The national flag of New Zealand flies at half mast after Friday’s mosque attacks in Christchurch
New Zealand police are warning citizens they’ll face 10 years in prison for sharing the Christchurch mosque attack video, and a host of websites have been blocked as censors scrub the shooter’s manifesto from the internet.
Video footage of killer Brenton Tarrant’s shooting spree at a Christchurch mosque on Friday – which left 50 worshippers dead – was pulled from Facebook immediately after the massacre. With the footage proliferating on several hosting platforms afterwards, the Kiwi authorities have already charged an 18-year-old man for sharing the video, as well as for posting other “objectionable” comments days before the shooting.
The teenager faces up to ten years in prison, under New Zealand’s ‘objectionable and restricted material’ laws. Police have meanwhile issued an overt threat to anyone else looking for the video.
“Do not download it. Do not share it. If you are found to have a copy of the video or to have shared it, you face fines & potential imprisonment,” read a statement from the police via local news source Wellington Live.
Chinese New Year (of the Pig) Lion dance & Olympia’s Tai-Chi/Kung-Fu club. The club’s Kung-Fu style is Hung-Gar southern style form.
The program was sponsored by the Friends of the Olympia Timberland Library.
Olympia Timberland Library (TRL.ORG), 313 8th Ave SW, (360)352-0595 amicuscuria.com/wordpress
RE: Adversary Proceeding #: 9:11-ap-01252-RR U.S. Bankruptcy Court Central District of California (Santa Barbara)
Jimmy altered his name to be harder to track? His family’s chemical corporation spells it Matteson’—Score another one for the artful dodger.
James Grover Mateson (aka: Jimmy, Big Spender; dob: 11-22-61; 611 Capitol Way S, #506, Olympia, WA 98501) likes to be known as the fabulously privileged straight white patriarch with a conscience and penchant for social/racial justice. The truth falls a wee bit short of that self aggrandizement. Jimmy (and codefendant Alan Crutchfield of Imverse Asia Inc.), it seems, has a history of taking other peoples money/property and not paying them back. His bankruptcy filed circa 2011 left him sans portfolio, in breach of contract, and under a cloud of officially lodged allegations such as: willful and malicious injury, false pretenses, false representation, actual fraud ($270,000), fraud as fiduciary, embezzlement, larceny, and implicitly unjust enrichment. Where the social justice lies in that equation is left to the reader’s imagination.
“That Superior Court Action was based on Defendants’ ongoing Ponzi Scheme and with the Defendants’ and each of them intending to defraud Plaintiff by obtaining money from Plaintiff based on a personal loan to Defendants; and Defendants, and each of them, had no intent to ever repay the loan,” stated the victim’s (Bree Walker Lampley) attorney, Dianne B. Weissburg, referring to a judgement against their company, Imverse Asia Inc.
Jimmy ‘Big Spender’ Mateson
The trouble with Jimmy is pretty soon he runs out of other people’s money and, of course, he has all the characteristics of a dog except loyalty.
As to Jimmy’s personal Chapter 7 filing itself, replete with convenient omissions (Media Island assets), sworn diminutive income assertions and expenses to match, as well as the sworn claim he no longer had any shares in his uncle’s chemical corporation (but failed to list it as a transfer of assets to an insider), the following bankruptcy court documents are laid out below:
It would appear the Big Spender is spent, has hidden his assets, enthusiastically embraced sham corporations as a tool to fleece his flock and misappropriate the commons. Tom Nogler was right when he characterized this man as a fast talker–smooth talking fast walking mohair Jim. He’s now in the midst of Olympia and a fresh crop of suckers. Still, it must sting just a little to be reduced to picking the bones of Media Island instead of the corpulent bodies of his accustomed high rollers. Bon Appetit, Jimmy.
