Countries sit at the negotiation table to discuss how they can bring peace between themselves.
Arbitrators sit at the arbitration table to discuss the merits of cases so parties can avoid going to trial.
Mediators sit at the mediation table to discuss bringing resolve to matters of disagreement.
Lawyers from opposing sides sit down and discuss how to settle cases to avoid spending years in litigation.
All of these situations are enemies coming together to negotiate resolution of problems between them.
But, I have been accused of being a traitor for trying to negotiate a peace treaty to stop harassment.
In the video at the end of this post, attorney David Allen explains a case involving defamation on social media. This important subject gives me opportunity to address a recent major misunderstanding.
If you have followed the posts on this blog, then you might be familiar with some of the names and people and their actions. If not, here is a summary;
In October 2015, a person reached out to me because he and others became aware that a subpoena was issued to Twitter in a case in the State of Georgia. The parties issuing that subpoena are known as “The Bells.” They filed a cross-complaint alleging that the mother of deceased Kendrick Johnson used “authorized agents” on social media who use the words “murdered,” and “murderers” thereby defaming the Bells.
The subpoena included the handles of 23 individuals, and requested their account information, including their IP addresses. Subsequently, the ACLU filed for leave to file an Amici brief in that case and the Bells filed a document that they were not going to compel Twitter to comply with the subpoena.
There is a thread here. Please bear with me.
In May 2014, Santiago Rodriguez asked to be a writer for my blog, We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident. I opened that blog in August 2012, and until about August 2013, it concentrated on the George Zimmerman case who killed Trayvon Martin. I never saw Santiago on my blog or any other blog that wrote about that case. Santiago was a stranger to me. He was referred to me on Twitter by someone else because a court granted a man named David Piercy a temporary restraining order against Santiago and he was going to trial on the hearing for a permanent restraining order.
In July 2014, Santiago Rodriguez filed with the Los Angeles Court for a civil restraining order against David Piercy. Piercy did not appear at the hearing. The court granted Santiago a restraining order against Piercy.
During the course of our blog administrator/writer relationship, Santiago asked me for information on those who had harassed me on the internet going back to 2012. He also requested information to help a person who had filed a lawsuit against Vicki Pate.
In January 2015, Santiago filed for an Order to Show Cause alleging that Piercy violated the restraining order. Piercy requested the court for appointment of counsel, and his request was granted. Santiago asked that I refer him to an attorney I know in Los Angeles, and subsequently, he retained that attorney.
My Termination of Santiago’s Writer Privileges And His Threats To Blackmail Me
On the evening of November 22, 2015, I terminated Santiago’s writer privileges. That evening, a volcano erupted that had been rumbling for months. On the morning of November 23, 2015, Santiago began engaging in a course of conduct that included threatening emails and comments, harassment on Twitter, and sending direct messages to people on Twitter to malign me and impugn my integrity.
On February 10, 2016, Santiago submitted a comment to this blog threatening to forward my emails to those persons whose public information he requested. Of course, he was not going to let them know that he requested the information from me, which was my reason for sending him the email.
On October 6, 2016, a person named Soroya Fambro posted on Twitter that the party bus was coming. She also posted tweets regarding Vicki Pate and attempting to have Vicki Pate start a fight with me.
On October 28, 2016, Santiago forwarded one of my emails to Vicki Pate. She in turn forwarded it to David Piercy who emailed it to me saying, “Santiago just threw you under the bus.” I did not respond to Piercy’s email. If not but for the fact that Santiago forwarded my email to Vicki Pate, she nor Piercy would have my email address.
It is apparent from Santiago’s threats, his actions, and Soroya’s tweets that the purpose of Santiago forwarding my email to Vicki Pate was to provoke her to start a campaign of harassment against me. Rather than start a fight, Vicki and I came to an understanding.
Santiago’s Felony Case File
On December 23, 2016, a final order was entered in a case in the State of Washington. Santiago filed that case against the Washington Department of Corrections seeking an injunction that they not release his felony criminal case file. The court denied Santiago’s petition for a permanent injunction.
On January 27, 2017, a final order was entered in the contempt case that Santiago filed against Piercy. It should be understood that after January 27, 2017, the contempt case was over.
On February 27, 2017, I received another email from David Piercy. He attached Santiago’s criminal case file. Knowing Piercy’s history and his attacks on me, I hesitated replying to him, but on or about March 2, 2017, I did. In my email, I expressed how his harassment of people I like greatly disturbs me. There is a couple who uses a photo of themselves as their avatar on Twitter, and Piercy has altered that photo and posted it on Twitter with demeaning words. This is the same couple who reached out to me about harassment on Facebook in 2013, and the subpoena in October 2015. I refer to them as “couple” because they share one Twitter account. Because they share the same Twitter account, it can be difficult knowing which one of them you are communicating with.
