NOTE: Here is PART 2 of my report, Trafficking with the Devil.
This report is posted in two parts (two separate posts) due to formatting problems, but PART 2 does not stand alone. Please read the first post (link below) before continuing.
This report was written and posted in October 2012. Part 2 somehow got corrupted in the files on this site, and did not display correctly on the page. I tried several times to fix the problem, but to no avail, so I was forced to delete the report from the archives.
I have had to redo the entire report, and due to the limitations of this 'blogspot' site, the only way to repost it and add it to the archives is to post on the front page.
July 17, 2013
BUSYBODY/STALKER MICHELLE WOLVEN: ATTACKS ON BARBARA HARTWELL
Michelle Wolven, another minion of corrupt corporate entities and government agencies, such as Big Pharma, the Medical Mafia and FDA, began her attacks of libel/slander on Barbara Hartwell, promoting outrageous falsehoods, after I appeared as a guest on Dr. Antonella Carpenter's radio program, The Medical Conspiracy. Wolven, who had been viciously attacking Dr. Carpenter and associates for years, later escalated her attacks on Barbara Hartwell by harassing known associates of mine, and by sending a libelous letter to the station manager of Orion Talk Radio, complaining that Barbara Hartwell was allowed as a guest on Dr. Carpenter's program.
Samples of Wolven's libel:
"I am extremely concerned because they [Dr. Carpenter and Lase Med Inc.] have taken a crazy and dangerous turn in their tactics. That, having a fraudulent person claiming to be ex-CIA..."
"Ms. Carpenter has Barbara Hartwell coming on the Medical Conspiracy radio show now 4 or 5 times saying that she is now "MY ENEMY" because I am the enemy of Ms. Carpenter of Lase Med Inc."
In both cases, these demonic characters, Adachi and Wolven, have made a very PUBLIC spectacle with their scandal mongering in defaming the name of Barbara Hartwell --of which any and all associates, friends, colleagues of mine were well aware --and this included Janet Phelan.
This report will continue in addressing the issues of respecting the privacy and personal boundaries of the Individual, when confronted with the malicious invasions, intrusions, assaults and harassment on any given individual by evildoers such as Ken Adachi and Michelle Wolven.
It will explore the difference between what is "private" and what is "public".
Shortly after the conversation with Janet Phelan re her unwarranted comparison of my "promoting" of the talk show host with whom she had "issues", I received an e-mail from Janet.
The subject line stated: "Michelle Wolven called me."
The one line of text stated: "Get back to me when you can."
Following are a number of e-mails between me and Janet Phelan. I am making them public at Janet's request (see her comment below), and because they are mostly self-explanatory in defining my position as opposed to Janet's. I have removed only small amounts of personal/private info which does not change the meaning or content of the messages, as well as the names of certain third parties, to protect their privacy. My additional comments are interspersed, along with the e-mails.
Barbara Hartwell's response to "Michelle Wolven called me.":
I was not online yesterday (illness) so did not get your e-mail message until today. But I would like to know why she called you, and what it had to do with me (I assume it was in connection with me?)
Wolven is another Tim White, a stalker contacting anyone she can who is a known associate of mine. I don't understand why you would call her back? Wolven has attacked me publicly and has been exposed for same.
She has been exposed again on my website, and on Dr. Carpenter's radio show today.
So when you are able, please call me and let me know what this is about, thanks.
Next thing I know, I get another e-mail from Janet stating only:
"I went ahead and called her so you can ignore this request."
Janet, I don't understand what this is about re Michelle Wolven? I tried to call you on skype just now, got a busy signal. If you can, please call me back so I know what's going on, thanks.
Janet Phelan to Barbara Hartwell:
"I tried to reach you yesterday after Michelle first called me. I decided to just go ahead and call her and I did today."
Note that in both these terse responses, I received no explanation and no answer to my questions re Wolven. What's the point of telling me about this call, if I am not going to be given the facts, if no explanation is forthcoming as to WHY?
I should say that just because I could not be immediately reached, and because I did not promptly respond, that is not a valid reason to "go ahead" and make a return call to this known enemy of Barbara Hartwell. What? If I HAD immediately responded, and expressed my wishes that I did NOT want my personal boundaries violated by a call to a busybody/stalker trying to get in my business (which anyone who knows me as well as Janet should have been aware), then no call would have been made? And it is "fair game" to make such a call simply because I did not snap to! in responding to a message about a contact from this provocateur, Michelle Wolven?
