<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/atom10full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>Six Hours A Week: Adventures in American Exile</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/" />
    
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2007-10-05://1</id>
    <updated>2010-07-19T13:12:35Z</updated>
    <subtitle>A coping strategy, advocacy outlet, and form of protection. My life has been nearly destroyed by the unconstitutional practices of politically/socially-motivated private intelligence contractors and the corruption and cronyism that allow them. Apparently because I speak out in ways that prioritize the little guy and human and environmental health above gargantuan profit margins, and believe that facts are as important as PR spin, I was someone who had to be completely discredited. In 2007, after a few months of a surreal and relentless invasion of privacy and dignity, I started to spend six hours each week researching, communicating about, and advocating legal and ethical responses to assaults on our shared democratic and republican ideals. For most of that time I was writing from the perspective of someone whose life was manipulated into a constant state of terror and emergency. In 2010, many of the array of entrapment attempts seem to have failed and it seems no longer possible to get away with such excessive, obvious harassment and overt interference. As we take more practical steps to address what has been allowed to happen to my family, we do expect to see some more harassment and intimidation. But I should be able to chronicle it from a more measured perspective, rather than that of someone in constant fear. Part of me would like to go back and delete earlier posts, because even I find them hard to relate to in some ways. But this blog has been one of our only forms of protection as everyone in any official capacity ignored the truth and tried to spin and frame us into the troublemakers and perpetrators of one form or another. So I leave it up as a form of protection, a record of what has occurred, and (with luck) the account of our way back to credibility and some form of legitimate justice.

All content on this site is property of Kyeann Sayer. All rights reserved.</subtitle>
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Publishing Platform 4.01</generator>

<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/SixHoursAWeekAdventuresOfASuddenPatriot" /><feedburner:info xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" uri="sixhoursaweekadventuresofasuddenpatriot" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><entry>
    <title>Finding America in Reverse: John Wayne, My Grandfather, and The Searchers</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/07/finding-america-in-reverse-joh.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2010://1.112</id>

    <published>2010-07-19T07:59:36Z</published>
    <updated>2010-07-19T13:12:35Z</updated>

    <summary>We all go through various phases with our relatives -- of understanding, compassion and perspective. There was a time in my late teens and early 20s when I couldn't abide my grandfather. Then, to me, he was a racist, sexist...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Racism" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="johnwayne" label="john wayne" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="montana" label="montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="racism" label="racism" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="thesearchers" label="the searchers" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[<span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image"><img alt="200px-The_Searchers.jpg" src="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/200px-The_Searchers.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="margin: 0pt 20px 20px 0pt; float: left;" height="284" width="200" /></span>We all go through various phases with our relatives -- of understanding, compassion and perspective. There was a time in my late teens and early 20s when I couldn't abide my grandfather. Then, to me, he was a racist, sexist relic. My mom had taught me that respect for elders was not a given (she thought that unquestioned acquiescence led to authoritarianism), that respect was meant to be mutually earned regardless of age. This is why I didn't understand her continued reverence for him as he criticized her for hiring a neighbor boy to shovel the walk for her after she broke one of her ribs (it wasn't her leg, by God!) or her expectation when he breezed into town unannounced during finals week (I was an undergrad in summer school) that I would join the two of them for dinner rather than study. Couldn't he call ahead? Wait until after my exam? It would never occur to him to enter my schedule into his decision-making factors.<br /><br />When we did meet for dinner it was at an Asian Fusion sort of restaurant called the Mustard Seed. At one point during the meal he gazed around the room and loudly declared with awe and disgust, "Boy there sure are a lot of fat people in here." Sure that one of the targets of his comment at a nearby table had heard, I was mortified. This was one of the many prejudices that he was open about. In general he freely used racial epithets, still carrying the WWII-era perception of "Japs." He was surprised that there were none there since we were at an Asian restaurant.<br /><br />During all phases of my relationship to him, my Grandfather reminded me of the caricature of John Wayne -- tough, looming large, self-reliant. He was among the last of the "real cowboys" who earned their living out on the range and then went on to become a Montana rancher.&nbsp; He was over 6 feet tall, charismatic, and when in his element possessed a sureness and decisiveness that I've come across in few other people. The general reverence for him and lore around his life made his presence larger than life in our family always -- he never hired anyone to do anything he could do himself, worked every day of his life that he could, created a cattle empire with his wits and a fourth grade education, in his 70s crawled a mile through the snow with collapsed lungs and a broken back after a tree fell on him and then drove home opening 4 barbed wire gates along the way, etc.&nbsp; I considered him our own personal John Wayne since he shaped my family's views about self-reliance, individualism and discipline so completely that no one could even identify them as values -- they just were part of our unspoken expectations (ones whose questioning led to inevitable conflict and change over the years).<br /><br />Despite this overpowering association (and maybe because of it) I had never actually seen a John Wayne movie until watching <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Searchers_%28film%29">The Searchers</a> the other night. I don't call many movies weird, but it is: disjointed, blatantly but self-consciously racist, contradictory, inconsistent in tone, filled with unrealistic battle scenes, magnificently beautiful, and peppered with great and terrible acting (the Yankee soldier! Why?). Apparently it's widely considered the best American western. There's so much subtext, it's hard to know what to think of it. But John Wayne's character, Ethan, is unquestionably intolerable. He's vilely racist, sadistic, vindictive and generally awful. Though equipped with many of the skills necessary to rescue a niece captured by the Comanches from his post-Civil War settler relatives (he fought for the Confederacy), he's really the last person you'd want to go on a five-year search with.<br /><br />Really, I didn't know what to think of the film or how it related to my Grandfather. As much as he reminded me of John Wayne, he was also like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigger">Tigger</a> from Winnie the Pooh, with boundless energy, a sense of fun, and a tendency to break into song at unexpected moments. He was also very charming. Though openly racist, I couldn't imagine him harboring any racism so hateful as Wayne's Ethan character (who would rather kill his niece than allow her to continue living with the Comanche like she wants). So I did what I always do after seeing a movie, and started poking around Wikipedia for background and review links. <br /><br /><a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20011125/REVIEWS08/111250301/1023">Roger Ebert's</a> struck a chord:<br /><br /><blockquote>In ''The Searchers'' I think Ford was trying, imperfectly, even
nervously, to depict racism that justified genocide; the comic relief
may be an unconscious attempt to soften the message. Many members of
the original audience probably missed his purpose; Ethan's racism was
invisible to them, because they bought into his view of Indians. Eight
years later, in ''Cheyenne Autumn,'' his last film, Ford was more
clear. But in the flawed vision of ''The Searchers'' we can see Ford,
Wayne and the <a href="http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/classifieds?category=REVIEWS01&amp;TITLESearch=Western&amp;ToDate=20101231">Western</a> itself, awkwardly learning that a man who hates Indians can no longer be an uncomplicated hero.<br /><br /></blockquote>Wow. Soon after reading those words I had an epiphany about my relationship to my grandfather and to the United States' complicated history, relationships which were in many ways a reverse of the Western genre's trajectory. I began only being able to see flaws, exclusions and imperfections -- the multiple ways in which the protector-of-the-world America that I had been taught to admire as a child had never lived up to its own ideals, and was acting in direct contradiction to them. It was hard to be enthusiastically patriotic when patriotism seemed in so many ways tangled with nostalgia for America as the Western hero that we could not question. National discourse during my formative years (80s and early 90s) made patriotism and genuine moral engagement with our bloody and ugly past seem mutually exclusive.&nbsp; Similarly, how was I to resolve the fact that my grandfather was (as far as I knew) a man of integrity within his sphere (i.e., didn't cheat people in business, treated his neighbors well), and accomplished in so many ways, but who really did believe that I was less of a person because I was female, and wouldn't have been able to tolerate most of the people I knew? <br /><br />I don't want to give the impression that over time I learned to become tolerant of prejudice in general or any prejudices specifically. It's not as though I would have once condemned the Western hero and now embrace him. Rather, I became able to see my grandfather as an individual in a particular historical time and place.<br /><br />Also, over time, I began to see ways that I could remain vigilant against my own prejudices and critical of our current and historical exclusions and injustices, and still patriotically celebrate American ideals.&nbsp; <br /><br />The shift with my grandfather partly took place through my reading <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/01/arts/mildred-walker-93-novelist-and-teacher.html">Mildred Walker's</a> <a href="http://www.longitudebooks.com/find/p/53167/mcms.html">Winter Wheat</a>, which takes place during WWII in an area not far from where my grandparents ranched from the late 1960s onward.&nbsp; It's now been at least 14 years since I read it, so I don't remember it well -- though I know it had anti-fascist themes. Most of all, it made me fall in love with the Eastern Montana landscape, which gave me a way to connect with my grandfather. <br /><br />He had read the book and loved it too -- it was something he and my aunt shared. Now I was curious and interested in him and his life in a way that translated as respect -- I never knew that he sought my curiosity and interest and that without them I had always been disrespectful without meaning to be. On visits he was now eager to take me out to see his land. Rolling along hills in his SUV, we would drive over 10-foot-tall pine trees and they would spring back up like dandelions underfoot. He would describe destroying <a href="http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/weeds/w842w.htm">knapweed</a> using spent engine oil. Clearly my feeling of connection to the land was different from his (I didn't eat much red meat or use any type of herbicide). To him the land was the cattle, and if a tree stood in the way of his showing them to Mom and me, or if the invasive knapweed threatened to overtake their nutrition, he would do what it took. He was proud of his herd, and the tens of thousands of acres they ran on, because they were his achievement. <br /><br />His father lost everything when the hotel he built burned down. His mother abandoned the family when he was young, leaving the care of numerous children to his father (my mom says that when Kenny Rogers' <a href="http://www.lyricsfreak.com/k/kenny+rogers/lucille_20077874.html">"Lucile"</a> came on the radio, he would switch it off). He survived the Depression and worked as a miner in Butte during WWII. He built a hotel in Billings which my mother ran while attending high school and taking care of her 6-year-old younger sister; the rest of the family lived hours away on the ranch. His goal in life was to succeed where his father wasn't able to and leave his children financially comfortable -- girls too, which apparently is still a rare practice among ranching families. <br /><br />So, no, I now understood, a man who expected his 15-year-old daughter to run a motel on her own while caring for her younger sister would not be someone to make sure that my finals schedule coincided with his travel plans.&nbsp; By the end of his life, a couple of years later, we had a relationship that was closer than I could have imagined. It was harder than anything for him to be laid up with the cancer that claimed him -- it embarrassed him to be seen incapacitated and weak. (Incidentally, his insensitive and inappropriate interjections may have been related to Aspergers Syndrome, a possibility a 20th century cowboy would not likely have explored.) My last memory of him is of carrying his great-granddaughter in to see him (she was around 3) and his just being in awe of her and smiling and wistfully saying to us, "You're so young, so full of life." I love his region and that land because of its beauty, my childhood summers there, because it shaped my mother, and because he's a part of it now.<br /><br />The act of loving land is not some sort of timeless, ahistorical virtue. My love of the landscape, and appreciation of what my grandfather's life's work provided, is tempered by the history of the West in general, and the knowledge that other people crossed his acres freely before there was barbed wire.&nbsp; He was able to acquire them because of his personal talents and initiative, but also because of characteristics he didn't choose. It would have been difficult or impossible for non-whites to have been able to get the credit and engage in the deal-making necessary, and certainly for a woman of any race. He at one time built wealth by leasing land from the Northern Cheyenne to run his cattle.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /><br />Since our lives have been under siege (and our opportunities methodically, systematically limited), it's been difficult to clearly think about what my individual responsibility is as someone who has had opportunities because of this sort of personal/material history. The key seems to be being able to ask the question "What can I do?" Further formulation of the question and the route to the answers are a work in progress. <br /><br />In many ways, my grandfather probably was a protector of Mom and me. If he were still alive, we would have had someone to help shield us from all of the Montana lawlessness and charlatanism. But we don't have our own personal John Wayne. We just have to have faith in the possibility of fairness, justice and tolerance of critical patriotism in the 21-st Century West.&nbsp; <br /><br />~~<br />]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Organic Bouquet's Robert McLaughlin: Not So CEO-Like</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/organic-bouquets-robert-mclaug.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2010://1.111</id>

    <published>2010-05-29T08:25:46Z</published>
    <updated>2010-05-29T09:37:13Z</updated>