It is also the same couple who, in November 2016, opened a GoFundme account to raise money to finance moving to a larger apartment. To the best of my knowledge, (and although they have thousands of Twitter followers), I am the only blogger who asked if they would like for me to post to help them raise the needed funds, and they gave me their approval. They tweeted out the link to that blog post almost daily, and they thanked me.
To his credit, in March 2017, Piercy apologized to me for his harassment and animosity. Because of my response to him about his harassment of others, Piercy offered a peace proposal. It was that the couple stop calling the Bells “murderers.” If you’re unfamiliar with that incident and the results of the investigation into it, you can read posts about it at this link.
I took no position with respect to Piercy’s proposal and delivered Piercy’s message to the couple, but it was not received in the spirit in which it was intended. They interpreted it to mean that Piercy wanted to silence them.
Here’s the thing; “blaming” for a death is the same as accusing of murder. “Murder,” “murderer,” and “murdered” are legal findings by a court of law. Using those words are the same as saying that a person or persons have been found guilty of murder by a court of law.
Another thing is, on June 20, 2016, the Department of Justice closed their investigation into the death of Kendrick Johnson. No charges were filed. No arrests were made.
Specifically, I recently became aware that the couple, or one of them, went stealth on Twitter and are allegedly telling others that I came to them saying that I told them that Piercy doesn’t want them tweeting about Kendrick Johnson. Because of that misrepresentation, I am presenting my direct message to them on March 2, 2017.
This is not a matter of being politically correct — it’s being legally correct. In criminal statutes and courts of law, words have meanings. People might want to say that they believe Kendrick was “killed” (and I personally share that opinion) but that is different than saying Kendrick was “murdered” because no court has made that finding.
Along with the possibility of being sued for defamation because of blaming people not charged for causing the death of another, when people advocate for justice or any cause for that matter, it’s important that their credibility not be tainted by using legal words inappropriately. Doing so can end up tainting the entire cause.
It was March 2, 2017 when I delivered David Piercy’s proposal to the couple. (See the date at the bottom of the screenshot above of my direct message.) They responded but did not say anything to me that they disapproved of my replying to David Piercy’s email.
On March 8, 2017, they posted on my blog a thank you, saying they had moved. It had been 7 days since I contacted them with, and they knew of Piercy’s peace proposal. Still, there was nothing from them stating nor indicating their disapproval that I replied to Piercy’s email.
On April 4, 2017, I discovered their true feelings by their tweets containing my name. They withheld their true feelings in what appeared to be after they moved, as if I was going to delete my blog post about their need and ask them to return the money I donated to them. I tweeted to them saying that I wish they had spoken with me first before going public misstating facts and mischaracterizing my intentions.
The couple blocked me on Twitter and have now made public statements attacking my character and trying to be clairvoyant about my intentions and emotions. My approaching them saying that I wished they talked to me first before taking a defamatory course of conduct, resulted in approximately 40 direct messages followed by approximately 40 emails that same evening. Thinking the issue had been put to rest, the following morning, Tyease emailed, scolding me as if I was a child and insulted my faith. I informed her that if she continued emailing me, that I would block their email address.
The next thing I knew, the couple blocked me on Twitter and engaged in a smear campaign using dishonesty, telling others to block me on the purported basis that I “aligned” myself with a White Supremacist. The interesting thing about it is that those who did follow their hateful course of conduct blocking me on Twitter, weren’t following me anyway. I was neither following them. They do not know me; never participated on my blogs.
Based on some of their emails to me, they have made assumptions and asked baiting questions about how or if I helped another person being harassed and threatened by Santiago Rodriguez on Twitter. I don’t go into details of what I’ve done to help that couple over the years, and I’m not telling that couple what I did or do for others either.
They continued tweeting things about me from behind a block, and as of April 15, 2017, they were posting inference tweets such as the following;
By blocking me but continuing to tweet about me, it leaves me with no option other than to address this via a blog post.
By the way, they seem to no longer hold person number 2, Santiago Rodriguez, accoutable for his aligning himself with a White Supremacist. It was Santiago who made it possible for David Piercy to obtain my email address, because Santiago sought to exploit Vicki Pate to attack me.
