 |
| Hannah Merz, Carroll's "rising star" posted by "Yves Helory" |
You might want to just skip this post unless you are a fan of silly soap operas.
Another month, another lawsuit threat....
I've already posted about Church Militant's July 27th threat to sue us. And now it's August. About ten days ago we got a second lawsuit threat -- this time from Rebecca Carroll's lawyer friend.
We must be doing something right. My experience is that when you start exposing lies, all hell (and I mean that literally) breaks loose. Every time I've been threatened with a lawsuit, it's been about something people want to hide.
Let's review the situation. My blog partner, Susan, wrote an article about her supposition that Rebecca Maivy Carroll was the "counselor" who advised Jassy Jacas and Hannah Merz in their accusations against the SSPX and Fr. Pierre Duverger. While Christine Niles used her interview with Jacas in a general way to attack the order, the actual accusations against Fr. Pierre Duverger involved Jacas feeling like a "grooming" victim, a feeling she arrived at several years after her last contact with the priest. CM, which first presented Jacas as a "victim," soon changed their meme to "whistleblower," a title that more easily evokes images of an Amazon warrior instead of a poor little girl.
Christine Niles threatened a lawsuit over Susan's article and demanded we take it down the day after it posted. I did, not because I feared a lawsuit, but I was concerned the article might have been unfair to Carroll. I don't want to imitate Church Militant's habit of using supposition, hearsay, and innuendo to imply evil which appears to be a major part of their strategy. They use it regularly against anyone with whom they disagree.
CM is clearly biased against the SSPX. I don't want to be biased against CM. Imitating evil is no way to fight evil.
The article was only up for about 24 hours. The post date was July 27th, I took it down July 28th, replacing the content with my own commentary.
The lawyer's claim in the latest lawsuit threat is that Susan did irreparable harm to Carroll's reputation. But even more than that, he claims the post did "universal and eternal harm" to Carroll.
Wow!
"Universal?" Like to the outer reaches of the universe and back?
"Eternal harm?" Like per omnia secula seculorum, forever and ever, Amen?
I laughed when I read that, because it is so patently ridiculous on its face, especially since the content about Carroll has been on the internet for over a year.
Most of Susan's article reported the words of an anonymous source on Facebook and Twitter with the user name "Yves Helory." The lawyer attributed those quotes to Susan. I'm no lawyer, but that seems to me to be a serious problem in making a case for "defamation" against Susan.
I don't like using anonymous sources and don't in any of my posts. If I don't know who said it, I don't use it. I also don't necessarily agree with everything on my blog. On occasion I invite someone with a different viewpoint "who complains" to do a guest piece presenting the opposite point of view. I think reasoned Socratic dialogue helps lead to clarity in the search for truth.
When CM launched their lawsuit threat, I read Susan's article and the Facebook and Twitter posts by "Yves" (from the previous year) which, as I've said, Susan quoted extensively. "Yves" published his comments shortly after CM's Spotlight piece, SSPX: Sympathetic to Perverts appeared in April 2020. (Note the biased, loaded language in the headline! The entire piece reeks of it and also slanders Archbishop Lefebvre.)
"Yves" appears to be an insider with solid information about Rebecca Carroll's and Jassy's association with Merz. He posted screen shots of Carroll's tweet describing Hannah as "one of her rising star pupils" and has several posts of Jassy and Hannah corresponding. [I'm posting some of "Yves'" Facebook/Twitter commentary as an appendix at the end of this article. A longer Twitter thread is here. "Yves" is apparently French and the translation is rough.]
In view of the "counselor" putting Jacas and Merz in touch with each other, there was certainly circumstantial evidence for Susan's supposition that Jacas, Merz, and Carroll were connected. I'll take Carroll at her word, however, that she wasn't the counselor. But it's certainly an odd coincidence. Imagine, two different counselors involved in connecting the two accusers, one of whom is closely connected to Carroll. But maybe there aren't many counselors in Post Falls and Boise.
