It has come to our attention here at QFG that Vincent Bridges, the subject of an investigative article on this site, in true psychopathic fashion, has announced his intention to sue Perseus Foundation which is totally uninvolved with this research. The research was conducted by a loose group of individuals who banded together to form the Quantum Future School. Actually, his implied intentions are to sue Laura, specifically, assuming and declaring (erroneously, as it happens), that she is the one who did all the research and wrote the article.
In his remarks, Mr. Bridges states, again erroneously, that he can sue for “defamation” because “in defamation actions, the truth or falsehood of the defamation is not the issue.”
As it happens, defamation is a legal term that is the “set” of which libel and slander are the subset. In order for something to be proved defamatory, it must be proven that it is either libel or slander FIRST. And to prove that it is libel or slander, one must first prove that it is untrue.
WHAT IS NOT DEFAMATION The following is where defamation does not occur:
Opinions, properly worded and identified as such, are not defamatory. It’s called “Free Speech.”
Statements that lack any of the three required elements: 1) they are true 2) they are not communicated to a third person 3) they do not damage character or reputation.
In other words, whether a statement is TRUE or NOT is the very crux of defamation. In other words, the court will FIRST inquire as to whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false. See Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir.’94) (applying three-factor test as the starting point for analysis); Unelko Corp. v. Rooney, 912 F.2d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.’90), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 961 (1991).
We have offered a free venue for Mr. Bridges to post his bona fides. We have acted in good faith and with due diligence. The simplest response would be for him to provide evidence that his many claims are true and that those who have refuted them are lying. And, as we noted, we double checked, and provided each of them with Mr. Bridges full statement so that they would be responding solely to Mr. Bridges’ own claims rather than any presentation of facts in a “biased and skewed manner,” as Mr. Bridges has claimed.
Mr. Bridges complains that we “did NOT do a very good job of researching my past, they did a very selective one with a specific result in mind.”
We would like to ask: how can it be selective if each of his claims was addressed on the premise that it was true, and it was his own words we used in the requests for information? Is Mr. Bridges saying that his words were “selective and had a specific result in mind?”
Further, in his claim that we have spent the past few weeks “tracking and confusing people into saying they never heard of me,” Mr. Bridges insults the intelligence of Professors, Editors, Doctors and other professionals. We repeat: at all times a full account was sent to all parties of Mr. Bridges’ total life story and claims. There was no confusion whatsoever. Everything was and is crystal clear – except to Mr. Bridges, who still hasn’t understood that his own statements are, and continue to be, true libel and defamation.
Rather than directly addressing the issue, or producing his proofs, Mr. Bridges has claimed that there are “several pending lawsuits” against Ark and Laura for “breach of contract on Noah, the liability suit on the conference and arising from that the defamation of character action.” [NOTE: None of this has ever materialized].
We should like to point out that, first of all, there was never any contract with Mr. Bridges regarding any publishing, nor was there any finalized agreement about his conference. He has claimed a “verbal agreement.” This verbal agreement was tentative, and was based on certain condtions being met, and Mr. Bridges failed to meet those conditions. We obtained legal counsel and were instructed to set a date for compliance. Mr. Bridges was notified in writing, Mr. Bridges defaulted, thereby ending any “contractural agreement” of any kind by his own actions – or rather, failure to act. And since, we are discussing legalities, according to the agreement, the conference was only agreed upon as a venue to introduce published matter. That “verbal agreement” also ended with the default of the book publishing agreement by Mr. Bridges himself. We invite him to spend his great wealth on frivolous lawsuits as it will give us the perfect venue to establish many things in a legal setting. In fact, we might even produce a “class action” response. So far as we can see, only his close associates ever end up being sued, and Mr. Bridges always manages to remain on the sidelines. Anyone who is a close associate ought to look carefully to what they are “motivated” to say or do on Mr. Bridges behalf.
As it happens, we are aware of a deposition, a sworn legal statement of evidence of “extreme bad faith, misdirection, and willful, vicious fraud and disparagement” on the part of Mr. Bridges in his dealings with others.
For example: Mr. Bridges, taking up a “ready made” accusation against us that we are “paranoid and vindictive” in the publication of the article about his references, seems to have forgotten the following items regarding the copyrighted Cassiopaean material which Mr.”Vincent Bridges” was apparently sharing illegally after we had informed him that he was requested to return our CD of unpublished material. Any permission he may have inferred (because such permission was NOT given, and was specifically denied) to publish our unpublished material, by his possession of same was denied, revoked, officially cancelled, etc. Nevertheless, there is sufficient cause to believe that he conspired with others to act illegally against us and the Berne Copyright Convention. More than that, there is sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to violate privacy, to defame, to libel, to slander, that it will be of great value to get all parties in court, under oath, regarding these matters. We have already received the documents from Yahoo’s legal department, signing of which will put in motion their tracking and investigation of messages and sources.
