrites – thinking that you can con us into believing that book does not need to have ‘evidence’ produced, but this one does – that author – Debbie Nathan has such a long history of her ‘past’ inconsistencies and her agenda – we are supposed to ignore that – and, attend to this author and the slander that you have no evidence of either – except what you have tried to exploit.

You all are too much –

I think that they readers can make their own conclusion based on what they read and not what you all have to say – all we know about you all is that you come here and on other books as alias’ and try to influence what people think based on your agenda’s – so, like we are supposed to believe ‘you all’ as ‘skeptics’ – why? You come with gossip, slander, agendas, and are vindictive toward anyone who makes logical sense.

You are clearly threatened by accepting the truth.

Truth is – and, one day you will realize – all of us are ‘not’ your enemy. I, for instance, am simply a person who tries to do what I can to support survivors of child abuse and promote truth concerning trauma and dissociation. I am one who is a survivor of childhood trauma – and, as I see you all, you have somehow come to believe that child abuse is either not ‘real’ in our society or you are trying to hide the fact that it is a real problem for purposes of allowing it to continue unchecked. This angers me – as children go missing daily, survivors struggle because of what abusers have done to them – unable to get quality care – because of the garbage you and other ‘false memory advocates’ have spread. If what you write contained even an ounce of truth – we could have an intellectual discussion, but you are ignorant or hiding the truth – and, we can only suspect why. You want to discredit me and other survivors – attacking, slandering – accusing us of being something whom we aren’t – why?

Are you seeing a problem here? I am ‘no one’ who you think I am.

———————————————————————————————————————-

Last edited by the author 15 hours ago
CritThink says:
Nope. You’re not my enemy. You’re the enemy of women like Jenny Hill. Vulnerable people who pay you for your lies.

Team up with a man, Kevin Annett, who reabuses the sexually abused and give this man access to the women of Ivory Garden through Judy’s influence and on Judy’$ CAR website (which she has posted about here) where you are a speaker. Try and get women to live in even more fear so that you can “help” them.

This book 22 Faces is fear mongering to groom victims so that you and your cohalition can take advantage of them

————————————————————————————————————–

Last edited by the author 14 hours ago
BlueMoon says:
CritThink,

Felicity explained to you that she and certain other customers here that believe you’ve been attacking, slandering, harassing and bullying them, are not your enemies as a means to try to appease and calm you down, And your response to that is to write: “None. You’re not my enemy. You’re the enemy of women like Jenny Hill. Vulnerable people who pay you for your lies.”????? Really? This is really your response to an olive branch being extended to you?

In one breath you claim you’re not Felicity’s enemy, but also sting her with a vile false claim. What’s up with that?

—————————————————————————————————–

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2013 1:24:54 PM PDT
BlueMoon says:
Felicty wrote: I, for instance, am simply a person who tries to do what I can to support survivors of child abuse and promote truth concerning trauma and dissociation. I am one who is a survivor of childhood trauma.”

I can see from many of your comments that this is who you are, and I applaud you for all of this, Felicity.

——————————————————————————————————-

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2013 1:32:44 PM PDT
Felicity Lee says:
Wrong again, CT – I am not an ‘enemy’ to anyone – even though you ‘perceive’ me that way.

What is a CAR website – I have no idea what you are talking about. I am not a ‘speaker’ anywhere. More spinning and lying from you – again.

I am not ‘teamed up’ with anyone – and, you know that as you expressed clearly on Randi.org many months ago –

You say, “This book 22 Faces is fear mongering to groom victims so that you and your cohalition can take advantage of them.”

Wow – I had no idea that you gave this book that much credit – pretty powerful book – in your mind. I read it as a simple story of a woman’s experiences – hmmm.

And, I have a ‘coalition’ – really – wow, I am also powerful – in your mind. A clear threat to you and your need to protect and defend those ‘innocents’ who are accused of child abuse.

I say that “my personal thoughts, ideas, and beliefs are just that – MINE”.

ac2012 responds, “They’re YOURS and that’s what – A basis to accuse people of vile crimes? Good enough to imprison innocents?”

Now, we are getting somewhere. Here, we see the agenda – as my responses are now getting to the ‘supposed’ debate you believe you are ‘in’ here and are so obsessed with. What? Do you know a few folks out there imprisoned for child abuse or who were ‘falsely’ accused? And, based on those ‘few’ (as compared to the millions of children who ‘have/are being ‘ abused), you have concluded that all survivors and abused children ‘must be liars’ – and thus attack them ruthlessly – as you have here. When no evidence or facts – just make stuff up – right?

You say, “Team up with a man, Kevin Annett, who reabuses the sexually abused and give this man access to the women of Ivory Garden through Judy’s influence and on Judy’$ CAR website (which she has posted about here) where you are a speaker. Try and get women to live in even more fear so that you can “help” them.”

Those are complete lies. Why do you need to lie about me – does it somehow justify your attacks on me and other survivors? Relieve your inner guilt that you are hurting others? I am just trying to understand the ‘whys’. Of course, my attorney tells me that trying to give a ‘reason’ for why people do horrible things is not necessary – libel is libel – end of story.

Are you actually telling me that ‘you’ all are here to protect the folks who participate on Ivory Garden – oh btw – the percentage of male and female there are about even – wrong again. And, how were you going to do that? By calling ‘survivors’ of child abuse liars – as if they are all out to destroy their abusers? You are ignorant – as usual.

I see this as you being a group of folks who are ‘not’ skeptics, but who have either been charged with child abuse or are afraid you might be – and/or have had family members/friends charged with child crimes. You are a very small, but now angry group here. I see you as folks who search the internet for anything that ‘meets’ your agenda.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am sure that there are folks who have been unjustly accused of child abuse – of course. And, that is horrible – when it happens.

