Based on the venue they use, various people have recognized and challenged proponents of the Black Grievance Industry (BGI). The following are two videos acknowledging and challenging a media person who uses Fox News. In the first, Secular Talk addresses the hypocrisy in the accusation that people supported justice for Trayvon Martin for money.
The following video is an open letter to Bill O’Reilly titled, “Expressing Grievances Is Not An Industry – It’s a Right.
Should We Take It Seriously That Some Want To See “Social Justice Warriors” Destroyed?
In context, the author of the above post on The Atheist Conservative includes feminists in “social justice warriors” so it is not limited to Blacks and what they call “rich liberal Whites” and “white guilt idiots.” The message to defeat and destroy however, is the same as what they apply to “BGI” social justice warriors.
Here’s a reminder from Part 1; a description of the “BGI” from a (now deleted) website by the individual who contacted this blog saying that he had stopped and wanted to move on.
As reported in other posts on this blog, the main weapon used by the internet extortionists is defamation. Their ammunition is what they call “vetting” which is actually doxing; the seeking of personal information of others that they post on the internet. They misrepresent and mock that information, and even give the identities of others to their victims. Since last year, they have taken their actions beyond the internet into the personal lives of others.
At least three individuals have filed actions in the courts to stop the malicious defamation. Two have come here and defended themselves against the slander. One commented here twice in defense of the misrepresentations posted about him regarding a “public document”. The other was recently granted a default judgment in a defamation lawsuit against Vicki Pate. She too posted a comment about Vicki’s misrepresentation of a “public document.”
The Plan To Silence and Take The Money of 23 People On Twitter
After being told by David Piercy on Twitter that their account information was subpoenaed, on or about October 30, 2015, approximately 22 individuals were notified by Twitter that their account information was subpoenaed in the case Johnson v. Bell. The subpoena was issued by attorneys representing the Bell family. The cross-complaint filed by the Bell’s alleges that Kendrick Johnson’s parents have “authorized agents” on social media that defamed the Bell’s. The subpoena requests the IP addresses for the handles contained in the subpoena.
IP addresses can be traced to internet service providers, who upon subpoena, can release the account holder’s information. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the intention behind the subpoena is not a discovery maneuver to support the Bell’s cross-complaint but rather, to obtain the personal information of non-parties. According to David Piercy, the Bell’s are using the discovery process in their cross-complaint to obtain the personal information of the 23 non-parties so they can file lawsuits against them.
As a side note about internet service provider account information, it is not necessarily the person behind the computer. Many homes now have networks through one account. Additionally, even David Piercy uses the unprotected routers of his neighbors. Thus, if Twitter complies with the subpoena, and/or if the court denies motions to squash, entire households can be effected, or even someone with an unprotected router.
As reported in Part 5, some of those whose account information has been subpoenaed are people who the internet extortionists have harassed for years. Since David Piercy had knowledge of the subpoena before the people were notified by Twitter, giving their account information to the Bell’s might subject them to ongoing internet harassment and defamation by having their personal information posted on the internet to disparage, defame, and humiliate them.
As a reminder from Part 5, that is exactly the impression and intent that has been posted on Twitter. In fact, the subpoena is represented to require the release of personal account information to the public.
As the ACLU’s amici brief points out, once an individual’s identity is learned, it cannot be unlearned, and the person’s right to anonymity cannot be restored. Also as the ACLU’s amici brief points out, there are cases where John/Jane Does are named as defendants, and the courts have recognized that unmasking is typically warranted. The courts have held that unmasking a non-party is appropriate only “in the exceptional case” and that it is clear that a party seeking disclosure must clear a high hurdle where the anonymous poster is a non-party.
Since no lawsuit has been filed naming their Twitter handle and/or Jane/John Does setting forth jurisdiction, allegations, and the relief sought, the 23 individuals are being ambushed. The possibility of having their personal information released to those known for posting the personal information of others on the internet to defame and humiliate is reason to cause them great concern and emotional distress.
Admitted Sovereign Citizen Acts As Spokesperson For the Bell’s Attorney
If you have not already done so, you can find support for the above caption at this link. For further support, the below is a screenshot of one of Piercy’s blogs where the archives show that he uses the handle “Sovereign Citizens of America.”
Since opening his Twitter account to the public in late October 2015, Twitter has suspended David Piercy’s account no less than 6 times. Each time, he returns within hours under another handle. Among other tweets, he has tweeted out the following that claims having inside information, or direct contact, with the Bell’s attorney.
He can represent being the spokesperson for what the Bell’s lawyer is doing, but when it is combined with mockery of causing people financial harm, and rudely instructs them to delete their Twitter account, it falls in line with the plan of the internet extortionists to destroy social justice warriors.
Take Their Money …
Silence Them …
In August 2014, the Bells filed a $5 million defamation suit against Ebony magazine and author Fred Rosen for articles published between Nov. 19, 2013 and April 9, 2014 that claimed 17-year-old Kendrick Johnson was murdered at Lowndes High School in January 2013. That suit was dismissed without prejudice. To the best of my knowledge, any change in status has not been reported.
In April 2015, William and Nora Eakin filed the suit against Ebony magazine and Fred Rosen on behalf of their daughter. The suit seeks $1.25 million in compensatory damages for alleged libelous statements printed by Ebony Magazine online and alleged slanderous comments made by Rosen during interviews.
In February 2015, the parents of Brian Bell filed a lawsuit against a Facebook group dedicated to Kendrick’s memory. As reported on AJC, two unnamed defendants are accused of influencing Florida State University officials to withdraw its scholarship offer to Brian Bell. The Bell’s are seeking at least $9 million in damages.
The State of Georgia has a one-year statute of limitations on claims of defamation and libel.
Chances are that there will be a Part 7 to report developments. Thanks for reading.