Law society rules Wonderful Now Posts are further Harassment of Lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Simon Buckingham

A little bird tells me that the Law Society has dismissed complaints against  lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and lawyer Simon Buckingham.

Apparently, unlike some, the law society is able to read legal judgments and understand phrases like:

• “Ms Sperling’s assumption of the role of victim in this matter in my view cannot be justified. “
• “Lie No 4 was posted on 10 May 2012 all of which seems to point to an obsession that Ms Sperling has with Ms Brown rather than Ms Brown having an obsession with Ms Sperling as she stated in the comment “please leave me alone”. In fact it is Ms Brown who appears to have been the subject of continued attention  from Ms Sperling.”
• “Ms Sperling’s assertions that she did not intend to harass cannot be substantiated given the combative and aggressively critical tone of her blogs and given her awareness of the fact that Ms Brown and Ms Flannagan knew of the existence of the posts. That she continued to make further posts and indeed the number of posts increased in intensity once litigation had commenced is a further indication of my conclusion.”
• “At the same time I would counsel Ms Sperling to now leave Ms Brown and Ms Flannagan alone.”

Anyway, I’ve blogged about her post on Simon’s complaint – you can read that here. As I noted, she seemed in her complaint to be (among other things) seriously suggesting that it was unethical for a lawyer to be involved in a lawsuit. It must have also been a shocker to have point 5 dismissed…

Point 5, she argues that use of the “royal we” is intended to intimidate. Apparently, she’s intimidated by false plurals. I’m sure this will be immediately transferred to the “Grammar Police” subsection of the law society’s complaints board. I hear their powers are impressive, including “raising of the eyebrow” and “brisk tutting”.

It was very clear from her posts that she had no real grounds to complain.  Indeed, in the above linked post I concluded:

In short, her complaint appears to be an abuse of the professional complaints process.

And that’s apparently how the law society saw it. I’m told that the word “vexatious” was used to describe the complaint, and it was further described as a continuation of Sperlings campaign of abuse and harassment.

What a pity they can’t act on malicious complaints.

But speaking of which, I’ve hinted previously that Sperling’s online bullying is larger than just a couple of victims. There are other matters she is has been called to account for. Not sure what I should/can say but suffice to say, if she is jailed, I’ll let my readers know if I’m able to.

I’d just like to talk about a couple of other things before I conclude.

Sperling previously tried to pretend that her place of study was a state secret, even though it could easily be discovered by anyone. At the time I posted on it, I thought I’d not name her institution of learning since she seemed to consider it private. However, it’s pretty hard to believe someone wants something private when they post it on facebook for the world to see.

 

So if you have a problem with Weltech giving a recidivist online bully privileged access to vulnerable people, give ‘em a call and tell them (respectfully) that you find their ethical stance appalling. I certainly do.

But I will insert this warning. If you call WelTech you will be talking to someone who is not responsible for Sperling’s continued attendance at the school. Please be respectful to that person and stick to facts. We have all seen in recent days the results of people getting too worked up about someone appalling. It didn’t help in that situation and it certainly won’t help in this one.

Wonderful Now has been taken down for the moment. That’s a good thing. But she still presents a danger as she has never acknowledged her record of bullying, and has never said sorry to her victims.

One final thing.

I have no idea if the people at the Salvation Army Jackie attends see this. But if they do, I have this to say.

Please don’t give up on her.

 

—————————————————–

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), and The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here, and a brief overview of the history of this case here. Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Madeleine Flannagan, Lawyer, and Jacqueline Sperling, Blogger. What’s the big deal?

Jacqueline Sperling has a special place in her heart for a lawyer named Madeleine Flannagan. As I’ve noted previously, she’s blogged obsessively about the dispute she created with her, and has produced as part of that obsession a screed of lies and harassment that is pretty hard to brush under the carpet.

But it seems in all this that people are finding it hard to get the big picture. So I’m writing this post to introduce new readers to the saga. It is of course not a complete telling and simplifies many aspects.

I’ve included links to posts made so far here. Over time this post will include more links to various aspect of the story so people can check for themselves the truth of the various aspects and claims made.