What I don’t understand is why people like you want to give yourself that extra edge – though. Discrediting therapists – stating that they can actually ‘implant memories’, trying to influence jury pools by propagating that there is no such thing as this or that ‘type’ of child abuse – all the ‘false memory advocates’ promote – like Debbie Nathan, writing a book trying to ‘prove’ that the ‘Sybil’ story has no truth – that Jenny’s story is untrue – access her family to influence them that she was never abused – all of these lies you tell. Why do you need this ‘extra edge’, if folks are really ‘innocents’. It sounds like you are ‘running scared’.

I mean, I have faith that good therapists are able to and do evaluate clients knowing if their stories are ‘true’ or not – and, in fact – in trials of child abuse, the defense will use their own therapist to help defend (those who call themselves ‘experts’ in DID, or ‘false memory syndrome therapists. Of course, FMSF therapists are not accused of ‘implanting memories’ – how hypocritical are we getting now. None of it makes sense – except that not all are so innocent as you believe.

As for survivors – you cannot be trusted. You cannot ‘help’ anyone – because, you are biased and agenda driven. You ‘do’ nothing – but, talk a lot – and try to ‘influence’.

Look what you are doing now – trying to get your hands on some 1,000 survivors – so you can what? Save them from ‘me’ – because I am ‘grooming’ them and taking advantage of them? Sorry – hon – these folks are strong as me – they ‘are’ survivors – if I were taking advantage of anyone, it would not be a secret – I am sure that you would have found some sign of this through your trolling.

So, now – again, I ask that you stop lying about me – because, it makes you look like fools –

Do you really believe the hogwash you have drowned this page in?

The system needs to be set up where the ‘abusers’ get a fair trial – those who are innocent, go home – those who are guilty are put away. The system needs to be set up where survivors and victims are not silenced for fear they will be called ‘liars’, or that good therapists will ‘implant memories in their brain’ or, for gosh sakes, ‘create’ alters – where the public has access to ‘correct’ information about trauma and dissociation – not garbage propagated by those who profit from defending child abusers.

Fact is that most survivors do not ever ‘accuse’ their abusers at all. They are just trying to heal from the harm done to them.

What is wrong with you people? You are so threatened that you will actually argue the points that I have made – *shrugs*

Now, we have a discussion – why are you so threatened by this book and/or me/survivors?

————————————————————————————————-

Last edited by the author 13 hours ago
BlueMoon says:
CritThink wrote: “This book 22 Faces is fear mongering to groom victims so that you and your cohalition can take advantage of them.”

Why couldn’t you have just written, “I believe this book 22 Faces is fear mongering to groom victims and take advantage of them”, instead of what you did post?

This would have been an opinion I could and would have respected, had you written that. I wouldn’t have agreed with it, but it would have been seen as your opinion, without offending or wounding other customers of Amazon.com, and without provoking others to have to defend themselves. Perhaps you should reconsider how you respond to comments you read, or how you express yourself in general? It’s just a thought, CritThink, and the choice is yours, of course.

———————————————————————————————————

Posted on Aug 20, 2013 1:56:26 PM PDT
ac2012 says:
Felcity Lee: “And, based on those ‘few’ (as compared to the millions of children who ‘have/are being ‘ abused), you have concluded that all survivors and abused children ‘must be liars'”

I have come to no such conclusion. I have never made any such statement. You are making that up.

Felicity Lee: “- and thus attack them ruthlessly – as you have here.”

Please show where I have attacked survivors and abused children. I have never done so and never would.

Felicity Lee: “When no evidence or facts – just make stuff up – right?”

That seems to work for you and Judy Byington.

——————————————————————————————————

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2013 2:55:52 PM PDT
Felicity Lee says:
ac2012 – are you actually stating that you – and/or your cohorts/sockpuppets – Karmakaze/CritThink/Doug Mesner (Lucien Greaves) have NEVER attacked (slandered, invaded their privacy, lied about them, called them names, etc) survivors here or elsewhere on the web? Really – on this page, right here, I could list at least 25 examples, I can give even more explicit examples of here on Amazon – if not still here (not removed by Amazon) – screenshots, and elsewhere on the web. You are standing by this example of ‘running scared’ statement you just wrote – “Please show where I have attacked survivors and abused children. I have never done so and never would.”

If you are concluding that I only meant you – well – you have, but the response was to all of you – and, you know it. You are no better than the rest of them – you consort with them to find ways to come here and attack – just like all abusers do – you know that.

I actually think that I have quite an extensive list already made from about 6 months ago when I was asked to provide it.

————————————————————————————————————-

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2013 2:58:19 PM PDT

Felicity Lee says:
ac2012

You wrote, “That seems to work for you and Judy Byington.”

Is that what is considered a ‘snide’ remark?

I agree with Bluemoon – why was that so necessary for you to write? All it does is demonstrate you middle school attitude and inability to carry on any semblance of an intelligent discussion.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Last edited by the author 8 hours ago

Felicity Lee says:
BlueMoon,

Thank you – they have me like doing all of this stuff with all of these people whom I don’t even know – what?

How the heck am I supposed to have time for all of that. If I weren’t such a fast typist, I wouldn’t have time to come here.

I mean, I work, have a family, crochet and do crafts, have a house/yard, etc. to care for, an active message board to run – sheesh – they might perceive me as ‘super-woman’, but not really. With what I do now, I only have time for about 4 hours sleep – and, now they have me actually flying somewhere – not sure about all that stuff – just speed read – don’t have time to attend to their details.

Wow – if I did believe anything they say, I would now be a Satanist and an incredible ‘multi-tasker

——————————————————————————————————————————

Last edited by the author 10 hours ago

BlueMoon says:
ac2012 wrote: “Please show where I have attacked survivors…”

I don’t believe anyone is interested in re-posting the attacking comments they’ve received from you, those comments don’t deserve anymore attention then what they’ve gotten already. Nice try, though, ac2012.