    <summary>If someone representing a company you were in charge of had genuinely cyber-harassed and threatened a vocally disgruntled customer, wouldn't you be all over the situation? Wouldn't you want to act quickly to narrow down the number of people you...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Corporate Ethics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Free Speech" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="organicbouquet" label="Organic Bouquet" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="organicstyle" label="Organic Style" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="robertmclaughlin" label="Robert McLaughlin" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="organicflowers" label="organic flowers" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[<span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image"><a style="" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/tammany-cartoon.html" onclick="window.open('http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/tammany-cartoon.html','popup','width=357,height=258,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/assets_c/2010/05/tammany-cartoon-thumb-300x216.gif" alt="tammany-cartoon.gif" class="mt-image-left" style="margin: 0pt 20px 20px 0pt; float: left;" height="216" width="300" /></a></span>If someone representing a company you were in charge of had genuinely cyber-harassed and threatened a vocally disgruntled customer, wouldn't you be all over the situation? Wouldn't you want to act quickly to narrow down the number of people you supplied photos to -- the ones the individual described while cyber-harassing the customer? Wouldn't you want to work with law enforcement to get the harasser's IP address from the web site where the illegal comments were made? Since your company would be legally responsible for the threats made on your company's behalf, wouldn't you want to ensure the customer you were doing all you could to sever any and all ties with that individual?<br /><br />Not Organic Bouquet CEO Robert McLaughlin.<br /><br />In the four days since the exchange below where I asked him to apprise me of progress in
tracking down the supposed Colombian cyber-harasser and cooperating
with law enforcement, I've heard nothing. He says he hopes he and I
could "come together on a positive project" one day yet has taken no
action yet to remedy my bungled order (what caused the criticism that led to the harassment in the
first place), and continues to contradict himself or make outright
false statements without seeming to see the need to account for them.
Very weird, non-CEO behavior, which just <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/organic-bouquet-ceo-robert-mcl.html">makes it seem more and more like he was the supposed Colombian</a>. [If links aren't working, try the end of the post.]<br /><br />Below McLaughlin does rightly point out that I made a mistake. The apparent <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/cyberstalked-and-threatened-by.html">tracking of my online criticism of his company and attempting to bully me into removing critical comments</a> seemed creepy and intimidating enough to be considered cyber-stalking, so that's how I described it. Apparently that was an inaccurate description, and since the exchange below I have described the behavior according to the legal terminology that the FBI points us to: <a href="http://www.cybercrime.gov/ccmanual/appxa.html">electronic harassment and electronic threats</a>. Cyber-stalking has to do with violent threats, while this supposed Colombian supplier was only threatening to "watch" and "follow" me and ruin any and all future employment prospects. My apologies for not yet understanding the correct terminology.<br /><br />Since Mr. McLaughlin has been so inconsistent and unbelievable and taken so little action to convince me that he was not the one who conducted the cyber-harassment and threats, I still sincerely believe that it was him (or someone he allowed to write on his behalf or using his email address).&nbsp; <br /><br />Monday, May 24, 2010, Kyeann Sayer to Robert McLaughlin:<br /><br />Mr. McLaughlin,<br /><br />I was equally surprised that my straightforward,
factual comments on Sustainlane turned into a "war" in which I very
patiently responded to long, bizarre and viscous attacks by someone
representing Organic Bouquet. It's strange -- you seem to be using the
fact that your company representative took such action to justify your
having used that cyberstalker's arguments about me in your own Better
Business Bureau rebuttal. I don't see how you can expect me to consider
such rationalizations any sort of sincere effort to explain or take
responsibility. Since you now admit that you used the cyberstalker's
false,
slanderous arguments about me and my intentions in your BBB report, how
do you explain your writing yesterday that you didn't know anything
about me or my intentions? What that you write am I meant to take
seriously or find believable?<br /><br />If you were not the cyber-stalker
(given your overall lack of believability I still honestly doubt this),
I am formally requesting that you take action commiserate with the
seriousness of this situation. I will supplement the report I made to
the FBI with your BBB report. I have asked Sustainlane for the IP
information of the cyberstalker but they have not provided it. You
should be interested in obtaining it yourself or work with law
enforcement to do so since OB is legally responsible for what was
written. From an investigative perspective, if you genuinely believe it
was someone in Columbia, you must be able to narrow down who you sent
the photos to and who of those individuals would have been
instantaneously available to rebut my comments, and who would have been
on the computer at that times of the comments. OB has commented on a
review below mine; the company has a history of responding to comments
on Sustainlane. If it was a supplier in Columbia, I can imagine that
you would be as committed as I am to discovering who it was so we can
report to the proper U.S. authorities which foreign agent acting on
your company's behalf has threatened me. I would also imagine that the
company would want to sever its relationship with a company or
individual who would take such reckless, illegal action. That is the
outcome I expect. These practical steps are the actions of a CEO who
takes felony cyberstalking and intimidation seriously. <br />
<br />Please apprise me of your progress. I will continue to update my
blog, reporting on how the company takes (or does not take)
responsibility for such a serious crime and how federal law enforcement
responds to my report. What I have written so far includes the facts
surrounding what happened,
my analysis of them, and my opinions regarding them. If you find a
factual error please let me know. I have posted links to your
responses, and pasted parts of them into posts, so readers can judge
for themselves.&nbsp;&nbsp; I will
not be intimidated by cyber-threats, or any baseless effort to equate
my legal on-line writing with them.<br /><br />I formally request answers
to my consumer questions about the sustainability
of your growth model and how it has affected domestic employees and the
company's overall environmental impact. Just as the public personal
attacks seemed designed to deflect such questions, I
suspect that your continued vagueness relates to a lack of desire to
answer those questions. You might also still want to send me a correct
order and credit my SkyMiles account -- these are concrete actions
(rather than vague pronouncements about a "positive project") that
would demonstrate sincerity now and would have eliminated your
company's need to respond illegally to a negative review in the first
place.<br />
<br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Kyeann Sayer<br /><br /><br />On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Robert McLaughlin wrote:<br />





<font face="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Kyeann, <br />
<br />
I appreciate your reply...to be honest I don’t know what to make of all
the emails and blogs...... No one representing this company has blogged
or posted, no one had been asked or paid to post anything, its a normal
process for us to forward pictures to our third party fulfillment
centers and suppliers when emails are received good and bad..there are
so many employees in that 3rd party chain and I don’t know where things
went from there, but as I mentioned, I told everyone to stop when you
sent the links. Either they deleted the posts or you did, but it seems
to be gone...I have no control of whoever posts, but I’m happy they’ve
stopped.<br />

<br />
Regarding my BBB response, I have to admit that I was suspicious of how
a poor service issue could explode into a war between a disgruntled
customer and others on a blog at our expense...my apologies, I have no
proof of anything other than what you stated.<br />

<br />
I can assure you we have looked at our internal processes and customer
service to see where this could have been avoided....this entire
situation goes so much against the grain of the good nature of this
company that I’m shocked at this result.<br />

<br />
I understand your freedom of speech and to post as a consumer or
advocate that received poor service, but I do ask Formally that you
remove all misstatements such as Organic Bouquet or myself being cyber
stalkers or supporting cyber stalkers...those are false statements and
equally egregious as the posters you have a problem with....and I
appreciate your attention to the details.<br />

<br />
Such a regretful situation and we really need to move forward..I would
hope that could come together on a positive project one day<br />
<br />
All the Best<br />
<br />
Robert</span><br /><br />~~<br /><br /></font>Very weird, non-CEO behavior, which just <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/organic-bouquet-ceo-robert-mcl.html">makes it seem more and more like he was the supposed Colombian</a>.<br /><br />The apparent <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/cyberstalked-and-threatened-by.html">tracking of my online criticism of his company and attempting to bully me into removing critical comments</a> seemed creepy and intimidating enough to be considered cyber-stalking, so that's how I described it. <br /><br />Apparently that was an inaccurate description, and since the exchange
below I have described the behavior according to the legal terminology
that the FBI points us to: <a href="http://www.cybercrime.gov/ccmanual/appxa.html">electronic harassment and electronic threats</a>. &nbsp; ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Organic Bouquet CEO Robert McLaughlin's (Non) Response to Clear Evidence of Company's Illegal Cyber-Threats</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/organic-bouquet-ceo-robert-mcl.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2010://1.110</id>

    <published>2010-05-24T07:34:38Z</published>
    <updated>2010-05-29T09:06:59Z</updated>

    <summary>[If links aren't working on your browser, go down to the end of the post.]After ignoring for ten days the fact that someone claiming to represent Organic Bouquet committed the federal crime of cyberharassing and threatening me, CEO Robert McLaughlin...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Corporate Ethics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Free Speech" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="freespeech" label="Free Speech" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="organicbouquet" label="Organic Bouquet" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="robertmclaughlin" label="Robert McLaughlin" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="organicflowers" label="organic flowers" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[<span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image"><a style="" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/cheerleader-yelling-into-megaphone.html" onclick="window.open('http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/cheerleader-yelling-into-megaphone.html','popup','width=529,height=600,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/assets_c/2010/05/cheerleader-yelling-into-megaphone-thumb-300x340.jpg" alt="cheerleader-yelling-into-megaphone.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="margin: 0pt 20px 20px 0pt; float: left;" height="340" width="300" /></a></span>[If links aren't working on your browser, go down to the end of the post.]<br /><br />After ignoring for ten days the fact that <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/cyberstalked-and-threatened-by.html">someone claiming
to represent Organic Bouquet committed the federal crime of cyberharassing and
threatening me</a>, CEO Robert McLaughlin has finally offered a strange and
unconvincing response. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/cyberstalked-and-threatened-by.html">Again, this is a free speech issue</a>. We're talking about a company purposefully targeting and threatening a vocally dissatisfied customer and attempting to bully her out of exercising her right to criticize the company. What is so scary about questions surrounding whether OB's PR matched its practices, or whether its current growth trajectory was sustainable? All of these questions should be fair game for a company that represents itself as "green" and "socially conscious." McLaughlin seems to have responded not because he was concerned about any illegality or how these threats were affecting a former customer, but because I blogged about him. <br /><br />To put his response in context, after a terrible product and customer service experience, I had <a href="http://www.sustainlane.com/reviews/organic-bouquet/FBUYAILT17LVUA9AYALRWDLQ13QB">written a review of the company</a> on Sustainlane.com. On May 13, venomous <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/Scary%20%20Comments%20on%20Organic%20Bouquet%20review%20-%20SustainLane.pdf">cyber-harasser Andes B. wrote in response</a>.&nbsp; <br /><br /><blockquote>My rep at Organic Bouquet sent me
your pictures. In those picture <i>[</i><span style="font-style: normal;">sic</span><i>]</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> I can see tulips obviously from another company and
receipts from local grocery stores where you obviously bought other flowers as
part of your research on flower companies. You’re a disgrace and should be
reported to the appropriate credible journalist organization for breaking the
code of ethics and acting in a manner that is unbecoming of an American or
international journalist.<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote>





<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> I had sent pictures of the second set of wrong and wilting flowers I received to personnel at Organic Bouquet and was amazed that someone in Columbia supposedly already had them, and was ready to comment on my reivew within hours of my having written it. I immediately sent a link to the cyber-harassing threats to
<a href="http://www.organicbouquet.com/i_1001/organic/meet-organic-bouquet-ceo.html">Mr. McLaughlin</a> and wrote to him: <o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> Healthy tulips from my own yard,
the roses you sent that never opened in the background, and some receipts
amount to some sort of scheme to sell an article? Bizarre. Can't you fight your
battles directly with facts rather than having me personally attacked?<o:p></o:p></p>





<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. McLaughlin ignored my message and chose not to address
the fact that someone was advocating on behalf of Organic Bouquet in a
felonious manner. He took no steps to assure me that the threats were empty, or
would cease. Instead, the day after he was notified of the illegal online
threats, he elected to use the same arguments in <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/Organic%20Bouquet%20BBB.2010_05_19_15_45_47.pdf">his rebuttal to my Better
Business Bureau complaint</a>:<o:p></o:p> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">Ms. Sayer is a freelance writer
with a history of aggressive behavior in search of a major headline. She
provided pictures not only of flowers she received from us, but in the
background what appears <i>[</i><span style="font-style: normal;">sic</span><i>]</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> to be flowers from other sources as well. It is my
suspicion that she is doing research for a story and she has attacked us on
blogs…<o:p></o:p></span></p>



<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--><!--[endif]--> So at this point McLaughlin has been notified of the cyber-harassing and has
received my clear denial about my order having been part of any weird scheme
related to a story.<span style="">&nbsp; </span>He chooses not
to address the fact that while I posted a truthful account of my experience
with the company and raised questions about its growth model using facts
gleaned from publicly available articles, someone representing OB cyber-harassed,
smeared and threatened me. Rather than objecting to the attacks in any discernible
form, he used my online review as evidence of my supposed scheming for the
Better Business Bureau.<o:p></o:p></p>





<p class="MsoNormal">And today (Sunday), apparently after someone notified him
about my post regarding the cyber-harassing and threats, he has finally <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/McLaughlin%20Email%205.23.10.pdf">been bothered to address the issue</a>. He writes, in contradiction of his own Better
Business Bureau filing:<o:p></o:p> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">I understand you had a regrettable
consumer experience for which I attempted to reconcile with you..... The
exchanges you had with a person online claiming to be our supplier is not
condoned or requested and certainly not me in anyway. <i>[</i><span style="font-style: normal;">sic</span><i>]</i><span style="font-style: normal;">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>





<p class="MsoNormal">So, again, he doesn’t condone them, but doesn’t address why
he failed to inform the cyber-harassed and threatened customer of that, or why he
used the cyber-harasser’s arguments himself. He doesn’t address how this
commenter happened to have the pictures that I supplied to the company. He
continues, strangely: <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">I don’t know anything about you....
what your intentions are or were..... I assumed from your original email that
you received poor service for which I personally tried to help you
resolve....very regrettable that we were unsuccessful in making things right
for you....and your actions and back and forth posts do leave me perplexed as
to your motives.</p>