——————

Jackie Sperling was originally a fleeting friend and confidant of Ms Brown, who took pity on her after the media coverage of her breakup with Michael Laws. Ms Brown had some personal issues (exacerbated by her guilt over a brief indiscretion with a married man) which cascaded into an emotional breakdown. Jackie, instead of being a supportive friend, abused Ms Brown and blogged publicly about her problems and subsequent suicide attempt. Ms Brown asked Jackie to remove the posts, but this only made things worse. Madeleine Flannagan, who knew Ms Brown and had met Sperling (as all 3 were originally bloggers) stepped in and tried to persuade Jackie Sperling to stop the harassment. Her efforts were not successful

Later, Ms Brown became involved with another man (Sperling claims he was married – not true) and this relationship eventually broke up (not helped by Sperling’s interference). Her now former partner was an old acquaintance of Sperling’s, and Sperling encouraged him to confide in her about the relationship. Result: more blogging, even more nasty than before. Madeleine, who had now been admitted to the bar and was acting for Ms Brown on a Family Court matter relating to this man, spoke to Sperling regarding her latest blog posts (she had blogged on the Family Court matter – a big no-no legally as FC proceedings are private), and her fresh defamation of Ms Brown. If the material was removed no further action would be taken.

Incidentally, Ms Brown’s former partner also requested on several occasions that Sperling stop blogging about Ms Brown and their relationship break-down; to no avail.

Sperling’s response was to immediately post on her blog that “the lawyer involved” was a drug addict, and she contacted Madeleine’s employer to make sure also read the post. She has since admitted contacting Madeleine’s employer, but claims that this was to check if the threat of legal actions was normal.

Madeleine then filed a lawsuit to get the defamatory claims taken down. This provoked Sperling into an orgy of posts, claiming victim-hood and persecution by rich lawyers. She also deleted and edited many of her old posts in order to appear more innocent to her readers, claiming for example that she had never named Madeleine and Ms Brown when she had done so on several occasions,including one occasion where she addressed Ms Brown by her full name and explicitly told her to attempt suicide again.As the affidavits were filed, she posted selected quotes so as to present a false picture of the lawsuits, and made many false and misleading claims about that which she did post. To this day, she does not admit the true nature of the lawsuit on her blog, nor that she was entitled to legal aid to fight it.

Meanwhile, the media read Wonderful Now and wrote a story based on Jackie’s postings.

At one stage she claimed she was ready to settle, and had her partner (a struck off lawyer) negotiate while she wrote more defamatory posts. She then bitterly complained about how her offer had been rejected, and how ridiculous the offers that were made to her were.

When the application for a restraining order finally made it to court, the Judge was scathing of Jackie’s conduct. He found no evidence at all that anything Jackie had said about Madeline was true. He rejected outright her affidavit, which was really written only for her blog readers to maintain the fiction of victim-hood. He however read Jackie’s latest blog post claiming she’d removed everything (she hadn’t) and was angst filled about her behaviour (she wasn’t – just the consequences). By this time, Madeline’s employment status was perfectly stable as her employer had seen ample evidence of Jackie’s state of mind!

He found 14 counts of harassment on Jackie’s part, and all but one criteria met for making a restraining order. He urged Sperling to stop and move on.

Sperling then declared complete vindication to her readers and put all the posts back up. She has since published more defamatory (and sometimes outright crazy) posts including Madeline’s husband’s bank account details (submitted for the lawsuit) and many claims that Madeline is an incompetent lawyer (which the trial judge rejected explicitly in his judgement). She has refused to post the decision, or even acknowledge that it states clearly that she is the aggressor, but has posted several out of context quotes from it.

She has also placed frivolous complaints to the law society against all the lawyers involved, including Simon Buckingham, forcing them to spend time and energy defending themselves.

During this time, both Madeline Flanagan and Ms Brown have said almost nothing publicly. They have had their reputations attacked repeatedly, and without any basis.

Legal action is continuing in various forms by various parties. There has also been considerable concern that someone of Sperling’s character and habits is studying counselling – but with proper scrutiny it is unlikely that she will be allowed to practice.

————————-
This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, lawyer Simon Buckingham, and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), as well as The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here. Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Did Sperling Genuinely try to Settle with Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown? Part 1.

 

I have noted previously that Jacqueline Sperling tried (and continues to try) to ruin the life of lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, for having the temerity to request she stop harassing and defaming in her spare time.

Back in May, Sperling wrote this in one of her posts just before the court hearing (which she did not attend):

Twice in the past week i have attempted to settle this. I have offered to remove anything from my blog that these women took offence to – not because i believe i did anything wrong – but because i do not have the time or energy to waste on this.

I have come to the point where my right to free speech and expression comes after keeping my family safe, my relationship happy, and my success with my studies.

