Tim Sheldon once disparaged local environmental activists as ‘kooks’, misinformed, or worse. Today, it would appear, there well may be some ‘kooks’ in the ranks. Some (like the infamous Arthur West of Olympia) are contentious, litigious, require medication, and attempt to devour any that annoy them. Others in our own community (‘Fred’?) also require medication, are litigious, and attempt to devour any that frustrate them. Moreover, ‘Fred’ appears to have poisoned two of my Nubian bucks and vandalized my mailbox shortly before & after filing a frivolous lawsuit complete with perjured testimony. Details of the documents, including the AUDIO of the 12-23-10 Show Cause Hearing, can be found HERE.
If ANYONE sees the mentally ill woman shown above (or her car) in the Skokomish Valley or near my residence, please notify me (or the Sheriff, Animal Control Officer Brewer) immediately to help me protect my animals and family.
‘Fred’ disingenuously floated the suggestion of hosting a separate e-mail list allegedly because Becky’s was remiss in addressing pollution from Simpson in Shelton. The actual motive was to avoid sharing the forum with those (especially myself) ‘Fred’/’manhater’ hates. This is easily deduced from the court hearing testimony referenced in comments appended to the ‘A Modest Proposal’ article below arising from symptoms common in those diagnosed with schizo affective disorder and paranoid delusions.
I am firmly convinced the agenda of those advocating Clean Air in our region has been compromised by effectively giving a pass to the local certified and admitted ‘kook’ for criminal misconduct. My premise is simply this: Injury to one is injury to all.
I can think of nothing which would please Simpson/Adage more than the certifiably mentally ill capable of vandalism and animal poisoning leading the charge against environmental destruction and air pollution. Yeah, the community really needs that kind of ‘credibility’. The audio from the Court Hearing will be posted here in ‘Modest Proposal’ for anyone interested in the sound of self evident perjury during a local hearing. Those aren’t the cards you want to be holding in a poker game involving the likes of Adage and Simpson. If someone will lie so transparently in Court, why would anyone trust their word in an information campaign about BioMassacre?
The basis for community solidarity is defeated when that community turns a blind eye toward vandalism and animal poisoning. Such behavior is anathema to the principles for which our community argues when opposing environmental destruction. Sticking our collective heads in the sand when confronted by the misdeeds of a certifiably mentally ill individual only exacerbates the problem. It does NOT go away. It festers.
‘Fred’ has managed to distract, disrupt, vandalize, poison, kill, threaten, and appeal to the ‘victim psychology/bigotry’ so near and dear to many. That manipulation gave rise to the e-mail exchange contained in the comments to this article.
“I understand only too well. Nothing I’ve posted is any more ‘off topic’ than the posts I’m either commenting about or responding to. A seriously mentally ill woman who poisoned 2 of my goats, vandalized my mailbox, threatened me repeatedly, used YOUR name during the hearing of a frivilous (RCW 4.24.525) lawsuit and lied repeatedly under oath (‘Fred’) has disingenuously floated the idea of a separate list server because she alleges (incongruously) that yours fails to allow fair comment about Simpson. I defended the integrity of your list serve and suggested the local anti-BioMassacre movement’s credibility would suffer when a medically certified ‘kook’ (herein described) responsible for the aforementioned misconduct becomes its host.”
“You seem loathe to admit/acknowledge how dangerous the person I’m discussing truly is. It’s all too ‘negative’ for your taste. I suppose you’d rather the entire community be blindsided because of this person’s mental illness and paranoia…schizo affective disorder BY HER OWN ADMISSION! Someone whose own health care provider (Group Health) would not allow her in house care by her psychiatric physicians out of concern for their safety!”
“Well, Becky, you can dump on me all you like and have no fear for your personal safety or that of your animals. But if I were you, I’d be careful not to anger ‘Fred’! Your animals are too vulnerable (as are mine) for that.”
“As is my inclination, I refuse to remain quiet about any of this. I’m disgusted by YOUR failure to grasp all the implications, not to mention being so easily manipulated. You’ve allowed a ‘kook’ to damage a long standing friendship and invoke your name in a legal proceeding you refused to attend. You’d do well to get to know what’s really going on before tossing the baby out with the bathwater. e.g. You arrived at your first censure without even discussing it with me beforehand.”
“I do hope your animals fare better than mine. I took your suggestion and looked closely at the paddock where my bucks are penned. I found NO noxious/poisonous weeds/plants. I might add, over the years, I never have except for an occasional bracken fern some years ago. Having been a goatherd yourself, your actions are, IMO, especially insensitive.”
John Smith, goatherd (360)427-3599
DBA: Amicus Curia, paralegal (“We help you help yourself”)
DBA: Amicus Curia Collections, Inc. (“Debt Redemption”)
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 1:36:04 AM
Subject: Off Topic
“I’m sorry to inform you, but I have removed you from the list. The last couple posts you made are not on topic. This action does not make me happy. Hopefully someday you will understand.”
Judge Victoria Meadows refused to allow a reasonable exploration of Shawnie Vedder’s mental illness during cross-examination. Vedder attempted to argue her subjective ‘fear’ (or ploy!) was sufficient to demand the partial elimination of the defendant’s civil liberties. In the end, Judge Meadows found insufficient objective evidence supporting that contention. Perhaps a more scholarly discussion of the limits of free speech in the US can be found in the article found at: http://www.slate.com/id/2291833/pagenum/all/#p2
which says, in part:
…Adelman saw no call to violence, and cautioned that the First Amendment exception for speech that incites to violence is highly limited and “applies to the type of speech at issue here–internet communications disclosing personal information about others–even when that speech may tend to alarm or intimidate the persons so identified or expose them to unwanted attention from others.”
Pingback: Schitzoid Woman wants Open Marriage, Hiking Partner | Soul Snatcher, Productions ™ Democracy Wall