Perhaps the banks won’t notice the details of your bankruptcy when you try to float that $70,000 loan on the back of the Media Island house you never intend to pay back? But anybody with common sense would steer well clear of you–hence your specialty in coaxing $ from those without any. Fools and their money is the name of your game. But now we get to witness Arthur Miller’s Death Of A Salesman–Soapy Smith in the 21st Century! Paper Moon and Mournful Meek, you’re an epilogue cut strait from a chapter of Con Men, Strumpets, And Smoothies. Got a bridge you can sell us?
MATESON CHEMICAL Ripoff Reports, Complaints, Reviews, Scams, Lawsuits and Frauds Reported
Jimmy seems married to the idea of using his 501(c)3 corporation (MI) and its assets effectively as his personal piggy bank, the IRS and the state might feel compelled to reexamine its tax status, now and heretofore. PLUS, there’s essentially no statute of limitations on bankruptcy fraud. Moreover, there is evidence of an IRS tax lien against Jimmy which the Thurston County Auditor records payment toward in excess of $17,000.
Big Spender’s IRS tax lien
Mateson Chemical take my family company from me and misrepresent facts to tie me in litigation/ hasn’t sent me any w2’s or any company earnings or loss statement for the past 12 yrs. although I am a shareholder.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
I am the executrix of this ongoing Estate of Jean F. Mateson. My father left a company all all of the assets from his lifetime in his company. He died in 1992 and I have been pursuing a re evaluation of this estate since then. I have documentation and referenced to documents that no assets of any value were included in the VALUE. This would encompass trademarks, formulas and all intellectual property rightfully belonging to the “heirs” The present ‘President” has singlehandedly managed to terrorize all of the other owners into accepting some kind of pay off.
They are listed, as my sister as a Director or the Vice President, but has pursued many other careers since then and admits she hasn’t had anything to do with the present operations, although I understand she receives compensation and full benefits from the company.
I have terrorized by this now president and his ” high paid attorney”. They have done everything to me including to and not limited to terrorizing my attorney, who was just asking for the simple treatment and respect for me as a shareholder. They put together a law suit bring suit against me for frivolous things that occurred during the operations of the estate, whereby I was trying to expose the criminal behavior in the final estimate of the estate. (I have all documents to back up my statements)
The now President is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to terrorize me, without the courtesy of any financials or allowing me access to property I am part owners to. The 1025 East Montgomery Ave. Phil. Pa. every time I try to gain access they have called the police and filed against me once again frivolous law suits. ( I have not received any financials about the company and am denied any access to the books and records) I REFUSED TO DO MY TAXES WITHOUT MY RECORDS AND DON’T BELIEVE I SHOULD. No records ever supplied to me!
I am presently FILED in The Supreme Court of Appeals asking to be heard on the true merits of my case. I have been denied due process in the lower courts because I believe the Judge is involved. As I have been told by a large amount of lawyers this Attorney is ” wired” to this judge. Can you imagine in this century we are denied access to the court system to be heard, because the other PARTY IS USING YOUR MONEY TO KEEP YOU TIED UP IN LITIGATION UNJUSTLY! This needs to be exposed and this guy running my company needs to be put in jail. He has also threatened the lives of anyone who gets involved including a CPA as I was told!
I am presently unemployed and have asked for assistance to help pay my bills, why in this free world is this “person” allowed to continue driving the most expensive cars, buying million dollar homes and I am passed off and threatened if I try and get what belongs to me? I need help exposing this “fraud”!
Stephanie Wilmington, Delaware U.S.A.
*UPDATE Employee: Setting the record straight on behalf of the company.