<p class="MsoNormal">Huh? So, he has told the BBB that my ordering my Mother’s Day
bouquet from OB was some sort of grand, journalistic scheme. He knows that I
have a copy of his filing. Yet, he tells me today that he doesn’t “know
anything about me” or “what my intentions are or were.” Despite this claim, he was certainly
confident enough to make up information about me and assign motives to me in
his BBB report. <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>

<p class="MsoNormal">Mr. McLaughlin seems very confused. I asked him to clarify
these points. I’m still interested in having my questions about downsizing
answered as well. Since all of this seems to have been a smokescreen to avoid
answering those questions, though, I’m not holding my breath.</p><p class="MsoNormal">[Continue reading for working links.]<br /><o:p></o:p></p>

<!--EndFragment-->~~<br />]]>
        <![CDATA[After ignoring for ten days the fact that <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/cyberstalked-and-threatened-by.html">someone claiming
to represent Organic Bouquet committed the federal crime of cyberstalking and
threatening me</a>, CEO Robert McLaughlin has finally offered a strange and
unconvincing response.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/cyberstalked-and-threatened-by.html">Again, this is a free speech issue</a>.<br /><br />To recap, on May 13, <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/Scary%20%20Comments%20on%20Organic%20Bouquet%20review%20-%20SustainLane.pdf">cyberstalker Andes B. wrote in response to a review I posted on Sustainlane</a>:<br /><br /> Instead, the day after he was notified of the illegal online
threats, he elected to use the same arguments in <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/Organic%20Bouquet%20BBB.2010_05_19_15_45_47.pdf">his rebuttal to my Better
Business Bureau complaint</a>:<br /><br />And today (Sunday), apparently after someone notified him
about my post regarding the cyberstalking and threats, he has finally <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/McLaughlin%20Email%205.23.10.pdf">been bothered to address the issue</a>.&nbsp; ]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Cyber-Harassed &amp; Threatened by Organic Bouquet CEO Robert McLaughlin (Allegedly)</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/cyberstalked-and-threatened-by.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2010://1.109</id>

    <published>2010-05-22T05:43:08Z</published>
    <updated>2010-05-29T09:09:59Z</updated>

    <summary>[Update 5/24/10: Finally, ten days after being notified of he illegal cyber-harassing and threats, apparently in response to this post, Mr. McLaughlin offered a very tepid and unconvincing response.]What is with "progressive" companies like Whole Foods, TreeHugger, and now Organic...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Corporate Ethics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Free Speech" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="freespeech" label="Free Speech" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="organicbouquet" label="Organic Bouquet" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="robertmclaughlin" label="Robert McLaughlin" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="sustainlane" label="Sustainlane" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="cyberharassment" label="cyber-harassment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="greenwashing" label="greenwashing" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="mothersday" label="mother's day" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="organicflowers" label="organic flowers" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[<span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image"><a style="" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/North-American-Silva2211.html" onclick="window.open('http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/North-American-Silva2211.html','popup','width=1000,height=1426,scrollbars=no,resizable=no,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"><img src="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/assets_c/2010/05/North-American-Silva221-thumb-300x427.jpg" alt="North-American-Silva221.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="margin: 0pt 20px 20px 0pt; float: left;" height="427" width="300" /></a></span>[Update 5/24/10: <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/organic-bouquet-ceo-robert-mcl.html">Finally,
ten days after being notified of he illegal cyber-harassing and threats,
apparently in response to this post, Mr. McLaughlin offered a very
tepid and unconvincing response</a>.]<br /><br />What is with "progressive" companies like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070711/174810.shtml">Whole Foods</a>, <a href="http://greenlagirl.com/rogue-blogging-on-a-friday-night/">TreeHugger</a>, and now <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/Scary%20%20Comments%20on%20Organic%20Bouquet%20review%20-%20SustainLane.pdf">Organic Bouquet&nbsp;</a> using weird/dirty tactics to deflect criticism? (If the links don't show up on your browser, you can find them at the end of the post.) <br /><br />This very strange situation wouldn't have been something to write about here except that what should have been a dispute over a commercial transaction settled through legitimate channels
quickly devolved into a civil liberties issue. Rather than use facts to dispute my claims, Organic Bouquet chose to attack me personally and use threats and intimidation in an effort to cyber-bully me out of criticizing the company.<br /><br />The short version of the story is that after a really horrible product and customer service experience I took a number of actions, including <a href="http://www.sustainlane.com/reviews/organic-bouquet/FBUYAILT17LVUA9AYALRWDLQ13QB">writing a negative review of the company on Sustainlane</a> (again, active link at the end of the post). In response to the review, someone claiming to be one of OB's Colombian suppliers wrote a bunch of nasty comments attacking me personally and eventually threatening that "Our association of floral exporters in Colombia, California and Ecuador need to follow you and advise your every potential employer of your inability to be fair and objective in your reporting." This person had copies of pictures that I had sent the company (to show the sad and pathetic state of the second order of wrong flowers they sent), and used them to concoct a story about my motivation for complaining. <br /><br />Somehow, readers were meant to believe that my whole motivation for making a Mother's Day order and then complaining when it was wrong (and then the replacement order was wrong, and the company refused to do anything about it because it had issued a refund I didn't request), was all some sort of complex plan to "get a big headline." Weird, since I have made three other recent orders from the company without event or complaint <i>because the company did not mess them up</i>. The company itself has to perform pretty craptastically to get me to the point of feeling the need to speak out.<br /><br />So, I reported the totally creepy comments to the FBI since they are so clearly a violation of federal law and in my now three-year long history of near nonstop harassment and intimidation no one has been so sloppy and careless as to carry it out in such an obviously illegal and traceable manner. At that point it seemed clear that the commenter was writing on behalf of Organic Bouquet, but I thought it might be someone hired to make positive comments for the company on blogs, or to defend criticism of the company and that this person went too far. Though I definitely thought OB was of course legally responsible since this person was acting on their behalf, I wouldn't have dreamed that the CEO himself would possibly pathetically disguise his identity in an effort to defame me in defense of the company.<br /><br />Then, I received Mr. McLaughlin's <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/Organic%20Bouquet%20BBB.2010_05_19_15_45_47.pdf">rebuttal to a report I had filed with the Better Business Bureau</a>. It was written the day after the online threats and contained the same weird accusation about my pictures supposedly illustrating that I was ordering multiple bouquets of flowers from different companies as part of a story I was supposedly writing. I couldn't believe it. Really, the same person had to have written it or to have had access to the same arguments and definitely the same pictures. I wrote to OB PR and <a href="http://www.organicbouquet.com/i_1001/organic/meet-organic-bouquet-ceo.html">Mr. McLaughlin himself</a> for a confirmation or denial that he was the cyber-harasser, and received no response. [Update 5/24/10: <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2010/05/organic-bouquet-ceo-robert-mcl.html">Finally,
ten days after being notified of he illegal cyber-harassing and threats,
apparently in response to this post, Mr. McLaughlin offered a very
tepid and unconvincing response</a>.] ]]>
        <![CDATA[As I tried to unravel the mystery of my terrible experience with OB, I
learned that a company I had known about since 2003, interacted with,
and even <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/12/organic_bouquet_1.php">promoted somewhat</a>
had left California and was on a serious revenue growth/downsizing
track. This explained why there was no one available after 5 PM EDT to
correct my order the Friday before Mother's Day. I was curious about
why a company that originated in CA, and most of whose customers are
likely on the West Coast, would move to Florida and allow that to so
affect customer service availability. The poor customer service agents
I dealt with were only able to leave a message with the corporate
office about my messed up order on Friday afternoon and I was to wait
until possibly the following Tuesday to receive a return call. <br /><br />My
mother's flowers were shipped from either Columbia or Ecuador through Miami to their destination in Montana. As someone who shops based on environmental concerns, it was hard to understand using so much fossil fuel to ship eco-friendly roses. When my order and replacement order were incomplete, wrong, shriveled and browning, it was hard to understand why a company that has serious environmental convictions and promotes itself as the "green" and "socially conscious" alternative to FTD or 1-800-Flowers would be so careless about product quality and so generally wasteful. For those of us who sincerely wanted and worked hard for green to go "mainstream," quality and aesthetics were and are as important as green and labor-friendly credentials. There's a strong desire for legitimately green businesses to thrive, which is why its upsetting to have such a negative experience. I can virtually guarantee that anyone who didn't prioritize green or social shopping who had decided to try out the company for the first time who had had my experience would have said "Forget paying extra to feel responsible, I'll grab cheaper, better quality flowers on the corner."<br />
<br />As I spread the word about what I encountered to interested parties, I came across the <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/othercities/orlando/stories/2010/04/19/smallb1.html?b=1271649600%5E3191321&amp;s=industry&amp;i=retailing_restaurants">positive buzz</a> the company has been <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/organic-bouquet-achieves-a-trifecta-of-revenue-growth-92319559.html">churning out</a>, that included information about huge profit margins and downsizing. So now I had concerns about the US workers who lost their jobs as OB left CA and opened new offices in Central America, which also seemingly meant that more orders would travel longer distances.&nbsp;
<br /><br />Owners and CEOs seem to become fairly irrational when it comes to their
stock price or a potential sale. The reason I think OB must be trolling
for a sale is because of my experience at TreeHugger. In 2007, when a New York
Times article beamed about skyrocketing revenue and sale offers, the
staff (those of us who didn't understand the TH business model from the
beginning or who weren't planted to set up someone like me who would
advocate for a fair cut) wanted to see a larger share of the profits.
After being told of a possible sale three months before, I had been
personally assured by founder and owner Graham Hill that there was no sale on the horizon
and no chance of one. Writers had been working for "TreeHugger
dollars," way below the market worth of our work because we believed in
what the site stood for. When the staff suddenly read glowing reports about how well we were doing, and I took a stand regarding a new payment
agreement (with a number of other writers), the owner and COO seemed to
panic, disabling my email address at 1:00AM to prevent contact with the others, firing me against the terms of our contract, and then defaming me
among the staff and people outside the company as well. <br /><br />About a month
later, Graham Hill sold his site, the one that could barely pay its writers, to Discovery: for
$10 million.<br /><br />I hope for Mr. McLaughlin's sake that he was like Mr. Hill and TreeHugger COO Ken Rother and that the threat of negative buzz ruining a potential sale was what drove him to (presumably -- he hasn't denied it) cyber-stalk and threaten me or instruct one of his staff to. Otherwise, he's not just another CEO who panicked -- that would make him purely vindictive and lacking good judgment. Either way, I wouldn't want to invest in anything with him at the helm.<br /><br /> If OB has facts that refute my claims, why not just offer them? Why the need to distract with personal attacks? Maybe their new $800,000 in annual savings did not result substantially from cuts in domestic employee pay and benefits? That would be welcome news. Maybe the new moves haven't significantly increased the company's carbon footprint? Maybe their growth trajectory is part of the long view and not just a short, artificial boost in anticipation of a sale? Consumers -- and especially consumers of "green," "socially conscious" businesses -- should be able to ask such questions and exercise 1st Amendment rights online without fear of character assassination. Just as employees should be free to organize or unionize without fear of harassment, defamation and blacklisting. Those heading companies with socially/eco-conscious brands should expect and welcome questions about their basic operations -- especially if they involve facts that the company has itself released.<br /><br />Journalists and bloggers need to read the business pages just as readily as they digest press releases, and give readers the information they need to make informed consumer decisions. What is supremely ironic is that Mr. McLaughlin (or his pseudonym or assigned cyber-harasser) spent so much energy accusing me of being a bad journalist when I'm not actually a journalist. I have been a "green lifestyle" consultant, blogger and freelance writer, and come from an academic background that promotes critical thinking above most else. That seems to be the problem: what's "bad" is that critical thought provokes uncomfortable questions concerning how a company's practices relate to the public good.<br /><br />~~

<br /><br />Links from the top of the post: <br /><br />What is with "progressive" companies like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070711/174810.shtml">Whole Foods</a>, <a href="http://greenlagirl.com/rogue-blogging-on-a-friday-night/">TreeHugger</a>, and now <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/Scary%20%20Comments%20on%20Organic%20Bouquet%20review%20-%20SustainLane.pdf">Organic Bouquet&nbsp;</a> using weird/dirty tactics to deflect criticism?<br /><br />The short version of the story is that after a really horrible product
and customer service experience I took a number of actions, including <a href="http://www.sustainlane.com/reviews/organic-bouquet/FBUYAILT17LVUA9AYALRWDLQ13QB">writing a negative review of the company on Sustainlane</a>. <br /><br /><br />]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Will Tester and Baucus Demonstrate a Commitment to Justice?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/10/will-tester-and-baucus-demonst.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.108</id>

    <published>2009-10-21T04:37:59Z</published>
    <updated>2010-05-20T09:57:09Z</updated>