From: “Storm Bear Williams”
Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 7:11 pm
Subject: Arkster
Here is another little thought. You can use the open source Napster software to “share” the outlawed C transcripts and all the posts on the C list!
["The charter officers of the PAC have been selected and they are Storm Bear Williams; President/Treasurer, "Vincent Bridges"; Vice- President and Bill Stewart will serve as PAC Secretary."]
From: “Andrew Hennessey”
Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 7:39 pm
Subject: Re: [matrioshka] Arkster
where can I get the outlawed C transcripts. I love it when truth and freedom of thought is censored, it gets me curious ….. andrew hennessey
From: “Teresa” <burnst@u…> ( Dr. Teresa Burns, University of Wisconsin at Platteville)
Date: Tue Nov 13, 2001 11:29 am
Subject: Re: Alleged Petty Tyrants
(If I remember the words right, and if I remember the date, it was 9-1 Message 13534. Or actually, did I get that from the complete archives, now available with the complete transcripts at an Austrian napster-esque site? L’ark, could people be circulating and downloading all of those as you speak? Or could you have been smart enough to copy-protect that CD? Could this all be a joke?):
Dr. Burns may like to answer those questions under oath. We do hope that Mr. Bridges provides that opportunity at his expense. To bring suit for defamation of character the plaintiff in this case at least, must be willing to permit his life to be revealed as an open book.
So, as he continues to claim that the Perseus Foundation is “presenting lies and innuendo as facts based upon fraudulent and misleading “research” … as it demonstrates malice and forethought in the creation of their defamatory libel. And that is just what they have done,” he continues the process of his own libel and defamation against us, because, as it happens, we can call the witnesses to prove it is false. We will also continue to forward his claims to those very witnesses whose intelligence he is insulting by claiming they were “confused” or “misled.”
The far more interesting result of our article about Mr. “Vincent Bridges” has been the communications we have received from others who have experienced the EXACT same thing. The general trend of the story is that an individual who is working to bridge the gap betwen science and mysticism, and to draw rational and realistic attention to the Matrix manipulations is targeted and they receive communication from someone who then goes on to con them into thinking they are friends. The use of friendship and emotional triggers to forestall due diligence is the first step.
The stories center around the obvious brilliance of the perpetrator, the intricate body of claims, which in due course are uncovered as pathological lying of the most extreme and unfathomable kind.
The targeted individual is taken in by seeming kindness and sheer brilliance. Correspondence ensues about those subjects that are dear to the heart of the researcher. Phone calls are soon being exchanged to further discuss the research. As one correspondent noted, these are some of the greatest conversations ever. Next, the personal visits begin and a building of a business relationship that ultimately leads to contracts and choices by the target that lead them to quit high-paying jobs and making arrangements to become even more involved in the life of the perpetrator.
The next part of the manipulation is to “wind up” the target by making them believe that the association is causing the perpetrator to “catch a lot of ‘heat’ from spooky agencies as well as ‘magickal’ groups. They describe being stalked, having their computers hacked, suffering all kinds of attacks because they are acting for “the good of mankind,” even if in their dark past, they did get close to the pit. Naturally, they were appalled by their “close call,” and that is why they are so knowledgable about such things, even if they have decided to use their knowledge “for the good!”
However, as our own experience shows, and is now confirmed by the identical experience of others, the moment the target resists, the stalker “snaps” and behaves like a “dog with rabies,” as it was charmingly put. They turn on the target and become incredibly cruel and vicious, falsely accusing the target “slander and playing sick games.” As it happens, in our own case as well as these other incidents, the stalker accuses the victim of essentially everything he/she is doing!
Now, the theory that is being proposed among those who have been victimized by this sort of scenario and who are now communicating, is this: (keep in mind that this is just a theory at the moment and that we are gathering more info daily) that there are “Stalkers” who are being used by the Matrix Control System to round up people who publicly discuss interdimensional physics and hyperdimensional realities. The theory continues that, once they have the people who are getting close to the truth in their “stable,” they are then programmed to self destruct in a distasteful way, so as to shed on all their associates the same kind of discredit and air of fraud that they, themselves, perpetrate, thereby tainting and making unsavory for free discussion the topic of interdimensional physics, hyperdimensional realities, and other Matrix busting ideas and technology.
If such a theory is viable, the the conclusion from all of this is that the Matrix Control System does NOT like what such discussions and revelations may accomplish, and the Matrix has no compunction about destroying people’s lives to stop it – even including the lives of their “agents.” The theory further posits that it seems that people who dabble in “magick,” in Wicca, in any kind of rituals, are particularly vulnerable to becoming hosts for these Matrix agents, whose function is to keep the awareness of multidimensional reality out of mass consciousness. They are unwitting G-men, programmed to take out people who want to bridge the gap between science and metaphysics by encouraging the kinds of discussions and explorations that we do.