“Align” is not the appropriate word for my actions. I do not agree with White Supremacist ideologies. I believe that all of mankind is created equal. I believe that even when and if those I communicate with do not. It’s my belief and I own it. It was never my intent to change anyone’s opinions on social issues because I’m not going to change my own.
Unlike Santiago’s expectations that he could provoke and exploit Vicki Pate to attack me, I did not anticipate nor ask David Piercy to attack anyone.
Contrary to what that couple is saying about me, I am not anything like Santiago. Inconsistent with their claim that they parted with Santiago because he aligned himself [with Vicki Pate when forwarding her my email in attempt to provoke her to attack me], that couple still and continually gets information from Santiago involving appeals and post-verdict hearings, and posts them on Twitter and elsewhere to antagonize and demean David Piercy. They do that with full knowledge that Santiago has a restraining order against Piercy.
On April 4, 2017, the couple sent me emails and stated that I used them as an excuse to email David Piercy. That’s not logical. Piercy first emailed me on October 28, 2016, and I told the couple on that date what Santiago did that brought that about. Had I wanted to use them as an excuse to reply to his email, I could have done it then.
The couple scolded me, and said that I should have sent Santiago’s criminal files to the attorneys. The file was sent to me electronically. The court in Washington ordered that the files are public and can be released. That matter is not part of the contempt proceeding. It was a separate case, and the person in the black robe spoke (i.e. the fat lady has sung). Forwarding the file to Santiago’s and David’s attorneys would have accomplished nothing.
It was communicated to me by a person they contacted in stealth that they changed their opinion about me because Santiago showed them evidence that I was emailing David Piercy. It is an email that I sent to David Piercy that he subsequently sent to Santiago’s attorney. It appeared that they are not interested in the contents or context of the email — just that I emailed Piercy. There are things they do not know about my communications with Santiago’s attorney regarding emails, documents and materials that Santiago sent to me, and I am under no obligation to give them reports for what I do and why to prevent them from spreading dishonest rumors.
And, what is this thing with people thinking they can control who others can and cannot communicate with?
Please don’t get me wrong. If the couple wants nothing to do with me that’s fine, but before trying to sway others one way or the other, get fully informed without assumptions, without trying to be clairvoyant regarding people’s motives, and without re-interpreting words to form a false hypothesis. Why would they take Santiago’s false hypothesis (who publicly mocks them on Twitter and calls Tyease the word for a female dog), and not talk to me first before spreading it around like venom?
What I said in that email is true, and there is no malice in it. Two wrongs do not make a right. It was wrong for Piercy to violate the civil restraining order and I told him that. It is also wrong for Santiago to have a restraining order against Piercy, but continue provoking and harassing Piercy, and also using third-parties to do so. It was also wrong for Santiago to falsely testify in court, while under oath, to several facts which he knew or had good reason to know are fictitious. And, it was wrong for Santiago to try to blackmail me by forwarding an email with information he requested, to Vicki Pate.
I hold no malice towards the couple. As far as I’m concerned, they are incorrect in their understanding of the facts, and yes, they also misunderstand my intentions. The path of a Pacifist is not easily understood by others, but it’s my path and I own it.
“If possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” (Romans 12:18, Amp.)
“It is a sad world indeed when a well-intentioned act of kindness cannot go undisturbed by petty criticism or hateful words fueled by ignorance”. –B. Devine
May 29, 2018 Update
It’s been over a year since this post was first published, but the subject people are intent on continuing their lies and defamation, as is Santiago Rodriguez intent on using them as his surrogates.
A funny thing happened today. It happens each time I publish a new post on this blog. Someone, out of nowhere, tries to pick a fight. Now, I know that Santiago Rodriguez doesn’t want this blog to stay active. It documents portions of his course of conduct and he doesn’t want that revealed. Yet, he continues his course of conduct — just changes methods.
So today, in my Twitter mentions, was a tweet by someone who follows me, but has not tweeted to me for years or maybe ever. When I hear from people I’ve not heard from in a long time, I check out their timelines to see if there’s anything I want to comment on, like or reblog.
What I found was a tweet to the subject couple of this post, asking them how this post effected them. In reference to me, the couple in turn, tells the person who tweeted to them to “proceed with caution.” They should have asked the person how often she reads my tweets or my blogs before warning her about me. If they knew that we have no interaction, there would be no need to warn her unless it’s intended to influence others so that my followers and blog visits are decreased.
Truly, I don’t care what their opinion of me might be. However, when they try to damage my blogs by damaging my reputation, then they have crossed the line in conspiring with Santiago Rodriguez.