As I’ve suggested to CritThink recently, perhaps you should reconsider how you respond to comments you read, or how you express yourself in general? It’s just a thought, ac2012, and the choice is yours, of course.

——————————————————————————

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2013 5:01:01 PM PDT

BlueMoon says:
Felicity wrote: BlueMoon, Thank you -…. “Wow – if I did believe anything they say, I would now be a Satanist and a true ‘multiple.”

You’re welcome, Felicity, and I understand what you’re saying here. Stay strong in knowing who you are. : )

——————————————————————————–

Last edited by the author 8 hours ago

Karmakaze says:
Felicity Lee says: <>

I can’t speak for ac2012, since that user is NOT me (or Doug Mesner, or CritThink, or anyone other him/herself), but YES, that is exactly what I am stating.

I have never attacked (slandered, invaded their privacy, lied about them, called them names, etc) survivors here or elsewhere on the web. Your “examples” show only that you’re incapable of understanding what an *attack* actually is.

And since you seem to need a reminder, it was you and your cohort who DID invade someone’s privacy by posting his full address and phone number here on Amazon, while accusing that person of being/”protecting” pedophiles.

http://imageshack.us/a/img196/6789/obnf.jpg

(Gaston- who this was aimed at- was alson ONE OF THEM WHO GOT THROWN OFF AMAZON AND BANNED. It wasn’t just me who was fighting on here. and like I said- I just Googled his name and that is what came up. )

——————————————————————————————–

Last edited by the author 6 hours ago
CritThink says:
I was there that night. Felicity was urging the party along. She even declared it was not a violation…she checked. In addition David was supplied that info, which appears it had to be purchased…hmm.

Felicity…you ‘should’ get more sleep as both screen names are lapsing into the same voice…at least BM sounded a little different before, now it’s the same sentence construction and tone from both names. It’s the let me set the rules on conduct BS you’ve tried before. Ivory Garden tactics feeding over? Just don’t let BM start using ‘these’…then we’ll know you’re really losing sleep.

Again- not purchased like Critthink- Doug Mesner would like to suggest- but suddenly after all of this- MY address suddenly appeared on Google- which makes me wonder if this group didn’t put it up there like the BANNED Gaston)

————————————————————————————————-

Last edited by the author 5 hours ago

Karmakaze says:
BlueMoon says: << Felicity's name doesn't appear anywhere in the images, therefore, >>

Please, Felicity was encouraging the whole thing and bragging about the “research” she herself was doing:

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/6536/nrz0.jpg

edit: looking at the screenshot, it’s sad how little has changed – you and Felicity are still creating diversions, trying hard to stifle any discussion of this book by making the same ridiculous accusations.

—————————————————————————————————-

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 20, 2013 10:56:55 PM PDT

Felicity Lee says:
Wow, you folks are amazing – wasn’t I the one just speaking – was it my turn? I agree with BlueMoon – you say that ‘we’ are creating ‘diversions’ – really – and, you put up one little incident – out of context – as usual – out of thousands of posts I have made and keeping my cool through all of your attacks. Same strategy of picking a few sentences from 22 Faces – and, acting as if they ‘are’ the whole book. That is really tacky and lacks intellectual thought.

You remember the playground talk – the bully who can’t take responsibility and diverts attention from their crimes on to some poor victim. yeah – you know about them – don’t you -K?

Now, shall we talk about the attacks you have laid on me – K? You in particular – I mean, people can view this past week alone – here, but have they heard about your intrusion into my grandchild’s life – you – a man having some reason to find a facebook linked to my family – which I have had to have removed, because you invaded my family’s privacy – and published a video of my granddaughter – one which had been played through – one where she was dancing (13 yo) and, that is not an attack? I was shocked and upset – seeing how you protect child abusers – yikes – and, her family was even more upset and scared for their daughter. You said that because it was public – that was your right. The thing is that you have no right to invade my private life and publish it – and, I can put up screenshots – yes – Amazon did delete all of that, because it is against their TOS to publish people’s personal stuff – and, you broke copyright by posting information from our board – wow – that all had something to do with this book -didn’t it?

I am not here to argue with you – you will find anyway to divert attention to you all -as if you are the ‘good guys’ –

Tell me – exactly what do you ‘consider’ an attack?

Can you think of any more attacks – K – . This is a contest – isn’t it – I mean, I don’t know – I am feeling a bit like the victim right now. You have all been asked to think before you respond – but, you can’t – can you?

——————————————————————————————————–

Taking the pictures off the internet- this group of Amazon trolls now wants proof that the whole situation with Doug Mesner/Misicko happened. Although this was removed- I kept this post to show what I am speaking about…

“Ac2012 says:

Oh, Felicity, please, do present that piece of parchment written in blood that says that Doug and CritThink are the grand poobahs of the unholy church of Lucifer. Or maybe some records. A member list? That ‘public grave ritual’ – maybe you have pictures, or an article not written out of whole cloth by some unscrupulous ‘therapist’ thoroughly invested in satanic ritual abuse? A tax- exempt filing?

What’s that? You have nothing? Why am I not shocked?”

First off, most satanists, in my opinion, are nothing more than sexual deviants who like to get off anytime they can- with anything they can. As such- NO DOCUMENTATION is ever done. No one is keeping notes- no one is documenting- certainly NOT the children who are generally involved- and so to claim that there is no documentation is a no-brainer, but doesn’t negate that these activities exist.