I find it important to state that every other "known associate" of mine who was targeted by Michelle Wolven, specifically using my name, simply DISREGARDED the e-mails/phone calls. They did not respond to Wolven in any way, they only apprised me of the attempts at contact by Wolven, which were specifically for the purpose of extracting information (invading MY privacy) and influencing these "known associates" by stirring up conflicts. If the contact was by e-mail, the recipients forwarded the e-mails directly to me, just as I would have done had such a busybody/stalker approached me in attempts to invade the privacy of others.
Being very concerned about this contact with the perp, Michelle Wolven, and not being able to reach Janet by skype (the usual method of communication), anxious to resolve this matter, I decided to write an e-mail to Janet, outlining my concerns.
I have deleted only the "personal" comments re my health, etc. as well as a few private comments not directly relevant, but all that relates to the other issues I have left in the original form, except to REMOVE the names of third parties and replace them with X.
BARBARA HARTWELL TO JANET PHELAN
I am concerned about some issues on which it seems we have a disagreement, that is, if I am interpreting this correctly. I don't mind disagreeing as long as we can "agree to disagree", but I would like to straighten this out; I will be happy to discuss it with you, but I am outlining it here, in the hope it will make things clearer.
I understand that you were not happy with my adding X's name to a list of talk show hosts, described as "decent and honorable". I understand that you no longer want any dealings with X, because of the way he treated you. But to my knowledge, he has not publicly libeled/slandered you, nor made a public issue of it, and your problem with X had nothing to do with me. So, I meant it as no disrespect to you, I was only referring to one subject: the issue of the Jew-hater/Nazis and talk show hosts willing to cover the issue. Leaving his name out would have been a glaring omission ( as would removing it after the fact.)
As I told you, now that I know the extent of your feelings about this, I will not mention your name ever again in connection with X. As I also told you, I have not discussed you with him, nor would I. But I don't allow myself to get in the middle of other people's conflicts, so any possible future issues/dealings re X will never be connected to you.
But I do have a problem with something connected to to this: which is that you compared me mentioning X with the situation re Chris Zucker, so I need to set my position straight on that. I do not know Chris Zucker. I have never had any contact/dealings with him, by my own choice. He tried to use you, Geral (and others) as intermediaries to contact me. As you know, I made it clear I wanted no dealings with him, and that was my prerogative.
For years hw was promoting Ken Adachi on his website, and as a result, my reputation was further damaged each time someone clicked on the link to Adachi's site, because of Chris Zucker. It also implicated him as a promoter of Ken Adachi. I therefore made a decision, per my own policy, to put his name in the HALL OF SHAME.
Geral was also having problems with Zucker for other reasons (see his e-mail below), and finally decided he wanted no further dealings with him, including because of Zucker's promotion of the demonic liar, Ken Adachi, but not limited to that. None of this was connected to you in any way.
When Zucker wrote the complaint against me, it was also sent to Geral, and thus made "public".
Geral sent it to me, you did not, but I have no reason to trust Zucker, no way of knowing who else he may have sent it to, and I was not about to let it slide. I did not use your name, to protect your privacy, but I have the right to defend myself against anyone who is launching complaints against me, and it is my policy to always set the record straight.
I do not respect people who try to use others as intermediaries in connection with me, especialy since it has been made clear that their advances are not welcome. Zucker was doing this for years, and should have minded his own business, instead of making his complaints to those he knew were my friends, AS IF this were some "communal" issue, where others "have a say". No one has any "say" in my decisions, except me, and I respect the same right in others.
But the point is, there is no parallel between me putting X's name in a report, as relevant to the issue of radio shows, and the issue of Chris Zucker, none at all.
You are free to disagree, but my position is different, and I have my own reasons for everything I do. Also, this was never an issue of "divisiveness", as you mentioned you told Zucker, as I operate completely independently, and I am not involved in any groups, organizations, etc.
I was not privy to his further complaints against me, so I can't comment further than that. The issue, for me, is that a person I do not know, never wanted to know, tried to aggressively push his way into my professional work, and when his efforts failed, he seemed to think he was 'entitled' to be recognized by me, and angry that he was not. Why he would care, I don't know, but I am totally independent of of anything but my own agenda, based on my own principles. I have no reason to want to discuss Zucker, as he is of no importance to me. Your dealings with him (if any) are a separate issue, and I would only appreciate that, as you said, you are not involved, that you not discuss me with him in future.
