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.
BHP
July 17, 2013
Trafficking with the Devil
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".
E-MAIL EXCHANGES
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.":
Janet,
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."
My response:
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
Janet,
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, especially 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,
Geral"
***************
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 control 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, assuming 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.
"Dear Barbara,
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 e-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,
Janet
*****************
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:
Janet,
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 characters 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
Divisive
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,
Janet"
*******************
And lastly, this "final e-mail", which I did not
answer, for the same reasons mentioned above.
"Barbara,
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.
Janet Phelan"
********************
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
politely 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.
IN SUMMARY
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
RELATED REPORTS
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
Legal Defense & Research Trust
Barbara
Hartwell Vs. CIA