I think the fact that there has been no agreement reached even after me making that offer shows the level of vindictiveness that i am dealing with. This is not about anything i said being true or untrue. This is not about their reputations or mine.

This is about [Ms] Brown’s inherent desire to hurt and destroy anyone who she feels has rejected her. She doesn’t care how nuts she makes everyone look – including her friends – in the process.

It won’t work.

Even if i lose on the 31st – i will abide by any court order – and move on with my life with a smile on my face. I have survived far worse than this – and i will survive this.

Everything will still be Wonderful Now.

So she claims:

• to have tried to settle not once, but twice
• that she offered to remove anything from her blog that her victims took offence to
• that there has been no agreement shows “the level of vindictiveness that i am dealing with”
• “this is not about anything”… “being true or untrue”
• this is not about reputations
• She will abide by any court order

She has quoted this claim (that she’s tried to settle) several times. It’s a big part of The Narrative that she is a nice person who was driven by despair to disregard her rights and throw herself at the mercy of these “crazy lawyers”  and offer a settlement that they then refused.

Well, that’s her story – what’s the other side?

Sperling Quote of the Day

Because all of her psychotic, nasty, and vitriolic spew had been anonymous – i had no proof that it was her that has been stalking and harassing me. I knew it was her – but i had no proof…

Quite how people can read admissions like that and still think that Sperling has a shred of credibility is beyond me. All Ms Brown needs to do is place that comment in evidence, and the question of whether she made those comments need not be answered in the first place, since by Sperling’s own admission the allegation has no basis outside paranoia.

And in fact it’s worse than that. Not only is there no proof that the comments are from Ms Brown, there is actually proof (which has been provided to the court) that they are not from Ms Brown. But Sperling is so determined to paint the woman she hates as a stalker, she’s prepared to ignore evidence, claim court testimony is a perjury (funny that she’s just made that very testimony unnecessary!) and see a complaint laid against her (in large part because of those obsessions) as “final proof” that her paranoia is true.

All of which makes me wonder that she actually might believe her own fictitious story about all this.

—————————————–

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, lawyer Simon Buckingham, and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), as well as The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here. Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Sperling about to get kicked off course

Breaking news tonight!

I just got off the phone with the PA for the head of school where i am studying.

[Ms] Brown has contacted my University and is attempting to interfere with my future and my studies. The PA to the Head of School has advised me that it “is very transparent” what [Ms] Brown is attempting to do and that the Head of the School wants to meet with me in order to fill me in on what [Ms] has said, make sure that i am ok, and offer me the school’s support.

I cannot wait until Monday so that i can get the information that i need from the head of school – and go directly to the nearest Police station. The school has assured me that they just want to offer me support and ensure that what i am going through is not having an impact on my studies. I explained the legal proceedings that i went through in June when i had exams and assignments due – and how it did affect my studies. The school have assured me that they just want to help and have agreed that i need to go to the police.

I was going to say that there are two scenarios here, but there is only one.

She’s lying.

She’s summoned to a disciplinary hearing that will (I confidently predict) result in her being kicked out of the school.

There is no way that a school that teaches counseling is going to keep her on. They teach counselling. They are training their students to deal with people who have undergone trauma, to handle that trauma with care and sympathy.

Sperling has publicly humiliated such a person for sport, and tried to get that person’s real friend kicked out of her profession in a fit of pique.

And she has done all that on her blog. In public, on the public record. And the parts she has modified are in the court record. She narrowly missed out on getting a restraining order placed on her by the people concerned here, and she has since well and truly crossed the threshold for the one criteria she did not meet on that occasion. She is only days away from having a restraining order slapped on her, and that order will not be her first.

There is no way that someone, having listened to one side of this story, a side that is supported by a huge volume of evidence – most of which is in Sperling’s own words – would sit down and say what Sperling has claimed. Not when the idea of her being a victim is not supported anywhere but inside her own head. And certainly not an institution that is supposed to train people who can be trusted by victims.

Actually, you don’t even need to go that far. No one says “it’s clear you are the victim, how can we help” when a complaint is laid against you. That’s absurd – or highly unprofessional. No, a complaint is investigated, both sides are heard and then the results come out.

In other words, she’s over-egged the pudding on this one. As usual.

I will now reveal that several weeks ago I contacted an experienced counselor who is a personal friend, and related the facts of the case.

The response I received was that there was 0% chance that Sperling would ever be allowed to graduate. It turns out that my friend actually did the same course.