Here is an e-mail sent to me by Geral:
Barbara - I blocked all e-mail from Chris Zucker because I do not care to entertain his comments against either you or me. In my last message to Chris I wished him well and I stated that I have no animosity toward him. I dropped him from Ning because of his careless postings on his site (and on my Ning) of links to persons who slandered you and who engaged in a kind of psyop against you. I repeatedly brought all of these concerns to his attention, but he casually dismissed my concerns. Anyone who attempts to malign you, as Chris did recently in his message about your hall of shame (listing Chris) page, is no friend of mine. I have nothing to do with such personalities.
As you know I am under great strain here and no end is in sight; I endure the pain as best I can, and I try to eliminate from my contacts anyone who drains me of my time and resources such as Chris did.
Love to you and all my kind wishes to Janet.
The only other thing is the issue with Wolven, another aggressive busybody trying to exploit known associates of mine for her own ends. She has been aggressively libeling and harassing me (publicly), and contacting a number of those who are "known associates" of mine.
Busybody/stalkers like Wolven are just like Tim White. I would appreciate it, in future, if such a person tries to contact you, specifically re anything to do with me, that you simply disregard the call/message, etc.
These creeps are coming out of the woodwork, all over the place, and they have no shame, no reservations, no respect whatsoever for the privacy and personal boundaries of others. I have set things up so they cannot get directly to me, nor would I ever engage them in any way. My way of dealing with them is only to EXPOSE them.
I am sorry that people like this are trying to 'get to me' through you, simply because it is public knowledge that you are associated with me, but as you know, I have no conrol over what they do; all I can do is admonish them in a public report for their harassment of those associated with me.
As I said, I would be glad to discuss any of this with you.
I will be out most of the rest of the day, but might be on skype later this evening, assumong there are no other pressing problems I have to deal with.
Here is Janet's response, and apparently she just does not 'get it'; she is commingling issues not related, and dragging in third parties. I have again REMOVED the names to protect their privacy.
First of all, your take on divisiveness is not the same as mine. Divisiveness does not, to my way of thinking, refer to divisions between groups or organizations. Divisions can occur between individuals.
I will deal first with the Wolven situation. She called me and I immediately w-mailed you. I did not get a reply (you wrote me later that you were sick) and so I returned the call and left her a voicemail which I was sure would result in her never, ever calling me again. As she contacted me, it was my decision to return her call.
Just as, apparently, it is you decision to promote X, which is pretty much what you have de facto done by listing him as a talk show host whom you describe as decent and honorable. You were well aware of the distress he caused me by his on air behavior followed up by his off air behavior. So you made a decision relevant to X and I made a decision relevant to Wolven. My decision did not result in any sort of public promotion of her, however. I dealt with her swiftly and definitively and am fairly sure she will never darken my door again. But for some reason, you feel that I am not to return her call in deference to your wishes but feel free to promote X, even in the face of all the distress he caused me.
There is enormous divisiveness among people now. The way I generally work is in a more or less hands off manner. In other words, if for example, XX behaves in a suspect manner towards me but is good to you, I don't try to insist that you d.c. your contact with him ot check with me before communicating with him!!!. However, in the case of X you actively solicited my comments about your article AFTER it was published. Parenthetically, there have been many times when I lob over something I have written about someone's situation to them PRIOR to publication, asking them to check it for accuracy. In his case, you solicited my input and you got it.
In terms of divisiveness, there are people you are in touch with, whom you are apparently allied with, whom I consider to be highly suspect. In terms of a hands off policy, that is your right and I don't really try to intervene. If you want to promote X, it is your right. But when you ask for my input, then please don't try to rationalize away what you have asked for from me. The situations you describe, you and Zucker, me and X, they are really not all that different. Some of the details, perhaps, but in broad sweeps, not really.
I'm sorry you are also not well.
All the best,
Upon reading this e-mail, I realized how serious the problem/disagreement was. She is comparing apples to oranges, dragging in third parties, apparently trying to justify this pushy behavior, rather than simply acknowledging that the real issue is respecting my wishes regarding privacy. Janet Phelan apparently thinks in terms of "broad sweeps", vague in their applications, to be interpreted in any way she sees as convenient, while the ONLY concerns I spoke of in my letter were in connection with very specific persons, facts and events, about which I was very clear and direct.
