On August 25, 2011, I was out backpacking when John M. Knapp, LMSW, my former cult-recovery therapist, began posting his public online defamation targeted at me and others in an attempt to smear his targets. Knapp posted his articles on his then non-profit website, thechsca.org. (The Center for Healing Spiritual and Cutlic Abuse)
My online friend, L*** N**, knew I was out backpacking. L*** informed Mo**** Pi******, PhD, that I was without internet service.
M***** and I had never previously discussed the complaint I'd filed against Knapp in September, 2010. We only discussed it after Knapp threw M***** and I together in his August, 2011, online false claims.
M***** read Knapp's online posts and then wrote Knapp privately addressing Knapp's highly unethical behavior. Knapp then turns his public online defamation and assault from me toward M***** in multiple posts on his then Center for Healing Spiritual and Cultic Abuse website.
He began his public assault against M***** with the piece M***** P*******, PhD: Is This Cyberharrassment??!.
Posted below is Knapp's second public assault on M***** which he entitled More Ca*** We***, Cyberstalkder Crap -- featuring M***** P*******, PhD. As in Knapp's other writings, his assaults are juvenile and twisted.
M***** addresses Knapp's claims against her here: John Knapp, LMSW: Timeline of My Very Limited Contacts With Him .
[Update with link: Knapp's license was revoked in January, 2014.]
_____
[begin Knapp article; highlights are Knapp's]
More Ca*** We***, Cyberstalker Crap—featuring M***** P*******, PhD
Written by John M. Knapp, LMSW
Folks, M***** P*******, PhD, just can't stop herself.
M*****, please.
Puh-lease.
For the sake of whatever is holy in your world, please do not stop responding.
You are demonstrating precisely what I have been talking about.
If this isn't cyberbullying, pray tell, what is?
23 minutes ago
M***** P*******
- I am not threatening to sue you. [Um, I never said you were.] You are the one who is threatening people and you are not paying attention. I have already indicated to what the falsehood is. You made the false statement about me that I am unemployed. I am not unemployed. In fact, I am self employed and work about 40 hours per week and now that I have let you know that, it is a knowingly made, factually false statement. You have the right to make a fool of yourself by attacking me, but no right to make false statements such as this about me.
- [Since you raise the point, exactly what ARE you employed doing? So far as I know, you aren't employed in a capacity that requires a PhD. But I stand ready to be corrected. In any regard, I can't imagine a judge in her or his right mind hearing such a case. Can you give me a precedent?]
- And by the way you appear to be ignorant about what the law says about public figures and defamation. It is precisely the opposite of what you think. if "no one has ever heard" of me that would make my hypothetical case (that I don't intend to bring but could) even stronger because it would mean I am not a public figure and my burden of proof would be much less than if I were. [For defamation, you need to prove willful intent and damages. Good luck with that. But I still don't believe you are employed as a PhD. Convince me.] For public figures, malice must be proven, but for unknown people such as myself, I would only have to prove that you were negligent in getting your facts straight although I have to say you are displaying quite a malicious attitude towards me as well. You don't know me and have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion about me, as I am, in fact, employed. [Whether you are employed as a PhD or not is just a fact. If I reported the fact incorrectly, I will naturally apologize.] Just because I am not faculty somewhere doesn't mean that I am unemployed. There are plenty of other ways for PhDs to make a living. [Yes. The imagination runs wild.]
- But more importantly, John, it sounds to me from the looks of your ramblings like you really could benefit from some competent professional help. [Wild!!! A supposed mental health professional disparages someone's mental health in public just because she's pissed off. I don't think I'm the only one smelling hypocrisy. It has the smell of something someone unpleasant burning.] However, your state of mind is no excuse for the public maligning of your former client that you have engaged in and according to the NASW code of ethics, it doesn't matter how long ago she was your client. And yes, if you are really giving up your license, I realize that's a moot point [Ta! Da! The fucking light bulb clicks on!] and I am glad to hear it but it really does sound to me like you are burning your bridges, should you ever regret your decision to leave the profession. After all, most of the guidelines in the ex-cult literature urge people seeking therapy to seek therapy only from licensed individuals. [Your concern, both for my mental health and professional bridges touches me deeply. No. Sincerely. Right here. {John taps the chest over his heart.}]
- And no, a former client writing about her experience with you and how she feels, which is what C**** has done, is not cyber stalking. [Oh, dear M***** PhD, as I outlined she has done so much, much more than that. Please read what I wrote and get back to me.] It is you who are making empty threats. You have no case against her so yes, what you are threatening there is pure science fiction. [Then why the fuck do you care????? Either for C**** W**** or, much more likely, for yourself? As to the case, that's simply a matter for a court to decide. No point in pissing and moaning about it here.] For something to be actionable for cyberstalking it must contain credible threats and based on what I have seen of her blog, there are no such threats, only her opinions and personal experience[.] [What is on C****'s blog is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of what she has written. Google and its Reader are simply miraculours [sic] contraptions. As is off-site storage of data going back more than a year.] We have a constitution that guarantees people the right to express those. It sounds to me like you are threatening a SLAPP suit. Google that. Also ask your lawyer how much such a suit would cost you and if you lose, she might be able to ask you to reimburse her as well. [Again, thanks for your concern about my financial well-being. But I believe I have that covered. Tell your buddy C**** to have her lawyer contact me for my legal representation. I believe we could settle this in one, very-much-to-the-point sit down.]
- R** F******* made the same threats to me as you are making and he lost against me in Federal court, big time and that fact is now public record. [Uh, I don't know who the fuck R** F******* is. At least I don't think I am. Let me check the note pinned to my sleeve. Nope, definitely not him. And no offense to R**? I don't much fucking care who he is. He's still not me.]
10 minutes ago
M***** P*******
- Oh, and by the way, I have been on the other side of this as well. [So many, many, many perpetrators were victims themselves. Didja ever notice that?] As you have noticed, I have been the target of cyber harassment where anonymous people have put up a number of blogs about me, many more than have been put up about you. This smear campaign has lasted for two years. I did a great deal of homework on this topic, including talking to law enforcement about whether any of this was actionable and they told me that no, public postings such as blogs are not actionable unless they contain very specific, credible threats. The only other way something could be actionable is if someone directly e-mails or phones you, you ask them so stop and they don't. But public postings are not actionable unless they contain very specific threats. Just sayin. [At rather stomach-churning length, it seems to me. Obviously I'm getting different legal input. Let's see how this all plays out in court for everyone concerned.]
[end Knapp article]
_____
_____
Click here to continue: For the Record: Part Five
_____
No comments:
Post a Comment