At any rate, in the face of the five-page document sent by Carroll's lawyer friend, I contacted my own lawyer friend. Here's an abbreviated version of our exchange:
Me: Thanks for agreeing to look at this. I’m not asking for anything but a legal opinion. I took down the post on July 28th and replaced it with a piece about the situation. Most of what the lawyer quotes were not Susan’s words, but quotes taken from an anonymous twitter feed of someone named Yves .... At any rate, the post is no longer up. What do you think?
Another month, another lawsuit threat....
I've already posted about Church Militant's July 27th threat to sue us. And now it's August. About ten days ago we got a second lawsuit threat -- this time from Rebecca Carroll's lawyer friend.
We must be doing something right. My experience is that when you start exposing lies, all hell (and I mean that literally) breaks loose. Every time I've been threatened with a lawsuit, it's been about something people want to hide.
Let's review the situation. My blog partner, Susan, wrote an article about her supposition that Rebecca Maivy Carroll was the "counselor" who advised Jassy Jacas and Hannah Merz in their accusations against the SSPX and Fr. Pierre Duverger. While Christine Niles used her interview with Jacas in a general way to attack the order, the actual accusations against Fr. Pierre Duverger involved Jacas feeling like a "grooming" victim, a feeling she arrived at several years after her last contact with the priest. CM, which first presented Jacas as a "victim," soon changed their meme to "whistleblower," a title that more easily evokes images of an Amazon warrior instead of a poor little girl.
Christine Niles threatened a lawsuit over Susan's article and demanded we take it down the day after it posted. I did, not because I feared a lawsuit, but I was concerned the article might have been unfair to Carroll. I don't want to imitate Church Militant's habit of using supposition, hearsay, and innuendo to imply evil which appears to be a major part of their strategy. They use it regularly against anyone with whom they disagree.
CM is clearly biased against the SSPX. I don't want to be biased against CM. Imitating evil is no way to fight evil.
The article was only up for about 24 hours. The post date was July 27th, I took it down July 28th, replacing the content with my own commentary.
The lawyer's claim in the latest lawsuit threat is that Susan did irreparable harm to Carroll's reputation. But even more than that, he claims the post did "universal and eternal harm" to Carroll.
Wow!
"Universal?" Like to the outer reaches of the universe and back?
"Eternal harm?" Like per omnia secula seculorum, forever and ever, Amen?
I laughed when I read that, because it is so patently ridiculous on its face, especially since the content about Carroll has been on the internet for over a year.
Most of Susan's article reported the words of an anonymous source on Facebook and Twitter with the user name "Yves Helory." The lawyer attributed those quotes to Susan. I'm no lawyer, but that seems to me to be a serious problem in making a case for "defamation" against Susan.
I don't like using anonymous sources and don't in any of my posts. If I don't know who said it, I don't use it. I also don't necessarily agree with everything on my blog. On occasion I invite someone with a different viewpoint "who complains" to do a guest piece presenting the opposite point of view. I think reasoned Socratic dialogue helps lead to clarity in the search for truth.
When CM launched their lawsuit threat, I read Susan's article and the Facebook and Twitter posts by "Yves" (from the previous year) which, as I've said, Susan quoted extensively. "Yves" published his comments shortly after CM's Spotlight piece, SSPX: Sympathetic to Perverts appeared in April 2020. (Note the biased, loaded language in the headline! The entire piece reeks of it and also slanders Archbishop Lefebvre.)
"Yves" appears to be an insider with solid information about Rebecca Carroll's and Jassy's association with Merz. He posted screen shots of Carroll's tweet describing Hannah as "one of her rising star pupils" and has several posts of Jassy and Hannah corresponding. [I'm posting some of "Yves'" Facebook/Twitter commentary as an appendix at the end of this article. A longer Twitter thread is here. "Yves" is apparently French and the translation is rough.]
In view of the "counselor" putting Jacas and Merz in touch with each other, there was certainly circumstantial evidence for Susan's supposition that Jacas, Merz, and Carroll were connected. I'll take Carroll at her word, however, that she wasn't the counselor. But it's certainly an odd coincidence. Imagine, two different counselors involved in connecting the two accusers, one of whom is closely connected to Carroll. But maybe there aren't many counselors in Post Falls and Boise.