As as far as the "input" I solicited from her, it was limited to ONE issue only: My report about the radio shows we had done, to parts of which she raised objections. (See PART 1 of this report for details.) That was it. I did NOT solicit her "input", nor her opinions, about any of the other issues she mentions here, including my interactions with other people, completely unrelated to the subject matter, and quite frankly, none of her business. These are her issues, not mine, and she was the one who originally raised them, not once, but repeatedly, which is why I found the need to attempt to resolve them.
And I simply requested, quite reasonably, that she NOT discuss me with aggressive individuals (namely Chris Zucker and Michelle Wolven) who were hell-bent on getting in MY business. I have every right to defend my privacy, and if she has a problem with that, then all it shows me is a total lack of respect for my personal boundaries and my clearly expressed wishes.
Her comment, "You and Zucker" makes no sense at all. Again, for the umpteenth time, I DO NOT KNOW ZUCKER. It was a simple situation of an aggressive busybody (Zucker) trying to push his way into my business, and who made a public complaint against Barbara Hartwell. The situation to which she tries to compare this is related to a person she DOES know, with whom she had interactions, resulting in private problems, and which never became a public issue. There is simply no comparison.
Furthermore, I at no time tried to "rationalize away" anything. I think it would behoove Janet Phelan to learn to mind her own business, and to stop projecting her own standards on others.
I answered with this e-mail:
It seems the disagreements are more serious than I thought. I hope they can be resolved, if only in agreeing to disagree, or in reaching a mutual understanding of one another's position.
I'd rather not continue a discussion by e-mail, as it's too time-consuming, and for me, not the best way to communicate.
I haven't been well today and unless I feel better will be going offline, but hopefully we can talk soon.
Now this, from Janet:
"I am getting ready to leave the country so I am not very available right now. I will be on and offline and my schedule is not too predictable at this juncture. Hope you feel better soon."
This response appeared to me to be evasive (though perhaps I am mistaken in this interpretation), but most significantly, there was no indication given that she would be willing to discuss these issues with me --just as with the earlier e-mails re Michelle Wolven, there was no direct answer to my questions.
I did not answer that e-mail, for what might be obvious reasons. By this time, I saw "the writing on the wall", and knew there was little chance of resolving issues via a discussion, since she was evidently not "available", and seemed adamant about defending her position, which is one I could not accept.
I don't allow myself to get into point-counterpoint arguments, nor any sort of "conflicts with people". If I can't resolve things WITH a person, I resolve things on my own, simply by making a public position statement (assuming the issue is public, which this one was, whether Janet recognizes that fact or not), and letting the chips fall where they may. Because this was (and is) a PUBLIC issue, since it involves libel, slander, harassment and the aggressive behavior of busybodies/stalkers trying their damnedest to get in MY business and wreaking PUBLIC havoc in the process.
I was not about to just let it slide, as I know how much damage can be done by charcters like Michelle Wolven, and I found it necessary to at least state my position for the public record. So I wrote a report. I did not use Janet's name, as I was hoping to avoid some big brouhaha if possible.
For the Record: A Message on Privacy & Sovereignty
Then, a few days later, I got this e-mail from Janet Phelan, re "your report". I did not answer this e-mail, as it was a continuation of an argument I had no intention of getting involved in.
Janet Phelan to Barbara Hartwell:
"What I told Chris Zucker is that I ws not involved and was not going to get involved. So you are absolutely right when you say that it is none of my business. Which is exactly what I told Chris. Nor was I going to function as an intermediary and lob his e-mail over to you. I am not involved in this. Furthermore, I am not "discussing" his complaints with him so you write in error when you say that I did.
I also said I thought it was a shame there was so much divisiveness between people. Herein follows a dictionary definition of divisiveness
1. forming or expressing division or distribution
2. creating dissension or discord
My reference to divisiness referred to the second listing here. I was expressing sorrow that there is dissension and discord.
All the best,
And lastly, this "final e-mail", which I did not answer, for the same reasons mentioned above.
When I wrote my initial e-mail to you, after viewing your report yesterday, I had not noticed that your report went on to discuss my response to Wolven's call. You are now calling me a busybody and a meddler?
In both cases, with Zucker and Wolven, I responded by holding up a big sign, "STOP RIGHT HERE."
Since you don't seem to recall my reply to Zucker, which I read to you over the phone, this is what I wrote: "I am not involved in it. I did not forward our correspondence to Ms. Hartwell or Mr. Sosbee as I respected your privacy. Nor have I posted anything about this nor will I."