Secondly- the whole Westboro grave site ritual in which Doug Mesner/Misicko, as Lucian Greaves, teabagged the grave stone for the Westboro minister’s dead wife in order to make her gay was documented not by an “unscrupulous therapist” but rather by the Huffington Post, who published the pictures online. Like most satanists I have encountered- there is a discrepancy as to what the truth of the matter is regarding the whole thing- so just for posterity I will publish the pic that Mesner has desperately tried to remove from the internet…

As you can see for yourselves- this event DID IN FACT HAPPEN, and just as you can see that the satanists involved (ac2012’s name is actually Alister Crowley 2012- famed dead satanist whose followers have designed a website with the same name), they will lie and deceive in order to change the truth to fit what they need it to be. Rewriting history to fit their needs, this group of trolls- who have an obvious allegiance to the little boy satanist Mesner/Misicko, will do anything they can to defame and lie- even though there is photo documentation out there to show that this event- designed to turn the Westboro minister’s dead wife gay in the afterworld, did indeed happen. If this group would lie about such obvious things- WHAT ELSE COULD THIS GROUP LIE ABOUT?

Mesner/Misicko is trying to publicly take the place of REAL satanist Col. Michael Aquino- who is far from the joke that Mesner is. Head of a REAL satanic cult Temple of Set- Aquino is a child killer and grand master of pedophilia- and I will do everything I am able to keep focus on the REAL culprits of satanic worship and child abuse and keep it from boys who simply can’t help but expose themselves when the national media is focused on them. Satanists such as Aquino hide in the shadows, for it is deep in the shadows that these crimes against children are happening, and it is people like Aquino who need to be exposed instead of merely Mesner’s privates. Making themselves out to be “skeptics”- this group of Mesner loving, false memory pedophile protector trolls on Amazon and Facebook are doing nothing more than wasting survivor’s time and energy making jokes out of abuse and trashing those of us who would come forward and expose it by claiming that WE are the liars- publicly FLAUNTING their misgivings online by denying that the events never took place. Judging by the enclosed picture- you can see this is a fallacy- that Mesner/Misicko- spokesperson for the False Memory Foundation, did in fact show his “manhood” in a weird satanic ritual while stating that satanism, and ritualistic abuse, doesn’t exist. Well- I assure you it does- and I just wanted to prove what liars this side is.

In my book Rabbit Hole, I speak about a low level player by the name of Peter Citron, a columnist for the Omaha World Herald, who went to jail for pedophilia during the “incarceration” phase of the Franklin Credit Union cover up. My mother’s best friend when they worked at the Sun Times, he was instrumentally involved with our family, and not just a little bit involved with what was going on here in town regarding the prostitution and trafficking of young boys. Anyway- my mother had broken contact with him throughout the years and so when he was dying and petitioning the courts to let him out of jail because he was failing with AIDS, I just assumed he died in jail.

This is not true however. Funny, my book is getting people in town talking again- and when they find out that I am the author of Rabbit Hole- I often am honored to have people tell me their stories and what THEY knew of the time- as much of it was in your face. So in this whole process, it has come to my attention that in the end- Peter Citron was labeled a suicide. Getting out of jail and returning home, it seems that this man decided to DRINK DRANO as a way to kill himself, at least according to authorities, although word on the street is that most I’ve talked to believes it was a mob hit and that the man was murdered to silence him. Just like all the rest.

Nick Bryant has written a book- and from what I understand- is going around making himself out to be the authority on Omaha, which I think is laughable. An out-of-towner is not going to get to the truth of the matter here- and it has been my experience that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. His book talks about DEAD PEOPLE and people who can no longer be held ACCOUNTABLE- which I think is telling all in of itself, but it lacks all counts of the truth. It DOESN’T deal with the MKUltra being done at the local air force base, it DOESN’T deal with the satanism that was occurring out at Hummel Park and the efficient disposal system they had at Forest Lawn, nor does it deal with the gay bar scene and all of the child trafficking that was taking place, as well as the massive amounts of the prostitution of boys. Many, MANY levels of the truth have been edited and left out- and when questioned- Bryant blames being afraid of others as a reason, that there are factions that he didn’t want to upset. Considering all that I have done and said- I am ample proof that the “bogeyman” of Omaha is no more and that people can, AND ARE, taking about it and telling their stories SAFELY now- proving Bryant to be far from the expert he proposes himself to be. People are talking again- making THEM the authority and not some hack who redid a book by John DeCamp and then has the audacity to go discrediting him. In my opinion- you can’t have it both ways.

Things in Omaha are all coming to light- and the more that people talk- the more that the truth will come out. That was my hopes in all this all along- and is the whole reason why I wrote Rabbit Hole- A Satanic Ritual Abuse Survivor’s Story in the first place.

There is this huge misconception that anyone who suffers from DID (dissociative identity disorder), once referred to as Multiple Personality Disorder, must have gone through governmental mind control or some sort of satanic abuse. This simply is not true, but this idea is pushed by members of the false memory pedophile protection squad such as Debbie Nathan in her last two chapters in her book “Sybil Exposed” which she entitled “Contagion” and “Containment”, where she flat out insists that Sybil- whose case happened 10 YEARS! before America had it’s problems with satanic ritual abuse, caused what the false memory people have deemed “satanic panic” although Sybil NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A VICTIM OF SUCH ABUSE. Claiming that memories of ritual and sex abuse are generally fabricated, this attempt to dismiss DID is one in which the baby is thrown out with the bathwater- and as a skeptic, I must look at this critically and wonder why such preposterous theories are being promoted when DID is, unfortunately, rather common.