But let me make this quite clear.

In the unlikely event that this claim of Sperling’s is true, I will make it my personal mission to talk to as many ministers, counselors, doctors and any other professionals I can find and explain to them what Sperling has done. I will then ask them to confirm from independent sources that what I say is true, and that they contact her school to express their horror.

That is if Campbell Live doesn’t get there first.

Update: Sperling’s school has a big problem – and by extension so does Sperling. Because either they’re being defamed online as committing a monstrous breach of ethics, or they have actually committed said breach.

Either way, Sperling is not going to get a degree from a school who’s reputation is worth a damn. If she isn’t kicked out, the damage from this is going to be severe.

Luckily, there is one way of finding ethical people who can change this very quickly.

——————————————-

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, lawyer Simon Buckingham, and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), as well as The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here. Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Simon Buckingham, Lawyer, vs. Jacqueline Sperling, Liar

 

I have noted previously [link] that Jacqueline Sperling tried (and continues to try) to ruin the life of lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, for having the temerity to request she stop harassing and defaming a rape victim in her spare time. But a few weeks ago, I realised that there was another player that I had not paid much attention to – the lawyer hired after Sperling went off the deep end. His name is Simon Buckingham, and he is a lawyer at Buckingham Law.

Before I wrote this, I did a quick google search. I came up with this.

Smith-Voorkamp was filmed by a television crew at a court sitting in the Christchurch Police Station watch house, and was described as “the face of looting”, before family revealed his mental disability.

Lawyer Simon Buckingham earlier said on the night of his arrest, Smith-Voorkamp was beaten by two officers and taunted by New Zealand Army personnel.

At his first appearance in court, Smith-Voorkamp had a black eye.

I think it speaks volumes about a man when he will stand up for someone the entire country has judged, at a time when the country is not interested in listening to facts that don’t fit. That’s a level of integrity that is lacking in this country. It’s a level of integrity that’s lacking in any country, at any time.

But it seems that Simon Buckingham has it.

Well, thanks to Jackie’s habit of posting bits on the internet, we now know just how nice a guy he is.

See, when he was handed this big fat mess, he thought he’d sit down and have a chat over a cup of coffee*.

Clearly a good idea in normal circumstances, but when Jackie Sperling is involved… well, let’s just say there’s a reason why the moniker “LMC” stuck so quickly even though I stopped using it here.

Here’s what she says about it.

Being a Christian – i found Mr. Buckingham bringing up my faith in God in a conversation regarding a threat of legal proceedings about to be brought against me to be using my faith in God against me. This came across as very unprofessional, insulting, and passive aggressive. I took this as a threat to my faith and that people would not believe that i am a Christian if i did not do whatever Mr Buckingham wanted, or agree to whatever he wanted. It is my view that Mr. Buckingham attempted to use my religious beliefs against me in order to gain a favourable resolution for his clients.

Mr Buckingham has ignored the fact that he sent me a separate letter asking me out for coffee to discuss what i should and shouldn’t be able to write about on my blog. A lawyer asking someone out that he has been hired to take to court is unprofessional and amounts to misconduct.

Let’s break this down.

She considered bringing up her own, publically professed faith:

• “very unprofessional”
• “insulting”
• “passive aggressive”
• “a threat to my faith”
• a way of black-mailing her into doing Simon’s every whim
• a way of getting “favourable resolution for his clients”

Isn’t it horrible that a lawyer would try and get a favourable resolution for his clients? Or maybe that’s his job.

Isn’t it horrible that he’s suggesting she obeys the law as he requests? Or maybe she should obey the law regardless of who’s asking.

Isn’t it horrible that he made a threat to her faith? Except he didn’t ask (let alone demand) she abandon it, he asked her to embrace it by acting consistently with it.

Insane.

In a twist of irony, her ramblings are partially correct – the way she has acted towards Mr Buckingham has meant a lot of Christians are forced to severely doubt her claimed faith in Christ. But that is for her to live with – I am not going to dwell on the point today.

Part of her reaction to the case as a whole was to place a complaint before the Law Society regarding the conduct of all the lawyers involved. Reading between the lines, it seems that these complaints boil down to her trying to re-litigate the case before the law society, as well as complaining that lawyers did what lawyers do.

For example, staying up late preparing papers for court the next day. Apparently, sending emails in the middle of the night is a serious offence against humanity or something.