I also expressed concern that there was so much divisiveness going on. I addressed my perceptions of the word divisiveness in the previous e-mail, which you seem to think refers to socialism or communism. The dictionary defines this as "discord."
And this you find "unacceptable"? I was somehow to magically intuit that when these two people approached me about you, I was to put duct tape over my mouth, and if I were instead to say, clearly and definitively, that I was not involved nor would I become so, you would find this "unacceptable"?
What is it, Barbara? Do you need a new enemy? Have you decided to nominate me? You see, in my book, what you have done by reporting, or should I say, misreporting, all this publicly utterly violates the tenets of friendship. Friends resolve issues between themselves. I tried repeatedly to call you about this and you responded that you were sick and also busy writing reports and doing radio. No time to return my call. When pressures began to build in my life, I et you know I would get back in touch with you when I could. You chose to attack me publicly; named or nameless, you still chose to attack me in a public venue rather than deal with this privately.
I refuse to become your enemy. I am, however, clearly no longer your friend. What you have done, by declining to deal with this with me and instead attacking me in a public venue, has been to sever the chords of friendship. I still hold a deep affection for you and this remains intact, even in the face of your faithlessness as a friend.
I wish you all the best, Barbara. More than that, I pray for your safety and health on a daily basis. If you choose to make this public it is entirely up to you. I only ask that you not post snippets out of context, as in the case with my response to Chris Zucker, in which you focused on one word which you found objectionable. If you wish to make this public, which given your obvious animus towards me you may well decide to do, I request that you fully reveal this and the e-mail of last night.
Regarding this "final e-mail": Since I have decided that there is no choice but to make this public, considering all the trouble it has stirred up, and all the discussions (private and public) among others which I know to have taken place re this issue, I have honored Janet's request to include her e-mails to me. But there is no "animus" on my part; for me it is a matter of principle and it is important that I make my position known.
"I tried repeatedly to call you about this and you responded that you were sick and also busy writing reports and doing radio. No time to return my call."
To my knowledge, there were no such calls, not that I received, much less "repeatedly". Nor did I refuse to discuss any of this; on the contrary, I tried to call her, sent e-mails requesting a discussion of the issues, and the responses I got by e-mail (these being the ONLY responses) are given above.
"I also expressed concern that there was so much divisiveness going on. I addressed my perceptions of the word divisiveness in the previous e-mail, which you seem to think refers to socialism or communism. The dictionary defines this as "discord."
On one hand, she claims she "did not discuss" the issue with Zucker. Then, she contradicts that statement by saying : "I also expressed concern that there was so much divisiveness going on". So, according to Janet Phelan, "also" expressing her concern about "divisiveness", is NOT part of the discussion she claims NOT to have had with Zucker? In fact, such comments made to Zucker were misleading him about the real and ONLY issue, as well as misrepresenting my position on this matter, which I had made very clear.
And no, I am not looking for more enemies, nor have I decided to nominate Janet Phelan. For the record, I do not consider her my enemy. And I am saddened by the loss of the friendship.
But considering the events and the serious nature of the disagreement, I now understand that her standards of acceptable behavior and her views on "privacy", on friendship, and on what is --and what is not-- respectful of the personal boundaries of the Individual, are completely incompatible with mine. As noted earlier, "irreconcilable differences".
I made a simple and reasonable request that Janet Phelan NOT discuss me with anyone who was using my name, trying to stick their noses into my personal/professional business. I do not want my personal boundaries invaded, even by the mention of my name. This is MY policy, and I cannot imagine why anyone would choose not to respect it.
But rather than respect my wishes, which I ploitely and reasonably requested, I got an argument in attempts to justify contacting aggressive persons who have publicly maligned my name, and comparisons with unrelated issues involving Janet's private conflicts with others, which had absolutely nothing to do with me.
As I have told Janet several times during the course of my association with her, I do not allow myself to get involved, or get into the middle of, personal conflicts between other people, whether they are my friends or not. I mind my own business and expect others to show me the respect of minding theirs.
But let me pose this question: What if Michelle Wolven HAD picked up the phone when Janet made the call? Would a discussion have ensued, using my name? Most likely it would have, otherwise why make the call to begin with, if there was no intent to discuss me. Add to this that the very act of making such a call could have resulted in Michelle Wolven (a known liar, busybody/stalker and provocateur) publicly discussing and (and misrepresenting) this call, to my detriment. But if no call had been made, Michelle Wolven would not have been given any window of opportunity to further denigrate my name, nor stir up strife and conflicts.