It has been shown that out of all institutions we have as a society, the FAMILY is commonly the most violent- and continued and prolonged trauma has devastating effects on the child living through it. Dissociation begins because the child becomes desperate to separate themselves from the abuse- and pretending that it is happening to someone else is COMMON for self survival. Taken to extremes, this behavior breaks the child’s identity into separate compartments, which is the way an abused child safeguards themselves. Sexually acting out, drug and alcohol addiction, and a myriad of physical and emotional ailments are generally a result of such abuse- as the adult does everything thing they can to avoid looking back at the abuse and so they do what they can to escape the violations they suffered when they were vulnerable. Of course- you don’t have to be suffering from DID for this to be true- as I only suffer from severe post traumatic stress disorder- which is another lesser point on the continuum of identity disorders and dissociation, and I DID go through MKULtra training and satanic ritual abuse- which shows again that the effects are personalized and reactions to severe, ritualistic stress and trauma are different for every child involved.

Comparing one’s trauma to another is like comparing apples and watermelons- as trauma is trauma for those experiencing it. Those who suffer from DID simply had a different way of coping with the abuse they experienced from childhood- as you can only develop DID as a child. A coping mechanism for those of us who have suffered through great trauma- this could include constant beatings, constant rape- or any type of violent ritualistic behavior that has to be dealt with daily during the formative years of our development. Dissociative disorders are often INDICATIVE of BAD PARENTING- and we all have to keep this in mind when considering such things, which is why the false memory pedophile protection squad is out to destroy victims while safeguarding the abusers- all while they try to discredit such things as DID in the media and such.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/fbi_finds_missing_teens_in_cities_rWk8PqexkrcEztOyr3dhVP#.Ugdl61Jh0qU.email

This article has several points of interests for me. Again- it focuses on girls- although the comment was “almost all girls”, which means, logically- that boys were being trafficked as well. As a male who was trafficked, I have an issue with men being left out of the equation- as it was MORE prevalent in Omaha and Houston in the 80’s and the effects of such abuse on men are JUST AS DEVASTATING as those who are are women.

Second- okay- our justice department has said that “450,000” kids run away from home each year- compounded with 2,185 kids being reported missing DAILY- also reported by our justice department- and the kids that hit the streets as “throwaway kids” that go UNREPORTED- there are SIGNIFICANT numbers of children finding themselves involved with this- and have been for quite some time now. At least judging from the numbers given to us by those in the know.

So now the government entities want to be congratulated for saving a minuet number of victims when this activity is a multi-billion dollar business, and is connected to many other blackmarket activities that make the abduction of children an incredibly lucrative process, which is why people such as Christopher Barden, pit bull for the False Memory Foundation- has been able to pass so much legislation that has worked for the perpetrators and against the victims of such abuse. Here in Omaha- people such as Nebraska Senator Ernie Chambers fought against more jail time for the perpetrators but FOR MORE jail time for the trafficked prostitutes concerning LB255 here in Nebraska- showing that our lawyers and politicians are doing what they can to PROMOTE this type of behavior rather than try to deter it. This is a sad take- because those who have sworn to uphold the law and protect our most vulnerable have done what they can to do just the opposite- and the effects on victims of such abuse has been so awful that that it makes one’s heart ache with compassion when you realize the injustice of it all.

Our media is trying to celebrate that our law officials are finally doing something against problems such as human trafficking- but I will tell you from my experience that this is a farce- and the truth is that they have been INSTRUMENTALLY INVOLVED with the other side of this issue for decades now- and the events that played out here in Omaha Nebraska and Houston Texas in the 80s and 90s are KEY examples of which I speak. Using the media to try and save face- these “rescues” are nothing more than a PR campaign to placate and pacify the people who are starting to wake up to the whole criminal conspiracies that have been hidden for so long. As such- when it comes to child trafficking- our government MUST BE LOOKED AT as being involved with these practices- as they have been going on for a myriad of years and it has been our own systems of government that have promoted and actively supported these type of behaviors, and the time for this to stop is NOW. The FBI, try as it might to say otherwise- has been instrumental in fighting to hide crimes against American citizens and our children- along with the CIA and other government entities that have been running secretly rogue for some time now. But all of this is now being forced into the light- and the time for all of this to be exposed has come. Our children are our future- and it is time that we start protecting ALL OF THE CHILDREN- for if we don’t, our society is doomed in more ways than one.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/world/internet-trolling/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I have certainly been a target for criticism online for years now- generally from people acting badly in their anonymity. This has been true for most of the social sites that I have been going to trying to get my family investigated, as I have been accused of trying to make money on a book rather than anything else. This belief is wrong, as I went to the police and local officials trying to have my family investigated for their roles in child abductions and trafficking long before I ever put my situation on paper- and it was the fact that I got NO WHERE with police that forced me into writing a book in the first place. In fact, the Nebraska State cold case patrolman in Lincoln NE- a man by the name of Bob Frank, even went so far as to help my step-mother file two secret police reports on me in order to help the child killing pedophile rather than the victim in this case, which unfortunately happens to be me. When I went to the police to report my family, I had no idea that I would have to jump through as many hoops as I have- or deal with the rash of crap that I have from people who are both ignorant of what I am saying, and critical because of their ignorance.

Social media has been esp. hard to deal with- as every anon has an opinion. This was especially true on Amazon- where a group of the False Memory Foundation’s pedophile protector squad followers did their collective best to get me banned from commenting on the site. Still- even now they are attacking me-

“Last edited by the author on Aug 7, 2013 10:05:03 AM PDT
argo says:
[Customers don’t think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again. (Show all unhelpful posts)]
Go for it, Felicity. Find the lawsuits that led to convictions. David Shurter is far from a credible source. Amazon banned him and you’re going to use what he says to support your thesis. Good luck with that.

p.s. look like we are going to have a field day debunking your propaganda since you quote Shurter. LOL ”

Of course- these people have NO IDEA what I have reported to police- both in Nebraska and Michigan- and their arguments are always against me personally- and generally not what I have to say about abducted and murdered kids with regards to my father. I had no idea that in order to report a crime to the police you first have to win a popularity contest- and the fact that many feel free to attack me when I was a victim of all of this shows how inhumane most people are online, guarded with their anonymity.