At any rate, in the face of the five-page document sent by Carroll's lawyer friend, I contacted my own lawyer friend. Here's an abbreviated version of our exchange:
Me: Thanks for agreeing to look at this. I’m not asking for anything but a legal opinion. I took down the post on July 28th and replaced it with a piece about the situation. Most of what the lawyer quotes were not Susan’s words, but quotes taken from an anonymous twitter feed of someone named Yves .... At any rate, the post is no longer up. What do you think?
Lawyer: The attorney's language is melodramatic ("eternal harm," "monstrous lies") but I strongly doubt he "can prove damages." This guy must have time on his hands; things must be quiet in Meridian (Idaho). There is certainly no intent on your part to damage anyone's reputation either now or forever....And tell the attorney that you have not retained an attorney as you do not feel you need one despite his language and gratuitous lecture on the law of defamation.
Me: Most of what the attorney objects to is not Susan's writing, but Susan quoting an anonymous twitter thread....I appreciate your reading this nonsense and giving your opinion and advice. I’ve attached the original [article] that Susan wrote. My default position right now is to do nothing.
Lawyer: I agree with your default position.
Me: Do you think Susan has anything to worry about?
Lawyer: No, I don’t think she has anything to worry about. This wordy gasbag of a lawyer demonstrates why people don’t like lawyers. I don’t like many myself!
I guess we don't need to set up a Go Fund Me page just yet.
So there you have it. The latest update on how the world turns in the CM universe. Susan's suppositions and opinions deserve a lawsuit. Church Militant's suppositions and opinions (and slanders) prove what a crackerjack investigator Christine Niles is.
Gosh! Is Christine living in a virtual detective novel where she is Sherlock Holmes and anyone who challenges her is the master criminal Professor Moriarty?
Interesting thought.
One last point. Church Militant expects everyone to jump through their hoops. If they make a charge and the chargee doesn't immediately go on the defensive, it proves they are guilty. If they defend themselves, it proves they are guilty. If they do nothing, it proves they are guilty.
Seems to me that Church Militant has adopted the strategy of liberals always talking about white privilege and white racism. All "rad trads" are "pedo-enablers," especially if they expect CM to treat fairly those with whom they disagree. And if you say you aren't a "pedo-enabler" it just proves you are. And if you try to "unite the clans" you are guilty of "self-serving and self-promoting garbage."
No one will every accuse Church Militant of being committed to charity toward fellow Catholics.
In fact, there is nothing fair-minded or charitable about the Church of Nasty at CM, and any objective person who reads their attacks on The Remnant, LifeSiteNews, Catholic Family News, as well as the SSPX, knows it. I understand why people don't engage with them. They play fast and loose and they play dirty. I've added a page to my blog with all the articles we've done on Church Militant if you care.
Interesting thought.
One last point. Church Militant expects everyone to jump through their hoops. If they make a charge and the chargee doesn't immediately go on the defensive, it proves they are guilty. If they defend themselves, it proves they are guilty. If they do nothing, it proves they are guilty.
Seems to me that Church Militant has adopted the strategy of liberals always talking about white privilege and white racism. All "rad trads" are "pedo-enablers," especially if they expect CM to treat fairly those with whom they disagree. And if you say you aren't a "pedo-enabler" it just proves you are. And if you try to "unite the clans" you are guilty of "self-serving and self-promoting garbage."
No one will every accuse Church Militant of being committed to charity toward fellow Catholics.
In fact, there is nothing fair-minded or charitable about the Church of Nasty at CM, and any objective person who reads their attacks on The Remnant, LifeSiteNews, Catholic Family News, as well as the SSPX, knows it. I understand why people don't engage with them. They play fast and loose and they play dirty. I've added a page to my blog with all the articles we've done on Church Militant if you care.
Appendix:
Yves Helory August 19, 2020
ChurchMilitant (wondered for which Church they are militating), heard of a rumor by an American woman named Jassy Jacas.
Jacas (! ), the well-appointed, has a mission to ′′ clean up ′′ the FSSPX because she would have been abused by a cousin, and her parents, hesitating to act, would not have done so after taking advice from of FSSPX priests.
Adult, extremely suspicious of FSSPX priests and suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (as she publicly claims), she felt ′′ assaulted ′′ by Father Duverger's questions she asked for help on the subject spiritual problems and temptations that his trauma would have led to.