    <summary>If my Senator is co-sponsoring the Justice Bill, he should be into protecting citizens of his own state from ongoing and pervasive civil liberties violations.I don't have any sort of rescue fantasies, but wonder, who will have the courage and...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Action" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Banality of Evil" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties and Environment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Domestic Surveillance" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="civilliberties" label="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="civilrights" label="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="montana" label="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="montanahumanrightsnetwork" label="Montana Human Rights Network" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="johntester" label="john tester" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="maxbaucus" label="max baucus" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[<span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image"><img alt="lady-justice.jpg" src="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/lady-justice.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="margin: 0pt 20px 20px 0pt; float: left;" height="421" width="280" /></span>If <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2008/01/meeting-senator-tester-and-lis.html">my Senator</a> is co-sponsoring the <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/eff-supports-justice">Justice Bill</a>, he should be into protecting citizens of his own state from ongoing and pervasive civil liberties violations.<br /><br />I don't have any sort of rescue fantasies, but wonder, who will have the courage and fortitude to help us out of this mess and ensure that no one has to endure anything like it again? If not my Senators (will Baucus demonstrate that he's not completely owned?), then who? Is there a Serpico in our midst? The UN? I mean, it's ridiculous. I've written so many letters on behalf of prisoners of conscience, and now I'm going on 2.5 years of virtual imprisonment in the U.S. I have to believe that someone out there cares more about justice and integrity than membership in an unprincipled patronage system. The reason the U.S. is assumed to be so great is because we supposedly don't need international observers or rescuers to swoop in and save its citizens from one another. Right?<br /><blockquote><br /><i>Dear Senators Tester and Baucus,</i><br /><br /><i>I write because I need your assistance to combat pervasive and intractable corruption in our state. My mother and I have encountered judicial malfeasance, unfathomable corruption of the legal profession, and discriminatory, untruthful local law enforcement. We believe these overall gross violations of our rights have been made possible by lax regulation of intelligence contractors and agencies working in tandem with local agencies. In response to FOIA requests, I got the runaround from the FBI and a “Glomar” response from the NSA. The civil rights attorney I hired to help me ended up lying about which agencies he contacted and withholding documents. My mother and I cannot fight such insidious and pervasive interference in our lives alone.</i><br /><br /><i>We need the help of senators who are not afraid to upset the current balance of cronyism in Montana.&nbsp; We are targets of entrenched Republican and Democrat interests seemingly because of our sex, religious affiliation (or lack thereof) and political affiliations and activities. It is very possible that local polluting industries have funded interference in my life at one time or another for at least ten years simply because I was part of a campaign to work with the union and management at Stone Container to stop poisonous dioxin emissions in our valley. </i><br /><br /><i>If you are courageous men who are not hemmed by the coal or any other lobby, if you are men who believe that human and civil rights extend to all people in your state and not just the back scratching elite, then please step up and help us. The current strategy seems to be to make the administrative and legal processes of seeking assistance so drawn out and impossible as to drain all of our energy and financial resources. We need men of conscience who truly believe in the best of democratic and republican ideals to keep their compact with the electorate and not the entrenched interests of a corrupt few.</i><br /><br /><i>About a year ago, I contacted Senator Tester and described some of the gross violations of my and my mother’s civil rights and liberties. He suggested that I contact local law enforcement. After many more months of harassment, and actual and attempted harm to our persons and property, we did finally contact the Missoula Police Department. We have come up against lies, evasion, and overall discriminatory treatment. Again, we need the help of individuals in a position of power who will use the position that the people of Montana have entrusted them with to take a stand against corruption and cronyism. Every effort is being made to ensure that we cannot do it on our own. </i><br /><br /><i>I request that representatives from each of your offices contact me so that we can find a way to work together to ensure that my mother and I emerge from this morass in one piece, and that no citizen of this state will ever have to endure such politically- and socially-motivated hijacking of supposedly neutral local and federal agencies again.</i><br /><br /><i>Senator Tester, as a co-sponsor of the Justice Act, I believe it would be unconscionable to leave two citizens of your state who have seemingly been victims of Patriot Act Excesses out in the cold.&nbsp; We could easily serve as “poster children” for the necessity of reform. Please show us that your commitment to constitutional safeguards is more than mere talk.</i><br /><br /><i>Respectfully,</i><br /><br /><br /><i>Kyeann Sayer</i><br /></blockquote><div><br /></div>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Did RAND Brand Me a "Terrorist"?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/10/did-rand-brand-me-a-terrorist.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.107</id>

    <published>2009-10-05T04:03:28Z</published>
    <updated>2009-10-05T08:40:59Z</updated>

    <summary>Commuting in Los Angeles is an experiment. Just when you think you have a routine down that gets you home in under an hour, there's a surprise. You could find yourself cruising down the 10 and then suddenly at a...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Banality of Evil" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties and Environment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Domestic Surveillance" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Human Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Terrorism Rhetoric" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="brianmichaeljenkins" label="Brian Michael Jenkins" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="brucehoffman" label="Bruce Hoffman" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="randcorporation" label="RAND Corporation" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="terrorism" label="Terrorism" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="civilliberties" label="civil liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="humanrights" label="human rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="terrorismrhetoric" label="terrorism rhetoric" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[<span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image"><a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/21278.jpg"><img alt="21278.jpg" src="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/assets_c/2009/10/21278-thumb-350x462.jpg" class="mt-image-left" style="margin: 0pt 20px 20px 0pt; float: left;" height="462" width="350" /></a></span>Commuting in Los Angeles is an experiment. Just when you think you have a routine down that gets you home in under an hour, there's a surprise. You could find yourself cruising down the 10 and then suddenly at a standstill: that's right, Lakers at the Staples Center. As you're unexpectedly moving at a snail's pace one August morning you remember that it's time for the UCLA kids to clog the freeways and your commute time will double for the next four months. Many days accidents were the culprit. Often I would rely on a web site dedicated to traffic reporting to know when I should go home -- that such web sites exist illustrate how much traffic jams affect all of our lives every day.<br /><br />Unpredictable, snarling traffic could be fodder for many an ethical discussion. If an ambulance can't reach me because of Lakers traffic, are the Lakers responsible? The Staples Center? The city planners? <br /><br />The death and destruction related to automobiles is normal to us. <a href="http://www.bostoninjurylawyerblog.com/2008/08/nhtsa_releases_2007_traffic_ac_1.html">There were 41,059 traffic-related fatalities in the US in 2007 alone</a>. We've clearly collectively decided that this astounding loss of life is acceptable in our auto-centric culture.<br /><br />Sometime while working with RAND I was at dinner discussing this with an acquaintance who worked in the office next to me. I'm not sure he was actually a friend. I believe he worked for <a href="http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/brh6/?PageTemplateID=81">Bruce Hoffman</a> on some terrorism-related research but it could have been Brian Michael Jenkins -- I don't remember. He might have just been eliciting comments, as I now realize so many did in those years. We discussed Critical Mass, the bicycle protests where bicyclists flood the streets apparently to create an experience for drivers similar to the one they face every day. I had never taken part in one and am very unlikely to because I can barely ride a bike.&nbsp; He said that people shouldn't take part because if they did, they might be responsible for emergency services not being able to get through to someone in need.<br /><br />I agree that would be terrible, and if I were a part of any large event that was the obvious culprit in preventing someone from getting essential medical care I'd feel awful. But traffic is so random. We don't consider a Lakers game a terrorist event when the traffic jams caused by it result in delays in all our lives -- in emergency situations or not. So, people involved in Critical Mass, who are on their bicycles, on the street to point out how violent and destructive our car culture is (not only in terms of direct destruction of human life, but astronomical CO2 levels that affect not just local communities but the whole planet) should be held to some higher standard of responsibility because their purpose for being on the street en mass biking is political in nature? What about jams caused by political conventions? It's complicated territory.<br /><br />At that restaurant in that moment in time I thought that taking the risk to take part in such a demonstration despite the fact that a concurrent fateful act might make it difficult to get an ambulance through would be worth it because overall it might draw attention to the manner in which our reliance on cars kills so many. But it was all hypothetical, because, as I alluded, I didn't learn to ride a bike until I was 21 and barely can. I had not intention of ever taking part in Critical Mass.<br /><br />You would have thought I had approved of the most heinous atrocities known to man. By the end of that conversation my companion could barely look at me, and didn't speak to me much again. At first I thought it might have been simply that he was not used to being disagreed with, but came to believe that my comments about Critical Mass seemed to completely change his view of me -- like, change my category from nice friendly person to "bad person". <br />]]>
        <![CDATA[Before that I had watched a few basketball games at his brother's
place. His brother's friend had invited me to Brazil (I found it odd
since the guy had a girlfriend but now I see that spooks seem always to
want to connect me to Brazil -- I think because of a short story I
wrote in college that they and their psychological experts seem to have
attached an inordinate amount of significance to...) and I declined. We
had lunch together a lot. But after the dinner I was suddenly persona
non grata.<br /><br />It turns out that <a href="http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet:-violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act-2007">RAND
research was intimately interwoven with submission of The Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007</a>, and I think I may have been used as an unwitting guinea pig.<br /><br /><blockquote><i>Two weeks prior to the bill’s introduction, Brian Michael Jenkins, a
senior advisor at Rand, delivered testimony on “Jihadist Radicalization
and Recruitment” to Harman’s congressional subcommittee. In 2005, Rand
published a book by Jenkins that included a chapter called “Homegrown
Terrorism Threats.” In that chapter, Jenkins posits that “[i]n their
international campaign, the jihadists will seek common grounds with
leftist, anti-American, and anti-globalization forces, who will in turn
see, in radical Islam, comrades against a mutual foe.” He also mentions
that the government should pay special attention to environmentalists,
anti-globalization activists, and anarchists. Additionally, in his
congressional testimony, Jenkins recognized that domestic anti-terror
cases have succeeded thanks, in part, to laws being “interpreted
broadly” by the courts. </i><br /><br /></blockquote>Since
I have come to assume that acquaintances at RAND were actually funded
to conduct surveillance on and elicitation of me, I remember moments
like the Critical Mass discussion with incredulity. Are discussions
like that what have led to the surreal and pretty much unimaginable
ongoing violation of my rights? I'm living in a city in which the
political interference is so intense that it's nearly impossible to get
a lawyer who isn't bought and paid for, where the police department has
sanctioned unbelievable obstruction and violation of my rights. This
can't happen without important people at the federal level at some time
having been convinced that I was some sort of threat. Are hypothetical
conversations about pointing out the value of human life through
traffic protest enough to brand you the type of environmentalist who
would join with a "jihadist"? <br /><br />I am a person who had the opportunity to do tree sits and could have been a Seattle street protester if I had wanted to, <i>but I found the Left completely disillusioning and disappointing</i>.
I guess that makes me a good candidate to be a "lone wolf"? But I had
friends working with me on my failed protest... Since their lives have
not been picked at mercilessly, I can only assume that they were also
informants... <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2008/04/getting-on-the-list.html">Because costumes and shopping bags are so terrifying as to require close observation</a>.<br /><br />If
my comments did make my "friend" suddenly view me as a "terrorist"
based on some sort of formula/criteria established by the esteemed RAND
researchers, then I humbly submit that they need new frameworks for
spending taxpayer money on counterterrorism efforts. Maybe the reason I
am still imprisoned by the well-funded harassment campaign is that such
smart and important people aren't allowed to be wrong? A <i>lot</i> of
resources seem to be invested in my being the wrong one, whether
anything that makes me so is true or not. I guess once it is clear that
the accused wasn't actually in the wrong we get into a cover up is
worst than the crime situation. We seem to have been there a long time
and I would greatly appreciate its ending. (How long is everyone going
to bank on the idea that the next and the next and the next entrapment
scheme will work?)<br /><br />When I was taught in school about human
rights and the environment, no one ever taught me that staying involved
in those issues after graduation could have such a devastating impact
on my life. Why allow schools to have human rights groups if
individuals will only be punished later for believing in equality and
international human rights? Why teach them to restore wetlands or care
in general about the fate of the biosphere if we've made a collective
decision that any action that in any way puts the health of humanity
and the fate of the earth above anyone's right to make a buck will be
branded a terrorist? <br /><br />It's just mean. Wouldn't it be more
honest to tell kids from the beginning that if they stick their necks
out in even the most rudimentary way for issues that they care about,
their lives could be ruined by private contractors and intelligence
agencies? Or -- if they have the potential to want to do so, they may
find themselves surrounded by people who aim to entrap them or elicit
comments that could result in private or government funding? Why
instill in generations a myth about an America where we stand up for
the little guy and for our principles in law-abiding ways, and work
with the rest of the world to assure democratic protections and ideals?
Why make it an aspiration and then punish those who want to work to
make the country and world more livable? <br /><br />~~<br />]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Loken Builders' (and Friends') Neverending Abuse of the Legal System</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/09/loken-builders-and-friends-nev.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.106</id>

    <published>2009-09-21T20:05:00Z</published>
    <updated>2010-05-20T10:01:16Z</updated>