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, September 17, 2008Re: Report # 359790 Hello. If you are reading this, you have been exposed to a letter written by a woman named Stephanie. The purpose of our letter is to set the record straight on behalf of Mateson Chemical Corporation (MCC), its stockholders, employees, clients, and vendors. Firstly, be assured that MCC is the same solid company we always have been. We are an environmentally minded organization with a strict policy of integrity and ethics. This is where the problems with Stephanie began. Stephanie was fired from MCC for cause in late 1997. She had stolen tens of thousands of dollars from the company. At the time, she was an owner of company stock, along with her brothers and sister, in a closely held family business. That meant she had stolen money from her own company and her own family. The system worked; she was caught, fired and our business went on seamlessly. There were no criminal charges filed. Stephanie no longer owns stock in MCC as she claims in her writings pursuant to the findings of the case to which she refers. She simply has retained voided stock certificates because she continues to evade the Wilmington Sheriff’s Department charged to retrieve them, as verified by their reports. She is no longer an executrix for the estate of J.F. Mateson either, because the estate was closed and settled by her and her family with all needed signatures, including hers, in the early 1990’s. If the estate were not closed, she and her family would have not had stock to begin with. The company is now more diversified in ownership and steps have been taken to safeguard the future stability of the company stock. It is true that we have spent a lot of money on legal and court fees to defend ourselves against Stephanie’s legal onslaughts. We would much rather have put those lost funds into employee pay increases or retirement accounts. We were forced to effectively respond to the frivolous lawsuits she and her lawyers have been able to conjure up as a cost of doing business. We have settled this matter over and over in the courts, as evidenced by each successive ruling. We noticed Stephanie did not use names in the text of her writing. Her lawyers probably incorrectly told her it was not defamatory that way. We will be following up on that with proper legal action immediately. We at MCC accept our duty to the future, for our clients, ownership, employees, and vendors to defend our company from outside malevolent factors, as all companies do. This report seems to be a reaction of an obviously disturbed individual, still bitter about her justified termination almost 12 years ago. Be assured MCC, its employees, and, or its vendors have not been involved in any payoffs to stockholders or judges as she alleges. There have been no threats to our CPA (President of the CPA ethics division), no fraud, and no terrorizing of anyone either. These claims are untrue and have been written simply to besmirch the good name of MCC. We can only assume that her report is borne out of frustration, due to her own unethical and illegal actions in the past. We also suggest she go ahead and file her taxes. She has received all the information and documentation she needs in a timely manner to file her taxes, as all our employees have. In closing we would like to reiterate that Mateson Chemical Corporation is doing fine and its product lines are still the ultimate in quality, performance, and value. Please feel free to see for yourself at www.matesonchemical.com.
*UPDATE Employee: Mateson Chemical Vindicated BY COURT RULING
AUTHOR: Attorney For Mateson Chemical – (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Monday, September 08, 2008 The ridiculous article written by Stephanie under report 359790 has been deemed by the appellate court in Pennsylvania to be totally false. (This decison was entered under docket number July term 2005 , number 1180 and affirmed by the appellate court under Superior court docket 2237 EDA 2007. These judicial opinions are public record and were not quoted by Stephanie as she intended to harm this company simply because she is angry that she was fired for unlawful conduct. While she was employed by the company, funds were used by her improperly and she stole corporate records which a court ordered her to return.
The court opinion specifically stated : ” Ms Stephanie Barton wrongfully stock ledgers, the corporate seal and the official records of the Company. This will hold on without authorization. Further, the court ruled: ” she is held falsely held herself out as an officer of the Corporation. On July 26, 2005, this court granted a special injunction to remedy the results of this Barton’s wrongful conduct.
The Company will be filing a lawsuit against the author of the original article as well as anyone else who repeats this information. As the public record shows, it is unfortunate that this woman is permitted to continue to publicly state that which has already been proven by a court to be false. The title of her report itself is malicious and we intend to take a judgment against her for punitive damages to remedy or unlawful conduct.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
RICHARD R. COOCH NEW CASTLE COUNTY COURTHOUSE RESIDENT JUDGE 500 North King Street, Suite 10400 Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3733 (302) 255-0664
Bruce W. McCulloch, Esquire Bodell, Bové, Grace & Van Horn, P.C. 1225 North King Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0397 Attorney for Plaintiff
Thomas E. Hanson, Jr., Esquire Michael J. Custer, Esquire Morris James LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2306 Attorneys for Defendant
Re: Mateson Chemical Corporation v. Stephanie Mateson Barton
Record No.: 07J-09-114
Submitted: November 15, 2007
Decided: January 15, 2008
On Defendant’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment.