According to her, this priest was asking her questions to abuse her one day (what she has no evidence and what he has never done, she specifically herself publicly. ) For those who know Abbot Duverger, he is highly likely to ask Jassy to clarify what she was trying to say.
Waiting for news from this abbot and not receiving it, Jacas performs this amazing (and unrealistic) fact: Jacas believes the priest would have had temptations of impurity towards her.
Despite the fact that this priest does not contact her, Jassy Jacas thought he was chased by him.
Jassy Jacas went to see a mysterious therapist whose identity she hides, who would have told her there is another victim (Hannah Merz) among her patients, and who would have put her in touch with her (!!), way of doing it very questionable from a therapist...
This alleged victim (Hannah Merz) has already accused her father of sexual assault (which would have occurred as a baby), as well as a pension partner, boyfriend, and now a priest. She has strange memories, like intra uterine memories, (before her birth). All of this is public, online, because she ′′ writes "... (Her name is now Hannah Solomon since the day before yesterday. ))
This person is known for breaking the majority of his friendships until the latest, accusing people of all sorts of false things.
Jacas has been made aware of Hannah Merz's manipulation and lies by Hannah's sisters and friends. But for Jassy Jacas, any story can serve his cause.
This is how an old rumor came back.
Jacas confided in a priest who doesn't lack merits, but is sadly known to be talkative without fact checking. Writing to Jacas, this priest mentioned a rumor about Father Duverger from the time he was in Bordeaux, presenting him as a proven fact. Jacas jumped on this opportunity to give this to newspapers.
One rumor confirms another and this is how someone becomes ′′ guilty ", and ′′ pervert ", without trial.
When Jacas jacasse without proof, Hannah Merz makes it a novel.
All of this falls into the hands of ChurchMilitant, and this abbot becomes ′′ guilty ′′ in the eyes of all, still without trial.
ChurchMilitant found the old Bordeaux pudding and some ′′ details ′′ through a website that no longer exists, and has failed to speak to any person concerned. The newspaper still made an article accusing Father Duverger.
ChurchMilitant now has the article translated into French by asking to share it, in order to find someone or something that would incriminate the priest. But know that if the facts don't go the way of ChurchMilitant, they will never be considered. If you question ChurchMilitant, you become ′′ guilty ′′ yourself. Just read the many exchanges of journalist Christine Niles online to see.
This journalist Christine Niles builds the Duverger case on the testimony of a Jacas whose own version changed between what she told people before making things public, and her interview with ChurchMilitant.
Finally, for ChurchMilitant who judges without law or title, the end justifies the means, and this has gone very far in some cases. Sex scandals make money to some newspapers. This is the bottom of this forgery. See also https://www.facebook.com/yves.helory.75 and https://twitter.com/HeloryYves/status/1291132630096904193
See original
These are not normal times. The Western world is in flames. The spirit of revolution is in the air, in so many ways.
ReplyDelete“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” (Thomas Paine)
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” (Patrick Henry)
“Give me liberty, or give me death”. (Patrick Henry)
You have written recently of the parallels between now and the French Revolution. This lawsuit emerges from that miasma.
Here is a group of women bringing the vilest and most serious of charges against a Priest and against the entire Society from which he comes - and they are upset because you wrote a negative opinion piece about them. Verbal, legal, physical violence comes from, and is expected from the revolutionaries. Submission and quiet acceptance of our fate is required from the objects of their hatred. They are allowed to make unsupported public accusations. The objects of their charge and their supporters must sit quietly and nod in agreement; perhaps pick up pitchforks, torches join the mob … at least don’t try to stop the mob. Oh, no, no, no. Stand back and let the revolutionaries take it all.
They don’t bring formal legal charges against the objects of their hate - the process of discovery, adjudication, meet your accuser, presumption of innocence, impartial judge, impartial jury, the process of law and its protections decides guilt and innocence. Normally, this is how it is done under a nation of Law. In a nation of revolution, you make your charge in public, impose it by an act of will and suppress all public opposition with threat of violence.
Yes, these are indeed times that try men’s souls …
“THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated” (Thomas Paine)