And to compare the fact that I simply thanked a talk show host for the opportunity to appear on his program, a person with whom I have no problems, and who is NOT running a public libel campaign against Janet Phelan, to her making a call to a known enemy of mine, is entirely beyond the pale.
Again, I did not try to "rationalize" anything, nor did I "misreport" anything. All statements made in my report were, upon information and belief, based on what I was told directly by Janet Phelan, and what I personally experienced.
Janet's perceptions are obviously far different, and she is entitled to believe what she will, but that does not change the objective reality of the situation.
As for the "divisiveness" issue, I don't need anyone to send me a dictionary definition in attempts to support an argument, which by my standards, has no merit. I know the meaning of the word. And the fact remains, there was NO divisiveness (by any definition of the word) between me, as an "individual" and Chris Zucker, a person I DO NOT KNOW, and with whom I have never had any contact!
And the fact remains that by responding to Chris Zucker's defamatory complaint against Barbara Hartwell (which she did NOT share with me, but which was forwarded to me by another recipient, Geral Sosbee) with a comment on "divisiveness", she was evading the real issue, which was the damages done to me by the massive libel campaign of the criminal perp and calumniator, Ken Adachi, and by any and all who would promote his website --contrary to her statements, that she was "not involved", and that she did not discuss it with Zucker.
And if Janet considers my report, in which I simply stated the facts, and defended my position as far as my RIGHT to privacy and having my personal boundaries respected, as an "attack", then so be it, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I have heard this same argument many times before, from those who apparently cannot distinguish larger ISSUES, especially of principle, from personal affronts. It seems that some people simply cannot have a disagreement, without calling it an "attack", especially if it is made public.
I am also accused of "faithlessness" as a friend. But what kind of "friend' would be trafficking with my known enemies (the devils Adachi and Wolven), using my name, or responding in any way to clear attempts to extract information, and to disparage, denigrate and defame my good name?
"Friends resolve issues between themselves"
Yes, assuming the issues CAN be resolved. I tried. In this case, I was not about to become embroiled in endless arguments, considering that the other party had clearly defined her standards as being irreconcilable with mine.
Speaking strictly for myself, I do not discuss my friends with their known enemies, nor with those who would disparage them in any way. Anything I have to say regarding others (friends, enemies or otherwise) I have no trouble saying directly to their face, or in a public report, as the case may be, and there is nothing not consistent with what will be said to third parties, or to the public at large.
I do not violate anyone's confidence, nor invade their privacy. I respect the personal boundaries of others, AS DEFINED BY THEM (friends and strangers alike). And when in doubt as to precisely what those boundaries are, rather than risk violating them, I keep my distance and say or do nothing at all.
Especially, if someone requests that I NOT discuss him/her with others ( for any reason) I respect the wishes of that person, and I would expect that person to show me the same respect and courtesy.
But trafficking with the devil is against my principles, and a dangerous game that is bound to backfire, one that I do not engage in.
When considering the perpetrators of evil, such as Michelle Wolven, Ken Adachi, those of their ilk, or those who promote and support them, for me it is a WAR against malicious adversaries, who are the sole aggressors, whose purpose is to destroy me and all that I stand for --NOT a garden party, or some sort of game.
I do not engage in "social engineering" or "situational ethics", but rather stand on moral absolutes. My first loyalty is to principles, not persons. I do not make excuses for the behavior of wrongdoers, nor do I sacrifice truth to "keep the peace."
And in every case where I am attacked (be it by libel, slander, defamation, calumny or otherwise) I will defend myself by any and all lawful and ethical means available to me.
And I would thank anyone who wants to be my friend or ally to remember that, and show me the respect of acting accordingly.
Barbara Hartwell Percival
October 22, 2013
EXPOSED: Libel, Slander, Harassment by Busybody/Stalker Michelle Wolven
"Freedom Fighter" Chris Zucker Launches Complaint Against Barbara Hartwell
For the Record: A Message on Privacy & Sovereignty
Barbara Hartwell Percival
Legal Defense & Research Trust
PO Box 22
Old Orchard Beach
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA
Legal Defense & Research Trust
PO Box 22
Old Orchard Beach
Barbara Hartwell Vs. CIA