I have also had it said that I am in this to help children- but that is also a fallacy. I am in this to get a bunch of abducted and murdered kids investigated- and though I am trying to help survivor’s of this come forward- my reasons to get this investigated are not at all altruistic. In fact- what I am doing is totally selfish- in that I believe if I can get my father investigated for his “crimes against children”, I- as his son- will be able to escape this mess and finally will feel free to live my life rather than be bound by my past. Of course- the fact that I was forced to MURDER CHILDREN up to the age of 10 has ALSO been flung in my face over and over- but in all honesty- that is part of the guilt that drives me to move forward when anyone else would have quit a long time ago.

The trolls on the internet have been many- and their biting comments have been harsh, but even with that- they have not been as bad as the local officials turning a blind eye to all of this mess. Douglas County Judge Marlon Polk, Nebraska State cold case detective Deputy John Pankonin, ex-Omaha mayor Jim Suttle and the newly elected mayor Jean Stothert- just to name a few- have ignored and even fought against what I have been trying to uncover- for whatever reasons. I think it is because my family was involved with things that went WAY BEYOND THEM- but whatever the case- the end result is the same. This group of people have been adamantly fighting for a child killer rather than listening to the victims in this case, which not only include me but my older sister as well. Worse than any troll on the internet- dealing with our local authorities lack of initiative to help a victim has been the most frustrating of all.

Unsure of what I can do next- I am just trying to keep on keeping on with any and every attempt to expose this- despite what anons on the internet and local authorities have to say about it. At this point- if this DID COME OUT- local officials and police would have egg on their faces- and they will do anything they can to prevent that, even if it means defending a child killer like my stepmother. Swearing to uphold the law- they are DERELICT in their duties- and as such- MANY MANY CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN have gone left unsolved- not because of the lack of information on these cases but rather because of a lack of initiative to solve them. Blaming EVERYONE but themselves- and that includes the victims of this mess- our local Omaha Nebraska officials are just as bad as the child killers themselves, fighting to keep all of this secret.

One thing can be said in this though- and that is I am NO TROLL. My name has been plastered all over the internet- and I have OPENLY AND HONESTLY fought for the truth to come out in all of this- despite what my anonymous detractors would say about it. I am fighting to have crimes against kids uncovered- and those who would come against me, knowingly or not- are taking the side of the child killers in this case, so forgive me if I don’t find the opinions of those too afraid to put their names with their opinions valid or worthwhile. There is more at stake here than entertainment, and though trolls often impress themselves with what they consider wit- it is hard for me not to lump them all together and think that they are just a collection of people who condone child abuse and killings, often finding it funny or amusing.

This is a very sad take on life- and those who find child killings funny are pretty despicable in my opinion- but even they don’t amount to the disgust I have concerning the people who ARE PAID TO INVESTIGATE SUCH THINGS. They are ACTIVELY fighting for child killing pedophiles- and I find that it is no wonder that Omaha police and local officials have the PR problems that they do. In fact- knowing what I do- it is fitting.

The following post got deleted by Amazon- but I wanted to save it for posterity…

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2013 10:01:25 AM PDT
argo says:

Felicity, debates don’t threaten me and since you’ve yet to debate points in this book, you will never threaten me.

Again, your drivel falls back to Doug and the FMSF.

That Must be all ya got.

I’ve never said child abuse is under-reported, another lying piece of propaganda.

I’ve testified before the house and senate against the therapists who kill 10 year old Candace Newmaker. What, beyond rants here, have you done to change public policy? (Bold is mine).

I’ve admonished Doug Mesner’s actions – now for the second time.

You lie, Felicity. You lie and cannot discuss Nathan’s book, cause you haven’t read it and, my friend, it’s crystal clear to all of us.

The challenge put to you over and over to write a post without pulling in Doug and the FMSF remains a challenge unmet by you. So it’s you running scared. Read the book, then you might have something to say outside driveling propaganda.

…

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2013 9:36:07 AM PDT
Felicity Lee says:
I will spend a bit of time research those who have actually sued board members of the FMSF over time and add a list of links for you – https://davidshurter.com/ has some – and, I will add more later.

…

Last edited by the author 3 minutes ago
argo says:
Go for it, Felicity. Find the lawsuits that led to convictions. David Shurter is far from a credible source. Amazon banned him and you’re going to use what he says to support your thesis. Good luck with that.

p.s. look like we are going to have a field day debunking your propaganda since you quote Shurter. LOL

…

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 7, 2013 11:52:16 AM PDT
Felicity Lee says:
argo,

Again, how can I make this clear to you – this is NOT a debate, but a review and examination of this book. I am not here to threaten ‘you’ You mean nothing at all to me – except a person who is threatened by hearing or better yet – having the public ‘hear’ the truth. Nathan spends the last couple of chapters in her book ‘selling’ the FMSF as a professional group. She is also a spokesperson for them – though not on their advisory board, including writing several articles on the Candace Newmaker case – http://www.fmsfonline.org/fmsf10.n04.html http://www.fmsfonline.org/fmsf01.n04.html – written back in 2001, but whose counting the some 12 years since.

You say, “I’ve testified before the house and senate against the therapists who kill 10 year old Candace Newmaker.”

It looks to me that the person who did actually testify in that case is R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D., LP http://www.kidscomefirst.info/BardensResponse.pdf

So, let’s determine – if this be you – if not, since you brought this case up – which btw – has nothing to do with this discussion – except to again prove my point that you are all mixed up with the FMSF and here to promote their notions – R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D., LP He has spent his career, at least in the late 90’s and early 2000 suing therapists for ‘planting memories in clients brains’ – to the tune of literally millions of dollars. http://www.rchrisbarden.com/staff.html

He states, “These verdicts establishes again for the rest of the country that this practice [repressed memory therapy] has got to stop. To have an entire treatment method based on junk science is inappropriate,” said R. Christopher Barden.” http://www.rchrisbarden.com/staff.html 1996.