Anyway, after she placed her complaint, he replied to it, and she then blogged on that reply and made some denials.

You can read that post here.

It’s a silly post. Sperling has made a habit of posting edited material, but usually it’s tricky to tell it is edited. But in this case, she’s posted “Denial on Point x”, while the reader is left wondering what she is denying.

She has also posted various papers, which as a non-lawyer I’m guessing are not for public consumption (Law Society complaints are private). This is a long standing habit of hers, and I have no doubt that one day soon it’s going to bite her in the backside very, very hard. (Oh look, some of the emails actually state that they’re privileged.)

But one can guess what her complaints are, by her replies.

Points 1 & 2 appear to be complaints that he said he was acting when he wasn’t, and had filed proceedings when he hadn’t. Given the known integrity and legal knowledge of both parties, I’d say with some confidence she’s at best flogging a dead horse based because she doesn’t understand some details, and at worst she’s making the entire thing up.

Regardless, it strikes me as ridiculously pedantic even if is true.

Points 3 is dealt with above. Somehow I don’t think the law society is going to care that someone’s faith was mentioned by a lawyer.

Point 4, pretty much as points 1 & 2 but with the added bonus that she was upset(!!) around exams(!!) and scared(!!) she might actually be held to account by the courts.

Point 5, she argues that use of the “royal we” is intended to intimidate. Apparently, she’s intimidated by false plurals. I’m sure this will be immediately transferred to the “Grammar Police” subsection of the law society’s complaints board. I hear their powers are impressive, including “raising of the eyebrow” and “brisk tutting”.

Point 6 & 7, apparently a criminal complaint was put on the table at one point. She claims that this is really bad, because at the time she was pretending to offer a settlement. (Sadly, the police didn’t act.)

Point 8, she argues that “Their prolific amount of emails to me was distressing and for someone who has no idea regarding legal matters it was all consuming.” Apparently it’s really evil for a lawyer to email someone who’s being sued but refuses to hire a lawyer.

She concludes by whining that she won so she should get her way in all things, and that he tried to get her kicked off the internet. By the latter she means that he took her to court to stop her on-line bullying campaign.

Yes, she is seriously stating to the Law Society that it is professional misconduct for a Lawyer to be involved in a lawsuit.

Finally, she tries to gloss over the fact she tried to use the use this professional complaint to leverage her position during the period she pretended to offer a settlement.

In short, her complaint appears to be an abuse of the professional complaints process.

If anything, her own material shows Simon Buckingham to be exactly what I stated he was at first – a man of immense integrity, who has done nothing other than oppose one of this countries nastiest on-line bullies.

I rest my case.

* I’ve noticed that many people take the assumption that, because this situation blew up, the lawyers involved were somehow heavy handed and did not take all reasonable steps to try and sort it out, outside of the court room. I hope this post helps some people understand that this is not the case, and that Sperling’s usual response towards friendly offers of mediation was to viciously attack. Perhaps sometime I’ll be able to write a post examining that aspect more closely  - we’ll see.

———————————–

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, lawyer Simon Buckingham, and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), as well as The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here. Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Conspiracy or Incompetence

I once had a flatmate, and we’d talk politics all the time. One thing he always said was, “never attribute to a conspiracy what can be attributed to incompetence”.

Jackie Sperling is trying to make it out that she’s being stalked*.

…I have ignored her constant attempts at intimidating me by letting me know that she thinks she knows where i am studying. I also ignored her when i spotted her near where i am studying and hoped that despite her working at the other end of the city – that it was just a coincidence that she was near where she had made it so clear that she knew i would be.

Until now – i had not written anything about the harassment that i am still having to put up with. Despite the fact that it worries me that i have no idea how she found out where i am studying (i have never stated where i am doing my studies – not even on my Facebook page so is she checking my mail or something?) or how she got my phone number (i have changed it since i knew her) i have just ignored her and the sock puppets.

Of course the most obvious answer is that they have friends in common (and they do) and one of them told her victim.

The second most obvious is that she talks all the time about her courses, their names, length and requirements, on her blog.

The third most obvious thing is that she just might have posted it on Facebook at some point and Google picked it up.

Yes, Sperling is accusing her victim of hacking her email, when the information is available by typing two words into the word’s most popular search engine.

I’ve known where she studies for weeks, and I almost added it to the original version of my disclaimer below. I had no idea it was supposed to be private and the reason I didn’t include it has nothing to do with protecting her privacy. But at this point, I’m not 100% comfortable posting the information so I will not.