DENIED.
Dear Counsel:
Before the Court is Stephanie Mateson Barton’s (“Defendant’s”) motion to stay enforcement of a judgment entered against her on September 7, 2007 in Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County (“the Delaware judgment.”)
The issue is whether Defendant is entitled to a stay of the Delaware judgment under the Delaware Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments.
Act, specifically 10 Del. C. § 4784(a), despite having failed to post security when she appealed the underlying Pennsylvania judgment of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Plaintiff, Mateson Chemical Corporation, had that judgment then transferred to Delaware.
For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that Defendant is not entitled to a stay under 10 Del. C. § 4784(a) because she did not “furnish security for the satisfaction of the judgment as required by the state in which it was rendered,”1 i.e., 120% of the amount of the Pennsylvania judgment when she filed her appeal, as required by 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a). Therefore, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 17, 2007, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, entered judgment against Defendant in Mateson Chemical Corp v. Barton, et. al., (“the Pennsylvania judgment”) in the amount of $117,262.80.2 Defendant filed an appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment on August 17, 2007 to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, but did not post security when she did so.
Plaintiff then had the Pennsylvania judgment transferred to Delaware, and judgment was entered against Defendant in this Court on September 7, 2007.
On October 23, 2007, Defendant filed the present motion to stay enforcement of the Delaware judgment, citing her appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment.
II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Defendant contends that her appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment entitles her to a stay of the Delaware judgment under 10 Del. C. § 4784(a).3 Defendant claims that Pennsylvania law “does not require [her] to post security for satisfaction of the Pennsylvania judgment prior to appealing it to the Pennsylvania Superior Court,” 4 and asserts that she has met her burden under 10 Del. C. 4784(a). Defendant reads 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) as only
1 10 Del. C. § 4784(a).
2 Def. Mot. to Stay Enforcement of J., Ex. A., citing Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Case No. 1180 (July, 2005).
3 Id. at 2.
4 Id.
2
requiring a defendant to post security in order to effect an automatic supersedeas. [5]
[5] Defendant raises additional arguments in her reply to Plaintiff’s response to her motion. Defendant argues that 10 Del. C. § 4784(b), and 10 Del. C. § 4782, makes Pennsylvania procedural law inapplicable, since, Defendant argues, these statutes establish that “enforcement in Delaware is governed by the procedures and defenses applicable to Delaware judgments.” Def. Reply Br., at 3-4. Defendant also argues in her reply brief that Plaintiff has not taken the necessary steps to have an executable judgment entered in Pennsylvania; namely, filing a praecipe to enter a judgment on the verdict. Id. at 4.
However, the Court will not address these arguments since they were raised for the first time in Defendant’s reply, and Defendant did not attempt to raise them at oral argument. See Thompson v. State, 2006 WL 2096440 (Del. Super.) (“[d]efendant should have raised this argument in his opening brief. The Court ignores the argument advanced in the reply brief”).
6 Pl. Answ. to Def. Mot. to Stay Enforcement of J., at 2.
7 10 Del. C. § 4784(a).
Plaintiff contends that 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) requires an appellant to post bond in the amount of 120% of the amount of the judgment appealed from in order to prevent an execution on the judgment during the pendency of the appeal.6 Plaintiff argues that since Defendant has not done so, she has not met the requirements of 10 Del. C. § 4784(a), which requires an appellant (in the foreign jurisdiction) to show proof that the appellant “has furnished security for the satisfaction of the judgment as required by the state in which it was rendered.”7
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The sole question before the Court on this motion is whether Defendant is entitled a stay of judgment under 10 Del. C. § 4784(a). The statute provides the standard of review:
§ 4784. Stay.
(a) If the judgment debtor shows the court that an appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken, or that a stay of execution has been granted, the court shall stay enforcement of the foreign judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for appeal expires, or the stay of execution expires or is vacated, upon proof that the judgment debtor has furnished security for the satisfaction of the judgment as required by the state in which it was rendered….