    <summary>If my mom can't be declared incompetent, then she should be portrayed as a criminal. That's what the justice system is for, right? To ruin people's lives through civil and criminal conspiracy. To keep completely baseless law suits alive through...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Banality of Evil" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Geiszler and Froines" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Loken Builders" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="daveryan" label="Dave Ryan" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="davidryan" label="David Ryan" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="geiszlerandfroines" label="Geiszler and Froines" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="lokenbuilders" label="Loken Builders" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="malpractice" label="Malpractice" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoula" label="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="steveloken" label="Steve Loken" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="timgeiszler" label="Tim Geiszler" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[If my mom can't be declared incompetent, then she should be portrayed as a criminal. That's what the justice system is for, right? To ruin people's lives through civil and criminal conspiracy. To keep completely baseless law suits alive through the collusion of unethical attorneys until all options to wrest their property, livelihood or reputations from their control have been extinguished. That's what the taxpayers want from their District courtrooms.<br /><br />It seems to be a very Rovian technique, accusing your opponent of what you have done. And we seem to have stumbled upon another of those efforts in the midst of this construction lien law suit that has been a pretext to steal property, drain time and resources, discredit, and declare incompetence (<a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/more-sleazy-fun-with-tim-geisz.html">Mr. Geiszler told my mother's first attorney, at one of their first meetings that he planned to subpoena her medical records</a> -- in a construction lien case that she was <i>defending herself against</i>). After most of those efforts failed, we now believe that this latest attempt was to try to make it appear as though my mother was engaged in civil conspiracy instead of... <i>the numerous individuals working together to make it appear that way</i>.<br /><br />If my mother was the criminal mastermind, rather than David Ryan, then <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/john-boyle-and-david-ryan-took.html">he and John Boyle would be off the hook</a> for attempting to take over her property without her permission? And then Loken and the scores of others who have taken part in this absurd and epic effort to devalue the property and harass us wouldn't be in the wrong? All the legal malpractice that was committed would be nullified? Because rather than hapless victims trying to improve property and live productive lives, we would be the perpetrators then. Oh, how simple for everyone.<br /> ]]>
        <![CDATA[This seems to be why our latest conspiring attorney instructed my
mother to sign a damaging and unnecessary affidavit at the last minute
before a filing (<i>without</i> his co-defendant client's informed
consent -- one of the many latest instances of legal malpractice). And
why he refused to mitigate its damage. And why he claimed the
corrective affidavit she begged him to file <i>had been destroyed</i>
when she attempted to retrieve it after firing him. And why the
original mysteriously reappeared after it became clear that she was
filing a copy as an exhibit.<br />
<br />
This affidavit was an attempt to frame my mother as having been caught
in a lie rather than following the very bad advice of her attorneys and
no one apparently wanted her to produce evidence of that, or her
efforts to immediately correct her attorney's malpractice.<br />
<br />
Apparently, the goal was to use that affidavit as part of an effort to
"roll
back the clock" on the case so that many of Judge Deschamps
inexplicable rulings, and the general shenanigans that have taken place
within the case in the last year, could be stricken. This would have
apparently opened up a number of opportunities for Mr. Loken. We think
it might have even given them the opportunity to revisit their coveted
incompetency strategy because Deschamps' ruling that it was moot would
have been set aside. Given the bizarre introduction of an unnecessary
affidavit that contradicted another affidavit my mother was instructed
to sign, we think there was some sort of effort to portray my mother's
actions as criminal. (Rather than, like all of us should expect, she
simply trusted that her attorneys would never ask her to sign something
that wasn't in her best interest.)<br />
<br />
After my mother fired the rogue attorney, Quentin Rhoades, I was still
stuck with him as a codefendant.&nbsp; I couldn't fire him at first because
we had a settlement conference coming up and had to be represented by
counsel. Then, I thought we were required to file an answer brief. He
made every effort to damage our case in addition to forcing the harmful
affidavit upon my mother the codefendant. It became clear that I was
not going to allow him to make arguments that were damaging and,
indeed, had nothing to do with the law we were dealing with or any sort
of necessary response to Mr. Loken's arguments.<br />
<br />
That's when Judge Deschamps did the strangest thing (not strange for
him, I guess, but strange for a judge who's generally into correctly
upholding the law and interested in justice). We had September 9 as a
deadline to file an Answer to one of Mr. Loken's briefs, and Deschamps
rendered an Order on September 3rd, completely violating procedure and
ignoring my mother's very cogent and legitimate <i>pro se</i>
arguments. We're guessing that the overall strategy was for us to feel
panicked because Deschamps had denied a motion that should have been
granted (and indeed would have enormously improved our position) and
for him to do so in such an outlandish manner that we would feel
obligated to object, and even be open to being persuaded by Mr. Rhoades
to pursue the bogus jurisdictional and other issues that he was shoving
down my throat.<br />
<br />
They didn't anticipate that this opportunity would be eliminated by my
firing Mr. Rhaodes as soon as I researched the Montana Code and
realized that we were not legally required to file a Reply (he had lied
to me about this, of course).<br />
<br />
See, once Mom is "incompetent" or a "criminal" (or some fabricated
evidence turns me into whatever I was supposed to have been), all of
the malfeasance we've encountered is supposed to be subsumed by the
spectacle of whichever narrative sticks. We always ask ourselves why so
much energy and effort would be invested in such a weak law suit, and
it can really be the only explanation. It's an opportunity whose angles
have yet to be exhausted. Until they are, apparently people will
continue to do really blatantly illegal and unprofessional things on
the gamble that we will soon be so discredited that none of them will
matter.<br />
<br />
What next? Judge Deschamps has once again stuck his neck out and
provided a bizarre Order that helps us on appeal. An attorney has
committed malpractice so blatant and egregious (<a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/08/the-legal-malpractice-playbook.html">and so consistent with the pattern of previous colluding attorneys</a>)
as to border on surreal. Now the goal has to be to prevent us from
gaining legitimate representation before the settlement conference (one
they're working on overtime, of course). We are sure they do not want
to go to trial, as we are happy to do even as badly as our case has
been hindered by attorney malpractice. Loken and his staff do not want
to testify under oath -- we've long believed that his high tolerance
for criminal mischief caps off at perjury. <br />
<br />
For over a year, the Loken camp has given repeated blatant indicators that they are desperate for <i>us</i> to settle -- and <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/06/the-mental-health-card-judicia.html">indeed spoke directly with Judge Deschamps regarding what seemed like an attempt to extort us into doing so</a>
-- they just want it to happen on their terms. That's why it's still
hard to understand why the case is continually used as a pretext for
harassment. They have to know that any settlement will not include any
sort of confidentiality provision, and that we can still pursue other
claims related to civil conspiracy and other crimes. Do the people
funding this want to fund an appeal? Why is it so important to
discredit us and waste our time? <br />
<br />
We initially fought the bogus lien because it was ridiculous, Loken had
been way overpaid, and the job wasn't finished. He also caused a flood
in the basement that he took responsibility for but refused to remedy.
If the facts of the case had been sorted out by attorneys simply
focusing on the law, this would have ended long ago and the impulse to
fight it because we were right and didn't think a lien should be used
as an extortion tool would have paid off. That attorney after attorney
pretended to be working in our best interest while ruining the case is
not our fault. Even for those unwilling to believe that so many
attorneys and a judge are lacking professional ethics enough to
collude, you have to ask yourself: why would Loken spend $40,000 in
attorneys fees to pursue a $15,000 construction lien when his case is
so flimsy? <br />
<br />
We have fought his harassment because we knew the facts of the case
were on our side. He has completely relied on attorney collusion to
damage our case. I guess his plan is to keep doing so.<br />
<br />
~~]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Wanted: A Lawyer Who Cares About the Law</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/09/wanted-a-lawyer-who-cares-abou.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.105</id>

    <published>2009-09-09T00:58:04Z</published>
    <updated>2009-09-09T01:05:14Z</updated>

    <summary>So, we have just fired the third attorney who has engaged in criminal conspiracy to sabotage the case being defended against Steve Loken. This attorney's malpractice was so blatant and his manner so caustic and abusive, he seems to be...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
    <category term="missoula" label="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="robertdeschamps" label="Robert Deschamps" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="steveloken" label="Steve Loken" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="law" label="law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="legalmalpractice" label="legal malpractice" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="montana" label="montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[So, we have just fired the third attorney who has <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/08/the-legal-malpractice-playbook.html">engaged in criminal conspiracy to sabotage the case</a> being defended against <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/06/steve-loken-a-robin-hood-mafio.html">Steve Loken</a>. This attorney's malpractice was so blatant and his manner so caustic and abusive, he seems to be <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/jeffrey-douds-legal-malpractic.html">among those who believes there will never be consequences to his actions</a>. Really, Loken could no have ordered a more ideal attorney to serve his needs.<br /><br />Add to this another very questionable ruling from <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/06/the-mental-health-card-judicia.html">Judge Deschamps</a> (with procedural/clerical errors as well) that gives us one more appealable issue. It's hard to gauge his strategy. He's still making very prejudicial rulings that will make him look so bad in the eyes of an appellate court. One surmises that he bets it won't get that far... So does he assume we'll be "incompetent" or dead? Or that Mr. Loken will finally throw in the towel? Or we'll be forced to settle for some unforeseen reason?<br /><br />So, we are in the position once again to find an attorney. One that is not a sadist who seemingly derives joy from putting his client in powerless and dangerous positions. A lawyer who automatically acts in his client's best interests rather than fighting tooth and nail to do all he can to ruin the case. I can't imagine the day when a lawyer will actually act on my or my mother's behalf. <br /><br />So -- anyone out there? Know any lawyers who care about their clients and the law? Who are immune to whatever amalgam of energy industry and right wing funding still intent on ruining our lives? Not every lawyer in this state can be corrupt to the core.<br /><br />(A month and a half and <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/chief-muir-contradicts-himself.html">no word from Chief Muir</a>... or anyone at the Mayor's Office, the City Attorney's Office, The County Attorney's Office...)<br /><br />~~<br /> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>The Legal Malpractice Playbook: Organized Crime Tool</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/08/the-legal-malpractice-playbook.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.104</id>

    <published>2009-08-18T17:04:53Z</published>
    <updated>2009-08-18T17:55:04Z</updated>