*Apparently my post of yesterday embarrassed her so much that she took it down and re-wrote it!

————————————

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), and The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here. Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Jackie Sperling Endorses this Blog!

I think Jackie posting this counts as a blank cheque, don’t you?

I suppose now that I’ve pointed it out she’ll take down or edit the post or something.

————

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), and The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here. Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Madeleine Flannagan, Lawyer, again defamed by crazy (ex) drug addict bent on campaign of harassment

Jacqueline Sperling has a special place in her heart for a lawyer named Madeleine Flannagan. As I’ve noted previously, she’s blogged obsessively about the dispute she created with her, and has produced as part of that obsession a screed of lies and harassment that is pretty hard to brush under the carpet. This is a woman obsessed to the point of madness.

Take her latest post:

In other words – i think Judge Harvey is saying – What. The. Heck?

Notice that Sperling is very careful to insert “I think”. By doing this she makes the statement an opinion, rather that a simple and blatent lie it would otherwise be.

This is Madeleine Flannagan’s 4th attempt to do something to me legally. This is her 4th abject failure. Madeleine Flannagan needs someone to be supervising her – in my honest opinion. She obviously has no idea what she is doing.

Note again the “in my honest opinion”. There can be no question that this is an honest opinion of course – it’s thoroughly dishonest.

The judge in question has in fact specifically and flatly refuted Sperling’s previous claims of Madeleine Flannagan’s competence as a lawyer. Shall I quote the section again? Yes, I think I shall.

[222] Some of those posts are distressing and are made knowing that their content would distress. [snip] In addition comments had been made of a derogatory nature regarding Ms Flannagan’s religious beliefs and her competence as a law practitioner which have no substance and are clearly designed to hurt. I am satisfied that the comments were made in such circumstances that the contents of them were clearly offensive.

So she’s doing something for which she has already been slapped down for by a judge. But since the judge didn’t actually act against her, she considers that all but the final decision in that judgement to be irrelevant fluff.

But the final irony is that Madeleine Flannagan had nothing to do with this legal action.

So we must as a consequence question not Ms Flannagan’s ability as a lawyer, but Ms Sperling’s ability to read a letter written in English a 6 year old would be able to understand.

And it goes without saying that the rest of the post contains lies so blatant I don’t see any reason to dignify them with any answer whatsoever.
—————

This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), and The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here. Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Lawyers and Harassment

This really stood out in Aaron Worthing’s description of his recent hearing to remove an illegal (and utterly dishonest) restraining order:

Of course the highlight of the hearing came when my attorney sought to cross examine Kimberlin.  Of course he gave Kimberlin an epic cross-examination back on April 11, but today he was more focused but equally effective.  Interestingly, he didn’tgo through the entirety of Kimberlin’s criminal history, or indeed any of it.  But he did ask Kimberlin about when I was SWATted, about a week and a half ago and Kimberlin went into a rage at the suggestion.  He called it a “despicable” question, falsely claiming that I and others had blamed him for it “without a shred of evidence” (in fact when I wrote about the SWATting, and talked about it on the radio, I was careful not to blame him because I can’t prove he had anything to do with it).  But he was absolutely furious at even the simple question of whether or not he was involved in it, shaking his finger at my attorney in rage and saying to him, “You’re harassing me” by even asking the question.  That is, a lawyer asking a person a question in court is harassment, according to Kimberlin.

It’s interesting to compare and contract the two cases.

Both Kimberlin and Sperling:

• Furiously claim harassment when lawyers simply do their job
• Lash out at anyone else who gets involved
• Try to use the law to destroy other people
• Lie as readily as most people tell the truth
• Have previously been in trouble before the courts
• Have won court victories having presented false information to the court
• Present altered versions of reality to their supporters
• Made their name by defaming a famous person
• Are trying to destroy the carrers of ethical lawyers who have annoyed them

But they also contrast a lot too:

• Kimberlin wants people to stop telling the truth, Sperling wants the right to keep lying
• Kimberlin uses proxies and sock puppets, Sperling goes on the internet herself
• Kimberlin made his name when he lied about Quayle. Sperling came into the public eye when she threatened to tell the truth about her affair with Laws
• Kimberlin is trying to shut down free speech in a country that values it highly. Sperling is getting away with nasty lies in a country that is more measured about it.

Anyway, if you haven’t already go and have a read about Brett Kimberlin over at Aaron’s Blog.