3
8 Kontrol Automation, Inc. v. Chesapeake Hydro, Inc., 1989 WL 124897 (Del. Super.).
9 Id. at *1.
10 Id. at *2.
11 Mansfield State Bank v. Cohen, 407 N.Y.S.2d 373 (1977).
IV. DISCUSSION
This Court has previously addressed the issue raised in this case. In Kontrol Automation, Inc. v. Chesapeake Hydro, Inc.,8 this Court also had to decide whether a judgment-debtor was entitled to a stay of execution of a Delaware judgment, despite the judgment-debtor’s having failed to post security when it appealed the underlying Pennsylvania judgment.
In Kontrol, the Court was asked by a judgment-creditor to grant relief of a stay of execution of a Delaware judgment filed against a judgment-debtor. The judgment-debtor argued that since it had filed an appeal of the underlying Pennsylvania judgment it was entitled to a stay under 10 Del. C. 4784, despite its not having posted security when filing its appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment. As in the present case, the parties disagreed as to whether an appellant/judgment-debtor had to post security under 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) when filing an appeal.
The Kontrol court held that by failing to post security when appealing the Pennsylvania judgment, the judgment-debtor had not complied with 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a), which calls for “appropriate security in the amount of 120 per cent of the amount found due by the lower court and remaining unpaid” to be furnished by a judgment-debtor. Thus, the Kontrol court held that “§ 4784(a) [did] not apply since [the judgment-debtor] failed to furnish the necessary security bond required for an appeal in Pennsylvania [under] … Rule 1731(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.”9
Nonetheless, the Kontrol court allowed the judgment-debtor a stay of execution of judgment for ten days to give the judgment-debtor the “opportunity to file the necessary security for the satisfaction of the judgment as required by Pennsylvania law.”10 The court based this holding on the outcome of a New York state case, Mansfield State Bank v. Cohen11 that had been cited by both parties. In Mansfield, a Texas court had entered default judgment against an individual, and in favor of a bank. The bank then sought to enforce the judgment in New York. The Mansfield court denied the individual’s motion to stay the execution of the Texas court judgment in New York, holding that the individual had failed to file the “supersedeas bond” required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and so was not entitled to a stay in New York.12 Despite so holding, but recognizing that New York courts have “taken a liberal approach to the vacating of default judgments,”13 the Mansfield court stayed execution of the New York judgment for ten days, giving the individual the opportunity to file the necessary “supersedeas bond.”14 Characterizing the Mansfield holding as “persuasive precedent,” the Kontrol court gave the same 10 day opportunity to the judgment-debtor in that case.
4
12 Id. at 375.
13 Id. at 376.
14 Id.
15 Subdivision (b) applies to domestic relations matters, which are not at issue here.
16 See, e.g., In re Meade Land & Development Co., Inc. 1 B.R. 279, 283 (Bankr., E.D. Pa. 1979) (“In appealing this final judgment, the Plaintiff has also chosen not to abide by Rule 1731 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, 42 Pa.C.S.A., as evidenced by its failure to deposit a bond with the Court in the amount of 120% of the judgment. Thus, the decision rendered by the State Court, which has not been stayed during the appeal pursuant to statutory procedure, is considered to be final and therefore provable.”).
17 Oral Arg. Tr., at 7 (November 9, 2007).
18 Id. at 7-8.
The Court declines to accept Defendant’s reading of 10 Del. C. § 4784(a) and 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a). It is clear 1) that Pennsylvania law requires a judgment-debtor to post security in order to effect a stay; and, 2) that it is within the discretion of this Court under the Delaware Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act to deny a motion for a stay of execution if a judgment-debtor has not met the requirements for a stay of execution in the foreign jurisdiction.19
This Court agrees with the Kontrol court that 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) requires a judgment-debtor to furnish security in Pennsylvania in order to effect a stay of execution. 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a) states in pertinent part:
(a) …Except as provided by subdivision (b)[15], an appeal from an order involving solely the payment of money shall, unless otherwise ordered pursuant to this chapter, operate as a supersedeas upon the filing with the clerk of the lower court of appropriate security in the amount of 120% of the amount found due by the lower court and remaining unpaid….