    <summary>There's an organized crime strategy that I haven't heard discussed, but has become very evident in my encounters with attorneys over the past three years: lawyers/firms who take on clients only so that they can ruin or interfere with their...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
    <category term="harassment" label="Harassment" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="law" label="law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="legalmalpractice" label="legal malpractice" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="montana" label="montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[There's an organized crime strategy that I haven't heard discussed, but has become very evident in my encounters with attorneys over the past three years: lawyers/firms who take on clients only so that they can ruin or interfere with their cases and/or affairs. There must be an instruction pamphlet for this somewhere.<br /><br />The dominant image of this type of behavior is some sort of Italian Mob interference rather than the specific targeting of environmentalists, feminists or non-Christians. Since those seem to be the characteristics about Mom and me that have sustained a well-funded overall life interference campaign, I imagine that others are targeted for similar political/social characteristics.<br /><br />The forms of malpractice we have encountered are just too consistent for these tactics to be isolated to us. Attorney/client interference seems to be a favored means of depriving "undesirables" of their Constitutional rights. Here are some examples -- I'll do some more editing and adding later.<br /><br />(I am not qualified to give legal advice -- the anecdotes here are my experience and I take no responsibility for what anyone does with the information. But I hope it's helpful!)<br /><b><br />1. Bait and Switch (Fraud)</b><br />The unsuspecting client can be lured into hiring an attorney who promises to provide specific services or take the case in a certain direction. The problem is, most retainer or other attorney-client agreements don't allow for spelling out in detail why someone has agreed to hire a specific attorney or firm. To ensure that our interests are protected, we have started to add Addendums to contracts that stipulate what has been promised, and our understanding of what the firm has agreed to do. <br /> ]]>
        <![CDATA[<b>2.</b> <b>Providing Constant Attention at First, and then Disappearing</b><br />
This is a tactic employed along with Bait and Switch. Since finding an
attorney takes so much time and energy, it's natural to feel a sense of
relief when you do, and to be too busy or overwhelmed to find yet
another one. It can take a while to realize that someone does not have
your best interests at heart, and by the time you do, you might be up
against an important deadline.<br />
<br />
To provide an initial impression of competence and concern, attorneys
may be hyper-available for the first few weeks of representation --
answering emails immediately and giving thorough answers to your
concerns. Then, when an important filing is due, they may completely cut
off contact or provide little information about your case. If issues central to your
livelihood/existence are at stake, this is highly anxiety-producing. When they do appear again, you are grateful to get even cursory responses.<br /><br /><b>3. Taking Action Against Your Interests or Without Informed Consent<br /></b>We should all be able to assume that whatever our attorneys ask us to sign or do will be in our best interest. After all, they were hired to help. But if you're a politically active or otherwise even mildly controversial person, it seems that it is necessary to take extra precaution. <br /><b><br /></b>Attorneys have to explain to you why they are doing what they are doing so that you understand the directions they take with your case. They can fail to do this by not telling you that they've changed their minds about taking a deposition, or simply not explaining the consequences of a filing. They may <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/john-boyle-and-david-ryan-took.html">attempt to wrest your property from your control</a>, and if you don't understand the ramifications of what they put in front of you, you're screwed. In the midst of efforts to <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/more-sleazy-fun-with-tim-geisz.html">use a law suit to get you declared incompetent</a> or otherwise discredit you, they might provide advice that makes you more vulnerable to these machinations. In these instances, you can be placed in a vulnerable position when you are not fully informed of your rights and options, and an attorney takes action that is detrimental to you.<br /><br /><b>4. Avoiding Documentation</b><br />The actions described above are clearly malpractice, and attorneys don't want to lose their licenses. So when they give bad advice, or ignore your wishes, they like to do it in untraceable ways. We have witnessed attorneys give every excuse to get us on the phone or in a meeting so that their bad advice is not in any way documented. <br /><br />Insist that advice is provided in writing/email. Provide written summaries of any phone calls or meetings with your interpretation of what occurred and what the next steps will be.<br /><br /><b>5. Escaping Documentation</b><br />Once you let it be known that you insist on documenting advice and decisions, the next strategy will be to make it difficult. Most of us rely primarily on the computer. Suddenly, however, email communication becomes impossible. Your troublesome emails are interrupting someone's Saturday football game (as though he can't turn of his blackberry and respond to your message when he is able). Your very clear responses to emails are suddenly apparently nonsensical. If tactic 2 is employed, your multiple emails seeking answers to essential questions are portrayed as unreasonable. A dictum that you may now only discuss and make decisions about the case via <i>snail mail</i> is put into effect (I'm not making this up). <br /><br />All of this is to keep bad advice from being easy to document.<br /><br /><b>6. Administrative Stonewalling</b><br />You have an important deadline coming up, but suddenly all forms of communication are impossible. She's suddenly unavailable all day. He's on vacation. She's out of cell phone range. She's suddenly on vacation. She has to cancel a meeting at the last minute for personal reasons. He agrees to a meeting via telephone but forgets to tell his assistant, who insists that he is not available for a week. He will only meet in person at his office. Though you indicate the location of the meeting, the assistant deliberately and repeatedly continues to confirm another location. Once email communication is forbidden, since you need to have written documentation of advice, you have to wait days to get answers to important questions by mail. (When any of this frustrates you, you are just "impossible.")  <br /><br /><b>7. Sowing Conflict and Blaming You<br /></b>If an attorney takes on your case only to screw it up, and you're not letting that happen or are identifying malpractice, then he/she needs a pretext to get rid of you -- preferably at a really bad time. Any of the following will do to make you seem difficult. Deliberately misinterpreting communications to make them seem adversarial. Insulting you so that you will fire back an angry response. Portraying any reasoned attempt you make to provide clarification as incendiary. Their malpractice is obscured by their theatrics around how supposedly difficult you are.<br /><br />So, the focus shifts
from an attorney cutting off communication or not doing what is
promised to a client harassing an attorney. Thus, when the attorneys
are unable to manipulate us to their satisfaction through other
techniques, they can simply claim that we are difficult/impossible. As this becomes quite surreal and overall appalling, all one can do is stick to facts, hope not to feed into whatever angry/difficult narrative they're promoting, and keep cool until your next option is clear.<br /><b><br />8. Divide and Conquer</b><br />When two or more people are involved in a case, an effort will be made to prey on each individual's weakness, isolate the parties, and try to create conflict between them. <br /><br />For instance, my mother's legal knowledge has saved her from being completely railroaded by a cadre of corrupt attorneys and public servants. My advocacy and strategy have also been essential. Mom can do legal research to counter attorneys' bogus claims, and knows how to file documents with the court, but isn't great at defending herself verbally. In situations where my assistance would be beneficial, <i>every effort </i>is made to isolate her and attempt to get her to do what she has done in the past -- be persuaded to trust attorneys who are ethically and legally obligated to protect her interests. When I am too good at ensuring that communication is documented and they aren't getting away with malpractice, they disparage me to her in an apparent attempt to divide us. A favorite tactic is to (often quite cruelly and always inappropriately) disparage one of us to the other via email, or exclude one party from essential email discussions. (Of course, this is also designed to provoke an angry response to the attorney per tactic 7.)<br /><br />(BTW, depending on what serves them, at one time the judge or opposing counsel or corrupt attorney will claim that my mother "should have known better" when she was being sent down the river -- because of her legal degree. At another time, her having been taken advantage of is supposedly proof that she's incompetent. So -- the problem is that she's either too knowledgeable or needs a guardian -- it just shows how tactical it all is.)<br /><br />Any client is going to have strengths and weaknesses. We should all have the right to attorneys whose intention is to give us sound advice rather than prey upon them.<br /><b><br />9. When You Call Them on Their Malpractice, They Try to Frame you as Difficult</b><br />This is classic. They've avoided you for weeks, taken action without your informed consent, made a mistake in a filing -- any of these, all of these, or more. You have frantically attempted to get them to correct their mistake or omission. When they don't respond, you copy partners or other associates to remind the firm of its professional obligation to you. You do all you can to ensure that you have protected your interests, and as a result of these actions you are accused of being difficult or impossible. Your efforts to have them mitigate the damage they have done to your case are portrayed as unreasonable. <br /><br />Your case has been mangled. Your lawyer's only response is that your efforts to get mistakes rectified have sealed you as impossible to represent. You have to find yet another attorney, pay him or her to get up to speed on the case, and hope that he/she won't put you through the same process all over again.<br /><br />You can see how any of these tactics is stress-inducing. When many of them are applied together, they work as part of an overall strategy to disrupt someone's life. Having to spend so much time to get someone who should be serving your interests to do so is frustrating and time-consuming. One ridiculous, baseless, extortion-like law suit can be protracted for years when your attorneys aren't working for you. It's time that people can't spend writing, organizing, or pursuing the leisure activities that keep them happy. It's a great way to destabilize and interfere with political enemies.<br /><br />~~<br />]]>
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Chief Muir Contradicts Himself...</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/chief-muir-contradicts-himself.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.103</id>

    <published>2009-07-23T20:51:24Z</published>
    <updated>2009-07-23T21:13:21Z</updated>

    <summary>For starters: here is what Conspiracy Against Rights is. It has nothing to do with space aliens or black helicopters.It's always scary when people in positions of authority give different explanations for their procedures based on what is most convenient...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="kyeannsayer" label="Kyeann Sayer" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoula" label="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoulapolicedepartment" label="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="markmuir" label="mark muir" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[For starters: here is what <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html">Conspiracy Against Rights is</a>. It has nothing to do with space aliens or black helicopters.<br /><br />It's always scary when people in positions of authority give different explanations for their procedures based on what is most convenient at the moment, all while trying to blame you for their choices.<br /><br />I'm not sure what all occurred in the conversation that just took place between Chief Muir and my mom. She's summarizing it, and she asked him to put his strange contentions in written form so that there would be a record of them. Though he <b>refused to take an official statement from my mother when she offered</b>, he is going to take one from Alain Goodman. Yay for impartial police work.<br /><br />In response to my inquiry about the report that she filed about Alain Goodman accosting her, Muir told me in writing that he could not comment because it was reported by her. Fine.<br /><br />Today, he told her that he never responded to her because he was waiting for "corroborating evidence as to how [her] complaint fits into [my] overall conspiracy theory." (Though I specifically said we were waiting for action on her complaint and wanted to know the process of obtaining a restraining order...) He didn't want to stir up the neighborhood with "unsubstantiated claims." He also said to her that he had requested more information about the incident from me but I had refused to supply it.<br /><br />So... when I am interested in knowing when the police are going to follow up with my mother about an assault, responding would violate her privacy. Yet, they can't follow up with her because they're waiting for something from me?<br /><br />And -- her complaint just ended up on Muir's desk without any official record of her having filed it. My understanding is that no action can be taken on an issue unless there is a recorded complaint filed. Though she did not file it in relation to the overall harassment situation (indeed, until recently Chief Muir hadn't even agreed that he would examine evidence in that light -- I'm not yet sure he has), he just left it on his desk and awaited more info from me? Rather than following up on an assault? And when I asked him about it he said (on official police stationary) that he couldn't respond?<br /><br />Clearly, this is some sort of backfill explaining.<br /><br />Even better: apparently, he has heard from a third party that the incident did not occur out of the blue as my mother was walking down the street with croissants, but the frightening encounter was somehow a response to my mom's taking a picture. That's not the case (mom didn't have a camera with her), but even if it were, since when is someone allowed to assault someone else because he or she is being photographed? And why would a police officer decide to omit any official record of a complaint based on some third party claim? Aren't they still obligated to follow up and get a statement from the complainant about what occurred?<br /><br />This third party called and complained about Mom's having taken a picture before he received her complaint. But -- I called Sergeant Richardson immediately after it happened. I wrote about it right away. So -- why does that call about photography somehow cancel out my Mom's written complaint about assault? Why does what other people say carry so much more weight than what we say? I have repeatedly asked about any documentation or official complaining about us from the neighbors and have just gotten very vague, non-specific answers.<br /><br />People have been working overtime to make our taking of photographs of people who exhibit odd behavior in front of our home, or of vehicles who park in the proximity for no apparent reason, as some sort of crime. We do it defensively as <i>stalking victims</i> to document the odd/stalkerish/harassment behavior in the neighborhood. We have explained to our neighbors why we do it and have asked them to contact us with any concerns. If there is some legal issue about taking photographs on the public street, I'm sure that someone in some sort of official capacity can let us know. <br /><br />Sergeant Richardson indicated to me that it was perfectly legal for Alain Goodman to stand on the sidewalk and photograph our property. I can't imagine that it's illegal for us to stand on our own property and photograph the street. Though these people take pains to get us to interact with them, we never do. <br /><br />Anyhow -- the double standards and multiple explanations are odd.<br /><br />It seems as though Chief Muir's next rhetorical tack (since "insincere" didn't quite work out) is the woo-woo, crazy ladies conspiracy angle. Again, conspiracy is when two people get together to plan to do harm/make mischief/<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/241.html">deprive people of their rights</a>. The way that Chief Muir contradicts himself, fails to give sufficient legal/procedural explanations for his or his officers decisions, engages in slippery policy, and strives to come up with reasons that our claims are illegitimate, suggests to me that he has spoken with at least one other person about ways to deligitimize our claims or keep them from becoming official police record. Given what he and Sergeant Richardson have written, and how they have responded, this is legitimate interpretation. But I can see why Chief Muir would want to promote an inaccurate interpretation of what conspiracy means rather than one that might apply to him or to officers in his department.<br /><br />He said he would let my mom know in writing by the middle of next week why he chose not to follow up on her assault or create any official record of it. <br /><br />~~<br /> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Missoula Police Department "Losing" Our Complaint Records...</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/missoula-police-department-los.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.102</id>

    <published>2009-07-23T18:08:25Z</published>
    <updated>2009-07-23T18:47:36Z</updated>

    <summary><![CDATA[So, today Mom called to follow up on the Citizen's Complaint she filed against Alain Goodman after he accosted her on June 25.&nbsp; It's no wonder Chief Muir didn't want to comment on it or voluntarily follow up. Despite the...]]></summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="kyeannsayer" label="Kyeann Sayer" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoula" label="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoulapolicedepartment" label="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="markmuir" label="mark muir" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[So, today Mom called to follow up on the Citizen's Complaint she filed against Alain Goodman after <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/06/early-morning-harassment-from.html">he accosted her on June 25</a>.&nbsp; It's no wonder <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/chief-muirs-insincerity-narrat.html">Chief Muir didn't want to comment on it or voluntarily follow up</a>. Despite the fact that she both faxed the complaint and sent it certified, <i><b>there is no record of it in the Department's system</b></i>. Two separate officers searched for it and couldn't find it. <br /><br />And we're supposed to believe that the Department is a neutral party, dispassionately interested in protecting us as much as any other citizens? That Chief Muir is just itching to follow up on our array of Complaints? I have corresponded with Chief Muir about this incident repeatedly. Now we have to ask -- who/what is the Department covering for? It's seemed from Day 1 that Sergeant Richardson and Chief Muir were mostly interested in preventing us from supplying documentation and evidence. Then when one of us makes a report, <i>it disappears</i>. And the problem is supposedly my/our "insincerity" about wanting to make official reports? This is ridiculous.<br /><br />Now I'll be interested to see how many of my 911 stalking/harassment calls have been "lost."<br /> <br />It's not at all an exaggeration to say that we're venturing into official cover-up territory here. It's going to be more and more difficult to make this about us instead of the people and practices Chief Muir seems to be protecting.<br />]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Dear Chief Muir... Please Provide Legitimate Assistance.</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/dear-chief-muir-please-provide.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.101</id>

    <published>2009-07-19T16:22:42Z</published>
    <updated>2009-07-19T16:26:51Z</updated>