Reading all of this concerning the FMSF and their cohorts is a bit overwhelming for folks – as they use well-known experts in their field to make their points. As we see, their is money, money, money in these law suits. And, unlike others – they win – how? With the ‘false memory syndrome’ defense, which, as we can see, no longer flies in a new era of scientific research which has proved it impossible to ‘implant memories’ in people’s brains. However, the propaganda (lies), which the FMSF is famous for publicizing, has influenced public opinion – a public who believes that if you have enough credentials – you must be ethical – NOT.

What else has he done with his career – can it be that he has harassed therapists – hurt people? Could he be considered a leader of an “Chris Barden/FMSF Cult”?

“Excerpts from *Ethics and Behavior*, Aug. 1998,
written by therapist, David Calof, documenting the (literally)
criminal harassment of him by Chuck Noah, Francine Casebeer, and
other members of the Northwest FMSF chapter, which the ACLU
supported under the guise of “free speech.” (The ACLU appears to
have been co-opted by this particular private interest group –
read this journal.)

Francine Casebeer also attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the
court system when she furnished a mental evaluation to the court,
pretending to be Chuck Noah’s therapist when, in fact, she was
his co-harasser. She wrote in her evaluation that Chuck Noah
should be allowed to continue to “express himself”. Calof
reports that the FMSF rallies behind Chuck Noah’s on-going
stalking behavior and gross, defamatory statements about him.
He also cites how these people appear to “set-up” others.

David Calof comments on his experience with Christopher Barden:

—

(Calof) Pg. 168: “Recently I was subpoenaed as a witness in a
lawsuit against several mental health professionals in which the
plaintiff alleges the iatrogenic creation of multiple
personalities and therapist implantation of false memories. The
substance of my role in this case was that I provided 5 minutes
of consultation to the primary clinician, nearly 8 years ago, on
a clinical issue wholly unrelated to diagnosis, memory, or the
client’s evaluations about her past. Despite this circumscribed
and peripheral role in the case, I was subjected to a grueling 6
hr. deposition by R. Christopher Barden, the attorney for the
plaintiff. Barden is also a psychologist and the founder and
President of the National Association for Consumer Protection in
Mental Health Practices, a political lobbying organization with
close ties to the FMSF. (The organization shares several board
members in common with the FMSF, and Barden regularly employs
members of the FMSF Advisory Board as FMS expert witnesses. Most
of those for whom Barden legally advocates are members or
supporters of the FMSF.)

Barden is a well-known litigator in the FMS movement who
regularly presents at FMSF conferences and meetings and whose
work is often touted by FMSF Advisory Board Members, supporters,
and members. I was told in advance that the deposition would
pertain only to my recollections of my consultation, yet not one
question in the 6-hr deposition concerned my brief role in this
case. In fact, virtually none of the leading and argumentative
questions were designed to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence in the case in question. Instead, the questions went to
my personal business (e.g., copyright ownership information for a
book I published) and to my views, which bear absolutely no
relation to the facts in the case or the consultation I provided
(e.g, copyright ownership information for a book I published)
and to my views, which bear absolutely no relation to the facts
in the case or the consultation I provided (e.g. whether I think
that certain leading experts in the field of trauma and abuse
suffer from paranoid personality disorder, whether I thought the
FMSF movement was conspiratorial, whether I thought childhood
abuse could be ascertained through astrology, what book I had
recommended to my clients, what journals I read, or how many of
my clients did I think I had injured). I was also asked to detail
my contact with several figures in the trauma recovery community.
Barden also read into the record long segments taken out of
context from some of my lectures. These were taken in the main
from pirated transcriptions made by the harassers. Further, I
noticed that Barden often referred to materials on the table in
front of him that I recognized to be handouts from the harassers.

At the conclusion of the ordeal, one of the plaintiff attorneys
said the deposition was ‘a fishing expedition, clear and simple’;
another opined that ‘it was not an interview, but an
interrogation.’ I later learned that Noah, Casebeer, and probably
other harassers had been aware for months that this deposition
was to transpire.”

Pg. 170: “It is worth noting that Noah’s aggressive pattern of
behavior is not without precedent. After he was privately accused
of child abuse by his daughter, he use similar aggressive and
very public tactics. In 1993, he was finally forced to stop
picketing his daughter’s former therapist when that therapist
obtained a second antiharassment order against him (MacDonald v.
Noah, 1993)”.

I see now that the post I am responding to was removed by Amazon, probably because you called me a ‘liar’ – I no longer report to Amazon – because I want to hear what you have to say – and, be able to respond.

Anyhow, the very fact that the FMSF and other such groups’ agenda IS to sway public opinion – it may be difficult for the public believe that Nathan would take the time to write a book for the sole reason of desecrating ‘Sybil’ the book and Shirley Mason in order to sway public opinion that there is no such thing as DID – but, yes – these folks’ have the time and money.

argo,

I would like to discuss this with you, my research is abundant – more up-to-date – and, suggests that this book is nothing more than propaganda for an ignorant public –

You asked me, “What, beyond rants here, have you done to change public policy?” Answer – I do everything that I can to improve the quality of abused children and abuse survivors. I am sorry that I do not have the credentials of those who work within the FMSF and other affiliated groups. My agenda is NOT to protect the perpetrators – but, to see them gain a fair trial – and, this will not happen as long as experts like Bardon are called as expert witnesses – I think all can see how that works for the victim?

…

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

First of all, Felicity is one of my heroes. Her arguments are articulate- accurate, and constantly coming up against a small group of the pedophile protection squad-it is just amazing that she keeps going. Thanks Felicity- and if you don’t mind- I gave you your own page so I could keep that which Amazon deletes.