The statute clearly requires a judgment-creditor to post security to effect a supersedeas.16
At oral argument counsel for Defendant acknowledged that since his client had not posted security in Pennsylvania, she is not eligible for supersedeas, automatic or otherwise, in Pennsylvania.17 Defendant’s counsel agreed with the Court’s understanding that, in Defendant’s view, “theoretically, the Plaintiff could execute on the judgment in Pennsylvania, but … [under] 10 Del. C. 4784(a) …, Plaintiff could not execute on it in Delaware.”18
5 6
19 See, e.g., 30 Am. Jur. 2d Executions, Etc. § 783 (2007) (“[a] request by a judgment debtor to stay the execution of a foreign judgment [is] properly denied where the judgment debtor, alleging that the foreign judgment was being appealed in a foreign court, failed to post the necessary bond incident to such appeal”); 30 Am. Jur. 2d Executions, Etc. § 331 (2007) (“[a] trial court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing a judgment debtor’s complaint contesting the validity of a foreign judgment if the debtor fails to post the required bond
The Court declines to accept Defendant’s reading of 10 Del. C. § 4784(a) and 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a). It is clear 1) that Pennsylvania law requires a judgment-debtor to post security in order to effect a stay; and, 2) that it is within the discretion of this Court under the Delaware Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act to deny a motion for a stay of execution if a judgment-debtor has not met the requirements for a stay of execution in the foreign jurisdiction.19
Nor does the Court find any reason to go beyond the plain wording of the statute by granting any additional time, such as ten days, to Defendant to post security in Pennsylvania, and, to this limited extent, this Court declines to follow Kontrol’s grant of a ten day period in which to allow the judgment-debtor to post security in the foreign jurisdiction.
The Court holds that Defendant is not entitled to a stay under 10 Del. C. § 4784(a) because she failed to post the necessary security when filing her appeal of the Pennsylvania judgment as required by 42 Pa. S.C.A. 1731(a).
V. CONCLUSION
For the preceding reasons, Defendant’s motion to stay enforcement of judgment is DENIED.
Courtesy of: MasonCountyWebTV.com
Shelton, WA (12-18-18) — Many local residents have had to contend with fraudulent charges to their credit cards over the holidays. Police suspect the Grinch resembles the pictures below:
Know this guy? Call 360-426-4441Know this guy? Call 360-426-4441Know this guy? Call 360-426-4441
Law enforcement officials received several reports throughout Mason County regarding credit card and ATM fraud. These reports were likely the result of credit card skimmers.
Skimming is a process in which criminals will use a scanning device to steal ATM and credit card information, including PIN numbers. The thief can then make a fraudulent ATM or credit card using the account holder’s information. Credit card skimming devices have become wide spread as a means of stealing money from account holders and financial institutions. Losses in the Shelton area alone have been staggering.
The skimming devices are often hard to detect as they fit on or around the ATM or credit machine. ATM machines with exposed keypads are particularly susceptible to skimmers. Covering the keypad as you enter your PIN number can often help to protect your information.
Thanks to the proactive efforts of our local credit unions, Shelton Police has obtained video from Sunday, December 16, 2018 of a thief using fraudulent credit cards in an ATM to steal money from several accounts.
12-7-18 — The following is an excerpt from Dana Walker’s excellent FB page discussing Olympia’s Media Island meltdown:
Andras Jones:Thanks for asking Ken [Burch]. We’ll start with KAOS. I hosted Radio8Ball there for 10 years. During that time my co-host Tammy T regularly engaged in behavior that made me uncomfortable including lots of dramatic late night e-mails from her and very public attacks from her partner Merwyn Haskett.