    <summary>Sunday, July 19 at 10:22 PMChief Muir,(Blog post below for your perusal.)Your July 10 letter was the first one in which you gave any instructions on how you would like to receive evidence, so I find it odd that you...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Banality of Evil" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="missoula" label="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="montana" label="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="markmuir" label="mark muir" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[Sunday, July 19 at 10:22 PM<br /><br />Chief <span class="il">Muir</span>,<br /><br />(Blog post below for your perusal.)<br /><br />Your
July 10 letter was the first one in which you gave any instructions on
how you would like to receive evidence, so I find it odd that you spent
so much of the letter describing how I was not providing you with
evidence, and questioning my sincerity.<br />
<br />I will file police reports to avoid the one-year statue of
limitations issue. Until I retain a civil rights attorney, I will
continue to seek out others in County and State government who might
take a more sympathetic/responsive tack toward addressing someone who
has endured nearly two years of relentless harassment in your
jurisdiction. I don't consider you a neutral party, and will therefore
seek out additional people to send information to in addition to you.
You professed a preference for me to send evidence and documentation to
you directly without officially filing the reports. However, I will
file official reports and include evidence -- it is my understanding
that in order for a complaint to be actionable it must be reported. Is
that not true?<br />
<br />I must say that your ongoing attitude toward me suggests that you
don't believe that your policies/responses will ever be reviewed by an
independent body/that you will ever be accountable for them. This is
disturbing since we have dealt with numerous attempts to harm us,
and/or completely diminish our credibility through entrapment and other
means. I would certainly hope that you are not relying on such an
eventuality. Your taking this "insincerity" approach is in itself quite
insincere, and seems like a further attempt to diminish my credibility.
<br />
<br />In regard to specifics:<br /><br />It seems that the one year statute
of limitations on individual misdemeanor offenses would not apply to
incidents that are an aspect of an ongoing criminal conspiracy. Please
clarify how I can submit information from over one year old that is/has
been part of ongoing efforts. Please clarify how I can best coordinate
with you and the county and/or state attorney on providing the criminal
conspiracy information. Feel free to elaborate and provide any and all
helpful information I could use for reporting criminal conspiracy --
this should save us all a lot of time.<br />
<br />You indicated you are not in receipt of the letter your were copied
on that I sent to Alain and Darla Goodman's landlord dated June 4th.
Sergeant Richardson responded to that letter by looking up my blog and
responding to the email address there, rather than responding by post.
I find it odd that he had not forwarded the letter to you since you
were the one copied on it. <br />
<br />We believe that many suspicious vehicles are associated with the
ongoing harassment campaign. We wouldn't provide a "general list of
vehicles parked in the neighborhood which you feel might have been
suspicious in some unknown way" as you suggest in your response to this
description of the issue of license plates:<br /><div class="im">
<br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">We have dealt with an overall stalking and harassment situation. We
have dozens of incidents to report, and many associated suspicious
license plates. Investigators who are truly interested in the why and
how have a lot to go on. Again, we could report these all as individual
instances or provide them succinctly to a genuinely curious party who
would like to follow up thoroughly. The latter seems more efficient.<br /><br /></div></div>What
about that description suggests that I intend to provide the "general
list" that you describe? As must be abundantly clear by now, what I am
reporting is stalking, harassment and hate crime. I believe suspicious
vehicles and individuals associated with them (some of which have been
photographed in the process of bizarre/harassing behavior), are part of
this larger effort. Hence, my desire to report these incidents as part
of stalking, harassment, and hate crime. Please let me know how to
report them as an aspect of that, or if that would involve coordination
with County and/or State agencies.<br />
<br />You say that you can't answer the following without receiving my
evidence. I beg to differ. It might be uncomfortable for you to explain
your department's handling of this, but certainly many of these
questions are imminently answerable. If you had enough information to
claim that Sergeant Richardson's procedure was not "bizarre," you must
have enough information to explain to me why, from an objective
procedural and legal standpoint, it was not.<br />
<br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;"><i>You claim that a general prohibition on contacting the neighbors in
any way is not "bizarre." What legal or department procedural policy
allows a police officer to instruct a citizen not to communicate in any
way with her neighbors -- without indicating which neighbors or citing
specific complaints from any of them?&nbsp; I provided ample documentation
of harassment from neighbors to Sergeant Richardson -- has he instructed
them not to contact us? Have they provided any evidence or
documentation of our supposed harassment of them? My understanding is
that I need to file a restraining order against anyone whom I don't
wish to contact me, and that I need to have documentation to do so. It
seems discriminatory to take their concerns seriously, but not ours --
especially when we are the ones who initiated contact with your
department. Please clarify.</i> <br /></div><br />Only
the last statement seems to rely upon my evidence. The rest of the
information should be professional knowledge or gleaned from Sergeant
Richardson.<br /><br />We have large amounts of food and liquid evidence.
When workers were in the house last summer, in addition to seemingly
purposeful attempts to expose us to toxic chemicals (not warning us
about toxicity, removing the barriers we set up to protect ourselves) a
number of pantry items were tampered with. We have become ill a number
of times due to what seems like tampering with food and bottled water.
We have saved these items for testing. Please let me know how best they
can be submitted to the state lab. (We have been concerned that one of
the goals of the drug entrapment attempts was to remove these items
before they could be tested.) Specifically, around the time a doctor
misdiagnosed me with hepatitis (seemingly to make me appear as an IV
drug user -- another doctor was shocked at her misreading of the blood
work and treating me for an affliction I clearly did not have), I
suffered major pain for months that turned out to be my gallbladder. It
became evident that bottled water that I drank consistently caused and
exacerbated the problem. I believe it may have been tainted with oxalic
acid, which promotes gall stones. Clearly, I believe that the doctor
who misdiagnosed me should be questioned, as well as individuals who
seem to have been involved with the food and beverage tampering.<br />
<br />And to preempt any more of your language about all of this being
some sort of impression we have -- that is why we saved items for
testing. I'm sure the individuals involved thought that we would be
dead or discredited before anyone would be accountable for it. The fact
of people deciding to do these heinous things to us does not reflect on
our stability or capacity. Again -- we have evidence.<br />
<br />Finally, your questioning my sincerity at this time is
disappointing to say the least. Though the overall atmosphere of
intimidation and harassment has for the most part abated in the
neighborhood, we are still dealing with a major campaign to disrupt our
lives. Right now it is necessary to provide documentation to a number
of entities. Just this last week, we dealt with what seems like an
additional entrapment attempt when someone somehow piped what smelled
like pot smoke into our first floor bathroom. I recently suffered food
poisoning, and the recent chemical exposure in the back yard of which
you are aware. As is clear by the way you relate to me, documenting and
reporting such incidents in a manner that law enforcement can act on
them is difficult; they are that way by design. We go through each day
knowing that a number of people in the local community wish for our
demise so that the prospect of facing consequences for criminal
wrongdoing will go away. Again, you did not instruct me about how you
would like to receive evidence until your July 10 letter. Doing so will
be very time consuming, and your incomplete information, lack of
straightforward answers and seeming inability to understand basic
descriptions of criminal activity (see below) don't help. I have wanted
a procedure in place to make it easier for all of us. Though the
process may take time, and immediate issues of survival pop up in our
lives with alarming regularity and demand our full attention, please
never doubt for a moment that I want more than anything to see
appropriate legal remedy for the overwhelming amount of illegal
activity that we have endured. It would be nice to know that the person
receiving the information had a genuine desire to see justice served.<br />
<br />I will do my best to make it easy for local law enforcement to
pursue crimes that my mother and I have endured in Missoula. I will
make every effort to supply evidence and documentation at a timely
pace. I hope that you will become sincere and forthcoming. The things
that have happened to us are bizarre, but that is not our fault.
Believe that there are thousands of things I'd rather do than try to
find out a way to provide evidence and documentation to you that best
serves justice. Had we not documented most aspects of our lives as well
as we have, I sincerely believe we would not be alive right now. Please
do not add insult to injury by continuing with insincere deflective
strategies and what seems like a continuation of "blaming the victim."<br />
<br />Kyeann Sayer ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Chief Muir's "Insincerity" Narrative</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/chief-muirs-insincerity-narrat.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.100</id>

    <published>2009-07-19T13:33:25Z</published>
    <updated>2009-07-19T16:45:32Z</updated>

    <summary>Chief Muir sent me a letter dated July 10 (postmarked July 13) in response to the email below. It is the first communication in which he has provided any specific information about how he would prefer to receive evidence and...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Democracy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="kyeannsayer" label="Kyeann Sayer" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoula" label="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoulapolicedepartment" label="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="markmuir" label="mark muir" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[Chief Muir sent me a letter dated July 10 (postmarked July 13) <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/chief-muirs-response-not-much.html">in response to the email below</a>. It is the first communication in which he has provided any specific information about how he would prefer to receive evidence and documentation.<br /><br />Yet, the new tactic is to make it look like I'm simply not supplying evidence and only like to argue. When I've been waiting for procedural preferences as well as assurance that someone other than Chief Muir will bear responsibility for reviewing the information I submit. This man's first substantive communication with me involved <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/06/missoula-pd-will-not-tolerate.html">warnings to keep quiet about my claims that the department was mishandling our situation</a>. Since that first interaction, he hasn't given me much of a reason to trust him.<br /><br />For example, I stated these concerns about Chief Muir's defending the legitimacy of Sergeant Richardson's actions in his last letter.<br /><i><br /></i><blockquote><i>You claim that a general prohibition on contacting the neighbors in
any way is not "bizarre." What legal or department procedural policy
allows a police officer to instruct a citizen not to communicate in any
way with her neighbors -- without indicating which neighbors or citing
specific complaints from any of them?&nbsp; I provided ample documentation
of harassment from neighbors to Sergeant Richardson -- has he instructed
them not to contact us? Have they provided any evidence or
documentation of our supposed harassment of them? My understanding is
that I need to file a restraining order against anyone whom I don't
wish to contact me, and that I need to have documentation to do so. It
seems discriminatory to take their concerns seriously, but not ours --
especially when we are the ones who initiated contact with your
department. Please clarify.</i> <br /></blockquote>His response?<br /><br /><blockquote><i>I will reply to your third point upon receipt and review of your evidence, as I am unable to knowledgeably respond without that evidence.<br /><br /></i></blockquote>What? He is unable to make a statement about legality and department policy? He can't answer these specific questions? He can't provide clarification on the restraining order issue? He doesn't have access to the information supplied to Sergeant Richardson?<br /><br />Is putting off responding to these very answerable questions (albeit uncomfortable, because they reveal some pretty fuzzy/shoddy procedure), because he believes that I for some reason will not be in a position to supply all of the documentation and evidence? I'll be too distracted, perhaps?<br /><br />You've gotta love the way he ends his letter:<br /><br /><blockquote><i>I do not understand why you have not already brought me the evidence which you so repeatedly have insisted we accept from you. If for some reason you have been insincere as to your intent to share your evidence with me, please feel free to cease communication and seek the assistance of state or federal authorities...</i><br /></blockquote>Is there anything about my communication that seems insincere? Seriously? As though I wouldn't sincerely want to help law enforcement to punish the people who have relentlessly harassed and intimidated us? I'm sorry, but that seems like a very insincere tack.<br /><br />My major concern has been wanting a procedure in place that makes sense.&nbsp; My entire life has been derailed by this harassment campaign, and documenting it all takes time and energy. A proper process is important, as it sets the framework for how these matters are handled. I guess it will be necessary to file individual reports for every single incident and send copies to his attention. I think that the department's obligations are more extensive if an actual report is filed, so it seems necessary to do so. Of course, It's going to take a lot of time to file all of these individual reports. To me it makes complete sense why a person in my position wouldn't just hand over all of her documentation and information to someone who has revealed himself to be less than objective or trustworthy and isn't accountable to anyone else in the department.<br /><br />So, here we have local law enforcement playing into the goals of the overall campaign: creating such overwhelming and pervasive harassment as to halt someone's life to a standstill. Right now we are in a position of having to provide documentation to the health department, lawyers, insurance agents, the doctor's office that I have to follow up with constantly to ensure that they don't send paid accounts to collections, the police department, and others. By not answering questions, not volunteering appropriate information, and taking an overall defensive posture, I have to work overtime to figure out my rights and how our evidence will avoid slipping through the cracks. I am the victim of stalking and harassment and attempted entrapment, and have been preemptively treated as the perpetrator. I wonder if they treat all stalking victims this way or if we're special.<br /><br />So, when there are all of those people out there waiting for information who have an investment in making it seems as though it doesn't exist or that we're making it up, I always pause when a key person like the police chief portrays my lack of immediate reaction as "insincere." (Especially when -- again -- I've repeatedly emphasized an overall desire for a process that ensures accountability and efficiency.) I've learned that such a rhetorical turn usually indicates a narrative is forming: in this case it seems to be the "insincerity" narrative. Something like, "Those ladies, they like to make claims, but they never follow up." But we have been put in a position where we need to document nearly every business and consumer interaction in order to protect ourselves. For heaven's sake, we just found out last week that we avoided an incompetency hearing for my mother! (This letter was written before that matter had been decided -- maybe he thought we'd still be overwhelmed by that.) That's the a central goal of a harassment campaign like the one we've endured: complete and utter disruption of a person's life in such a way that is difficult to document and makes him or her seem to be the party at fault. So the Department preemptively does not want to see it as though we're dealing with constant criminal assaults, but are simply insincere and withholding. Wow.<br /><br />I can see why he admonishes, "Please don't continue to haggle or dispute this department's handling of your complaints, it is just taking time away from determining the validity of those issues you feel we aren't addressing." His emphasis takes legitimacy away from the importance of the process. If I'm just haggling, then apparently I'm not expressing legitimate concerns about Chief Muir's neutrality and the objective handling of my case. Then I'm a haggler, not someone who wants to be assured that if she takes the time to amass piles of narrative and documentation that it's not going to end up in the back of the Police Chief's filing cabinet. Also, since the situation has obviously been completely mishandled, I can see why he would discourage me from continuing to point out inconsistent or discriminatory procedure.<br /><br />Interestingly, I copied Chief Muir on a letter to our neighbor's landlords dated June 4, but he seems to have never seen it. It was the basis of Sergeant Richardson's contacting me. Strange that even now he has not forwarded Chief Muir a copy of the letter.<br /><br />I'm also concerned about Chief Muir's ability to accurately interpret clear written communication. In response to my concerns about David Merrill making extortion-like threats, he says that "Threats of legal action or law enforcement investigation is not a threat upon which any criminal charge may be undertaken." But I said clearly:<br /><br /><blockquote><i>if my mother did not pay him a certain
amount, he indicated that he would circumvent legal channels and sic
the police department on us.</i><br /></blockquote><br />Does Chief Muir not understand the meaning of "circumventing legal channels"? The point about Mr. Merrill was that he did <i>not</i> threaten legal action, as would have been appropriate. He should have gone through appropriate legal channels. Instead he said that if he was not paid a certain amount of money, he would call the police, in addition to other threats. He knew that we were fearful of law enforcement's involvement with our harassment at that time -- the threat seemed designed to scare us. As you can see below, I indicate clearly that the problem was that he was <i>not</i> using appropriate legal remedy but threatening to use the police as enforcers for his demand for money.<br /><br />Then, there are little niggling annoying things. I asked for follow-up on Mom's report filed re: the neighbor's assault. He can't follow up with me because it would violate her privacy. Great -- completely valid. But, why not follow up with her directly? His department's mishandling of the situation contributed to incident's even taking place. One would think that the department could follow up with her within a month's time. And, my asking about it would at least alert them to the fact that our household is interested in the outcome... And might prompt a follow-up. But we haven't heard anything. (<a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/jeffrey-douds-legal-malpractic.html">Waiting for her to be declared incompetent, perhaps?</a>)<br /><br />Another thing: he says not to submit evidence that's over a year old. But if it's part of ongoing criminal conspiracy, isn't it still valid/valuable? Or would the state attorney need to handle that? This is where I find the handling problematic. It seems that it's being viewed/handled in the narrowest possible terms, with the least amount of helpful information provided. Of course, it would be lovely to have a civil rights attorney that wasn't for sale. We don't have that luxury yet. But we will. And when that day comes it seems like the Department will want to have lent the appearance legitimacy.<br /><br />You may ask: why do you take the time to write these posts? Well, if I didn't, I believe the next door neighbors would have remained in full on campaign mode and that Chief Muir wouldn't even be giving me lip service.<br /><br />~~<br /> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>County Attorney's Office Not Interested in Hearing about Criminal Activity. Yet.</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/county-attorneys-office-not-in.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.99</id>