Secondly- the reason why I was banned is because this group of pedophile protection squad activists worked for two weeks to get everything I was saying banned- basically because my argument detracts from theirs. You see, there was no DID for me, and my memories were SUPPRESSED- NOT REPRESSED- in that I didn’t forget my past but rather chose to consciously RUN from it. Also – there is AMPLE evidence that the situations in which I relate my experiences before, during, and after existed and that the people that were involved and publicly spoken about are many of the same in my abuse- along with countless nameless others. The False Memory Foundation (I leave out the Syndrome part on purpose because it was disproved to EVER HAVE BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A REPORTED FAD TO MAKE MONEY IN THE COURTS SUING THERAPISTS), is trying to fight and discredit anyone and everyone who would come forward and honestly talk about their abuse- and that threatens their hold on the perceptions they would like to discredit- even though they endorse people such as idiotboy Mesner, who distract from those who are REALLY behind the FMF fight- such as Christopher Barden. THIS MAN has a history of having no limits and his behavior has RIGHTLY SO scared therapists and anyone who would come against him by being ferocious and, like any educated man- voracious. Of course- he only writes for the False Memory Foundation- which is a group designed by accused pedophiles to protect other pedophiles- so in many ways- he is MUCH WORSE THAN THE PEDOPHILES THEMSELVES, protecting in such a way the group that he has personally endorsed so hard. Being one who understands conviction- and standing by those convictions, I respect Barden only a little more than I do Mesner- at least he doesn’t whip out his privates to get his picture on the nightly news, but in the end- they are fighting for and protecting pedophiles. If getting banned by Amazon is all they got- then they got nothing, considering that a SLEW of the them ended up getting banned right after as well. However- they will do whatever they can to discredit me any time they can in hopes that people don’t listen to the fact that ALL I AM DOING IS TRYING TO GET MY FAMILY INVESTIGATED. It has been the facts of the situation as they have presented themselves that has made it what it is today- but again- IT IS NOT ABOUT ME, but rather the bigger picture which is the fact that I have given ample reasons why this hoopla in Omaha needs to be re-looked at- which is probably the same reason this pedophile protection squad is so desperate from acknowledging that I am getting way over a thousand hits a week from people who are, in fact- seeing that I have not only been logical in my arguments- but CONSISTENT. I have a blog to show that. When you don’t lie- you don’ have to remember the truth- and so it is just the right thing to do on my part- keep on keeping on no matter what the critics have to say.

So why does Argo matter? Because it is another example of an anonymous person getting on and trying to influence public opinion but by their very name are doing so deceptively- especially when most of all they have to offer is attacks, criticism, and constant derision. Watching Felicity on Amazon fighting against a ridiculous bunch of False Memory propaganda- I felt I needed to help in the fight anyway I could- and this is the best way I could think of in doing so. The False Memory people, fighting for accused pedophiles- could be the very ones influencing the public with regards to child abductions and trafficking as well, which is why we have the PANDEMIC THAT WE DO. Lawyers are suspect in my opinion- people with the personal history of Barden voraciously attacking those who would go against the pedophiles that he would protect are ESPECIALLY suspect- considering he has made it his life profession attacking victims of horrific abuse and, in many ways- re-abusing them at the same time. That is when he isn’t trying to find the best people to sue, hungry as he seems for any legal battle he can get into. However- his allegiance is with the False Memory Foundation Pedophile Protection Squad- and according to Felicity’s post- the main watchdog for the group- yet, even still, it is the Foundation that is at question here- and not the lapdogs they use to protect and hide them, such as penis exposing Mesner and their lawsuit happy guard dog Barden. Generally a case of smoke and mirrors- I believe it is THIS GROUP that is behind the desecration of integrity and honesty concerning children being abducted, sold, raped, governmental sponsored tortured, and ritually murdered- although it has been my experience that is has been going on even still- which is why Argo, and Critthink- and all of the other anonymous names that whoever is using to influence public opinion matter. Because they are fighting for children to be abused- and it isn’t okay. Period.

Debbie Nathan’s book is nothing more than a distraction and is so full of propaganda that she dances around like Rumpelstiltskin in her chapters Contagion and Containment where she tries to explain her myth that satanic panic was more about therapist implanted memories rather than the fact that children were coming home from their day-cares with STDs and claiming they were being raped and ritually abused within their day-cares- where this infestation was located at the time. However- living in the days of child and human trafficking- things are different-somewhat. I mean – the government wants a medal for cracking down on 100 pedophiles worldwide- and yet- even here in Nebraska- trafficking is STILL a problem- and the reason is because politicians like Ernie Chambers are fighting for the rights of the pedophiles by trying to disregard the rights of the victims, which seems to have a history of happening everywhere in the nation- so this show of justice was just that- A SHOW. Changing nothing- the only thing that changed was public perception- allowing people to sleep a bit better at night, which the whole reason why Nathan’s book matters not- because it is nothing more than a desperate ploy to distract from the REAL problems facing our nation concerning 2,185 kids being reported missing daily, (not mentioning all of the “throw-away” kids who leave home and all of the illegals who have only ADDED TO THIS NUMBER), and the fact that our elite are getting rich selling the children of the poor- and that law officials DO NOTHING to help the victims and in fact- often side with the pedophiles to help cover up their crimes- like people such as Deputy John Pankonin, Judge Marlon Polk, Nebraska State Patrol, the mayors office- both old and new, and the Omaha police department- who have a PLETHORA of cold cases concerning children and NO SOLUTIONS to as what caused such a rash of disappearances in the 60s and 70s. Judging by their behavior- chances are they never will- not before we are all long dead and gone, and none of this ends up mattering- which is what I am trying to prevent.