Merwyn Haskett
I spoke with program director Donna Crg DiBianco about my uncomfortable feelings with Tammy and she encouraged me to give her another chance. After several more chances I finally made the decision to do the show without her. She had her own show on KAOS so she did not lose access to the station but her response was to target me for harassment that included tearing down my flyers, sending (and getting other people to send) threatening e-mails to me, calls to my other places of business encouraging them not to work with me, slanderous graffiti using my name at public places like The Brotherhood Lounge
She also composed a very public blog that KAOS knew about in which she made many claims about me that were untrue and painted her as the innocent victim of an evil man who took away her show.
When I complained to the new station manager Ruth Brownstein about this she said we needed to work it out and that it wasn’t a KAOS issue. Ruth then started to file negative reports about me. One night not long after reporting the harassment program director Jerry Drummond accosted me before I went on air in front of a witness. He shouted obscenities at me and repeated claims that Tammy had been posting on her blog about the show going down the tubes since she left.
John Ford
I filed a report about this and two weeks later my show was canceled and the next day Jerry Drummond filed an untrue report with campus police that I had assaulted him.
Brett Clubbe, Kaos Radio host
Since then Ruth Brownstein, John Ford and others on the KAOS staff have spread rumors and lies about me. Ask Brett Clubbe if you want to know how they work. I should say one more thing. Tammy T admitted to her harassment of me in a letter which I re-printed in my book “Accidental Initiations” but no one at KAOS or Evergreen has been willing to demand that I receive some kind of hearing about being harassed, reporting it, and then being punished for doing so. Meanwhile, Radio8Ball has gone onto great success and KAOS gets to take no part in it, which is very sad for the community of people who loved the show and have no idea what KAOS did to get rid of it.
As for the co-op, there’s nothing wrong with passing a boycott of Israeli goods if you do so in a way that invites and includes community discussion, but when you abuse the process to ram it through in one night without inviting the community or the staff to have a say then you’re playing dirty. And when you play dirty in a way that excludes Jews from a conversation about Israel it is as anti-semitic as it would be to exclude women from a discussion about reproductive rights, or people of color from a conversation about police brutality, or to exclude Muslim people from a conversation about Israel.
If you have to cheat to win then you are not in the right and you make that space unsafe for everyone. I should also point out that the boycott led to removing one item from the shelves so it had zero impact in Israel but a huge impact in Olympia. The Olympia Food Co–op that began in my uncle’s garage in the 70’s is someplace I do not feel safe or welcome and I actually oppose Israel’s military policies, but I also oppose anti-semitic bullies in Olympia and anyone who justifies the Co-op’s actions to exclude community involvement, especially the Jewish community, in that decision is a supporter of anti-semitism no matter how they may try dress it up.
As for what went on at MII, I have no clue and I do not take anyone’s side. I am speaking generally about intersectionality and inclusivity and using my own experience of being targeted by reactionary bullies as an example.
I don’t know who the reactionary bullies are in this situation. It sounds to me like everyone is really triggered and I don’t think triggered people generally make the best decisions, which is why processes that allow people to be heard and to listen are what I think we need, not just at MII.
And finally, just so we’re clear, when you gather a gang of people together to harass a Jewish person it’s going to be terrifying to them in a specific way which is unique to the Jewish experience. If you then punish the terrified Jewish person for reporting the harassment this too is going to have a unique effect on a person who comes from a culture that has experienced anti-semitism and unfair treatment at the hands of authorities who are supposed to protect them.
And if you then manipulate processes designed to protect people to further target, isolate and slander that Jew then you are fully engaging the anti-semitic playbook.
And finally, if the largest community organization in town uses the same dirty tactics to manipulate their own processes to exclude Jews from a conversation about Israel, well, then one might rightly say, as i do, that Olympia is an anti-semitic little town and the only way to prove me wrong is to be willing to have the anti-semitism conversation, which would include addressing the cases I related above with an awareness that anti-semitism is real and the people who want to talk about it aren’t just being dramatic, paranoid, or trying to play a card. We are people with a specific history that includes being murdered while our “allies” on the left watched and did nothing.
As you can see I have a lot of energy for this conversation and despite those who suggest, as many have, that I just walk away, that is something I will never do. You’re welcome.