    <published>2009-07-09T13:23:00Z</published>
    <updated>2009-07-09T13:24:04Z</updated>

    <summary>I sent the email below and then thought it best to follow up with specifics. At least the recipients at the city and county can't pretend they haven't been somewhat filled in. Am I handling this badly? Wrong? I guess...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Civil Liberties" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Civil Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Human Rights" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="davidmerrill" label="David Merrill" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="fredvanvalkenburg" label="Fred van Valkenburg" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="kyeannsayer" label="Kyeann Sayer" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoula" label="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoulacounty" label="Missoula County" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoulapolicedepartment" label="Missoula Police Department" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="tycranmore" label="Ty Cranmore" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[I sent the email below and then thought it best to follow up with specifics. At least the recipients at the city and county can't pretend they haven't been somewhat filled in. <br /><br />Am I handling this badly? Wrong? I guess there's no Emily Post Guide to convincing law enforcement and county prosecutors to care about crimes against you. I would feel worse about my handling of it if someone had taken the time to explain to me exactly how to best submit evidence of multiple, interwoven crimes and I was ignoring them. <br /><br />All along it has seemed as though everyone was holding his or her breath, waiting for one of us to die, for one of the entrapment schemes to work, or for us to be labeled crazy for saying out loud that all of this was happening. As long as any of that was in store, none of the specific crimes would matter because we would be discredited and not in a position to pursue them.&nbsp; <br /><br />We'll see how long that trend continues. Can they really get away with ignoring claims like those below? They're only a teeny tiny piece of the tip of the ice burg. <br /><br />from&nbsp;&nbsp;  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Kyeann Sayer<br />date&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:12 AM<br />subject&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Specific Examples of Criminal Activity<br /><br />Let me provide some examples in the hope that it will clarify my dilemma of how best to provide evidence.<br /><br />In
an email exchange, a Missoula resident named David Merrill threatened
what amounts to extortion -- if my mother did not pay him a certain
amount, he indicated that he would circumvent legal channels and sic
the police department on us. This is a violation of many laws
(including those governing email communications locally). We believe
that he was threatening the extortion as part of a larger scheme to
foreclose on my mother's property. I could simply submit a police
report with evidence of his threat and so it would be treated as a
single issue. It seems, however, as though it would make looking into
all of this simpler if someone had a file labeled something like
"Conspiracy to Damage/Foreclose on Property X" and Mr. Merrill's
individual extortion attempt could go there. From an investigative
perspective, it seems like it makes sense to have the overall context
along with the report of the individual attempt.<br />
<br />Also, the day before an important court appearance, my mom suffered
carbon monoxide poisoning because her car had been tampered with. Not
only was the exhaust system somehow blocked, but a part was pulled out
of the engine so that it was burning and smoking. When she took it to
the mechanic, he said that it could have exploded if we drove much
further. We have pictures of it, the receipt from the mechanic, and an
idea of who could have done it. It seems that all of this information
would be very helpful to investigators.<br />
<br />A gentleman named Ty Cranmore threatened to use a Sheriff's
Department employee as a hired goon when we wouldn't return a piece of
property that my mother had purchased from his employer and that he had
damaged. We believe he intentionally damaged property, and think his
threats bordered on extortion. He used hate speech in our home,
apparently to contribute to the overall atmosphere of intimidation. We
would like to know why Mr. Cranmore was so confident in his feeling of
entitlement to damage our property and then receive local government
back-up.<br />
<br />We have dealt with an overall stalking and harassment situation. We
have dozens of incidents to report, and many associated suspicious
license plates. Investigators who are truly interested in the why and
how have a lot to go on. Again, we could report these all as individual
instances or provide them succinctly to a genuinely curious party who
would like to follow up thoroughly. The latter seems more efficient.<br />
<br />I have a hard time believing that the city and county of Missoula
would not want to follow up on issues like these. I hope you will start
treating us like citizens to help and protect.<br /><br />Kyeann Sayer<br /><br /><br />from &nbsp;&nbsp;  Kyeann Sayer<br />date&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:50 AM<br />subject&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Re: Request for Liaison<br />mailed-by&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; gmail.com<br /><br />Mr. Van Valkenburg,<br /><br />Are you not interested in pursuing criminal
activity in the county? I have evidence of harm to persons and property
including fraud and criminal conspiracy -- as well as attempts to do
physical harm to my mother and me. Many of these crimes appear to have
been hate-based. It seems odd that you would make a predetermination
that you are not interested in pursuing such serious matters.<br />
<br />We have such extensive documentation and material evidence that I
would like a consistent and clear means of providing it to your office
and the police department so that we are all spared a great deal of
energy and effort. I would like to help your office operate
efficiently, so that tax payer dollars are not wasted unnecessarily
through sloppy communication and duplication of efforts.<br />
<br />Since you will not identify a liaison, please let me know how you
would like to learn about the criminal activity we have endured in
Missoula County. <br /><br />I am sure you don't want to send the message
that you are not interested in receiving information about and pursuing
criminal activity by preemptively ensuring that your office is not
aware of it. So far, that is what your communication suggests. Many of
the&nbsp; people involved in doing us harm are prominent community members
and it seems as though they have felt protected by individuals in the
police and sheriff's department (I have evidence of this); I'm sure you
don't want to lend the appearance of obstructing our efforts in order
to protect them.<br />
<br />I look forward to working with your office to ensure that justice
is served in Missoula County. Again, please let me know how best to so.<br /><font color="#888888"><br />Kyeann Sayer</font><div><span id="q_1225fa321b56e9cc_2" class="h4">- Hide quoted text -</span></div><br /><br />On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Fred VanValkenburg <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:fvanvalk@co.missoula.mt.us" target="_blank">fvanvalk@co.missoula.mt.us</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br />




<div>Dear Ms. Sayer,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>You are not getting a liaison in the County Attorney's office. We have no business with you to discuss.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Fred Van Valkenburg</div>
Missoula County Attorney&nbsp;&nbsp;<br /><br />&gt;&gt;&gt; Kyeann Sayer &lt;<a href="mailto:kyeann@gmail.com" target="_blank">kyeann@gmail.com</a>&gt; 7/8/2009 04:07 AM &gt;&gt;&gt;<br />All,<br /><br />Since
Mr. Van Valkenberg sent me the pasted text of an email he claims to
have sent on June 29 (I never received it), I have not heard from him.
I am eager to have a liaison in the county attorney's office in order
to streamline communication.<br />
<br />Thank you,<br /><br />Kyeann Sayer<br /><br /><br />from Kyeann Sayer &lt;<a href="mailto:kyeann@gmail.com" target="_blank">kyeann@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br />to Fred VanValkenburg &lt;<a href="mailto:fvanvalk@co.missoula.mt.us" target="_blank">fvanvalk@co.missoula.mt.us</a>&gt;<br />
date Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:15 PM<br />subject Re: Threatening Behavior from Alain Goodman This Morning<br /><br /><br />Mr Van Valkenburg,<br /><br />I never received a June 29 email and don't see it below.<br /><br />My
mother and I have endured much criminal activity in Missoula County and
believe that your office should seriously consider our claims. Please
let me know with whom I should confer about this. I will be forwarding
information to the police department, but also think it's important to
have a liaison in your office.<br />
<br />Thank you,<br /><font color="#888888"><br />Kyeann Sayer </font> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>More Sleazy Fun with Tim Geiszler's Silly, Little Lies</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/more-sleazy-fun-with-tim-geisz.html" />
    <id>tag:www.sixhoursaweek.com,2009://1.98</id>

    <published>2009-07-08T12:33:26Z</published>
    <updated>2010-05-17T10:41:54Z</updated>

    <summary>Tim Geiszler of Missoula's Geiszler and Froines is priceless. The minutiae of these peoples' ploys is so incredible. That people are paid or volunteer to sit around thinking of the tiniest ways to discredit my mom astounds me. I always...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Kyeann</name>
        
    </author>
    
        <category term="Geiszler and Froines" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Loken Builders" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    <category term="geiszlerlawfirm" label="Geiszler Law Firm" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="geiszlerandfroines" label="Geiszler and Froines" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="missoula" label="Missoula" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="montana" label="Montana" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="steveloken" label="Steve Loken" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="timothygeiszlerlawyer" label="Timothy Geiszler lawyer" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    <category term="law" label="law" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/">
        <![CDATA[Tim Geiszler of Missoula's Geiszler and Froines is priceless. The minutiae of these peoples' ploys is so incredible. That people are paid or volunteer to sit around thinking of the tiniest ways to discredit my mom astounds me. I always have to wonder how many people this is happening to. <br /><br />So, the <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/06/steve-loken-a-robin-hood-mafio.html">Geiszler/Loken camp</a> is in <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/john-boyle-and-david-ryan-took.html">a desperate full court press</a> to convince Judge Deschamps to convene a completely unprecedented and uncalled for competency hearing. Apparently in order to back up his claim that Mom is unreliable or incompetent, Geiszler does the pettiest little thing. <br /><br />He files a motion with the court to extend the deadline for the settlement conference the judge has ordered. Only, he says that he's tried to contact Mom regarding the rescheduling but she didn't respond. He files the motion with the description of her non-response on Thursday, and on that same Thursday afternoon sends Mom the email asking her if she minds rescheduling. Obviously, she couldn't respond after Geiszler had already filed something saying she didn't.<br /><br />So he's lied. In a court filing. About something so stupid and little. He clearly doesn't mind lying. I guess if you're willing to try to wrest control of someone's life away from her for strategic reasons, your professional ethics don't dissuade you from lying in court documents. <br /><br />This is the kind of petty ridiculousness we deal with -- it's also very instructive. This is how people are discredited and their lives ruined. Little by little. A tiny lie here, and a tiny lie there, and a few big lies thrown in, and suddenly you have what seems like community-wide consensus about someone's character or, in this case, competency.<br /><br />I would wager that Geiszler thought that his little lie would slip through without rebuttal. He would think that because he would assume that our new attorney would start filing immediately and he would be reasonably confident that that attorney would not want to dispute Mr. Geiszler's representation. He would assume that our new attorney would go along with the incompetence narrative. Because <a href="http://www.sixhoursaweek.com/2009/07/jeffrey-douds-legal-malpractic.html">previous attorneys have gone along with Mr. Geiszler's narratives</a>.<br /><br />And there it would be as evidence: See, the Defendant can't function on her own -- she can't even respond to simple email requests.<br /><br />Sorry, Mr. Geiszler. The tricks you learned in whatever Sleazy Lawyer Guild you belong to can't work forever. Now your silly, little email is part of the public record along with your silly, little lie of a filing. Congratulations -- the Montana Bar should be proud to have you.<br /><br />~~<br /> ]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed>

