International Cat Speculators Since 2006


It’s about time someone fisked Jacqueline Sperling**. So here goes.

I find it rather amusing that after threatening me, assuring me that “we WILL win” and then wishing God’s “sword of vengeance to be meted out on me” through our justice system -that Madeleine Flannagan can now claim to be happy with losing this case.

That would be because, putting aside the fact that the decision may still be appealed, there were several aspects to the judge’s reported ruling that must be very satisfying indeed.

The only reason that the judge accepted their version of events is because i did not get a lawyer and fight them. Had i spent money on this and actually ensured that the truth was told in court – that would not have been the case.

As always, the irony is laid on in thick layers. (and I’ll come back to that bold part later)

The truth was told in court – one of those truths was that Sperling deliberately chose not to apply for legal aid. There was no question she could have been represented in court – free of charge – had she wanted to be.

Instead, she found it more convenient to her public narrative to play the innocent blogger person who was set upon by mean lawyers with deep pockets who took offense at her exercising her God-given rights of free speech. One of the key aspects of the court decision appears to be that that narrative was shot to bits. But she is still sticking to it on her blog.

But there is also another angle here. I’m no lawyer, but I suspect that Sperling could not have made the statements she had made to the court, had she hired legal representation. The reason is simple: no lawyer would take a case to court based on easily provable falsehoods.

Many of the things Sperling claimed were ridiculously easy to prove wrong. For example, she claimed that she only contacted Madeleine’s employer to check something. In reality, her contact was a calculated attempt to ruin Madeleine’s life.

Let me interject here for a moment and ponder this point for a few seconds. Often when people claim their life is ruined, it really means that a few people are laughing at them because they wore odd socks or the same dress to the prom. This is not the case here.

In my opinion, Sperling’s actions were calculated to throw Madeleine out of her employment. Not only that, but such an action would also (in all likelihood) end her entire legal career for good – something she has trained for for some years, overcoming at times considerable barriers. This outcome had the potential to cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of Madeleine’s future earnings.

Even without training for a new career, that is most certainly something that would change anyone’s life for the worse.

So let us be clear here – Sperling’s actions here were a firm 10/10 on the “non-violent nastiness” scale, and an attempt to ruin her life in the most serious way possible.

This is not a case of she said vs. she said. There is a third party who’s statement would come into play in court, that of Madeleine’s employer. Even better, part of the communication was via email, which provides a reasonably firm idea of what was actually communicated!

The idea that by merely hiring a lawyer such strong proof could be argued away is insulting to the intelligence of the court, and her readers.

This is why Madeleine was so confident of winning – because the objective evidence was very, very clear.

As it stands though, because i did not do that, the judge had no choice but to accept Madeleine Flannagan and [Ms] Brown’s version of events.

In reality, a lawyer for Sperling would have had no choice but to plead the mercy of the court. By Sperling’s own admission (in a previous post), the evidence against her made a substantial document.

They should be grateful that i didn’t get a lawyer and actually fight their dishonesty. They would now be responsible for my legal bill if i had.

Cocky. Clearly her perception that she “won” has emboldened her. Certainly she has shown no inclination to tell the truth on the matter, even when the facts have been established by the courts.

And that’s partly why I’m writing this. Up till now, she’s had the floor to herself, as the honest people waited the court’s decision. But what she now needs to realise is that with the court case over, so is her dishonest advantage.

The only thing that Madeleine Flannagan and i seem to be able to agree on is whether or not this is a precedent setting case. I agree with her that it is – but for different reasons.

Hold on to your hats folks, it’s about to get weird. Alice-down-the-rabbit-hole weird.

This case has set a clear precedent in that it shows that just because you are a lawyer, or have a friend who will act as your lawyer for free – that does not give you a right to spend 18 months stalking a person’s blog, facebook page, emailing them,  hunting down and befriending people from that person’s past in order to hurt them, making threatening phone calls, taunting that person in an effort to get them to name you, and making constant threats of legal action then when none of that succeeds in making the object of your obsession unhappy – you cannot use the legal system to further bully that person.

In essence here, she’s saying that this case shows that if you are a lawyer, you don’t have the right to sue people. Yes, really!

Pretty much everything she’s said here is (minus the emotive spin) pretty standard fare for a legal action. Phoning and emailing, talking to people related, taking note of their statements online are not exactly unexpected when someone is engaged in a court case.

Blogging constantly about how a lawyer who is suing you is harassing you by reading your blog and emailing you however, is pretty darn crazy. Sperling must be the only blogger in history to put posts up and then claim harassment when someone actually reads them. She’s also written plenty of material to strengthen her opponents case* – only a fool would not be reading her blog to record such material.

It sets a precedent in that the law clearly states that if you obsess over someone and refuse to just leave that person alone then your own actions are what will cause you distress. As the judge said – if you are in a shopping mall, you see someone that you don’t like and choose to approach them – you cannot then claim that they have followed you.

The judgement (and I am relying on third party descriptions here) is apparently quite the conversation on the various matters that come into play. The judgement isn’t public [yet – see later post], so there is no way of knowing the context of that quote, or even if the judge even said it.

But what is known is this: “the judge accepted their version of events”. That means that the judge, by Sperling’s own admission, found her version to be a lie in court.

So excuse me if I chose to be skeptical of the world of a self-confessed court-declared liar who is distressed over the consequences of her obsession.

In the end – i am happy that this court case occurred. I and other bloggers will be able to use the ruling – in their defence- in any future abusive and vexatious legal proceedings.

The court did not find the legal proceedings “abusive and vexatious”. In fact, quite the opposite – the court seems to have found that there were very real grounds behind the case, and that the story concocted by Sperling was utter fantasy.

I know this because both sides agree that the court sided against Sperling’s narrative. Sperling may claim that the ruling on the law sided with her, but the fact that Madeleine didn’t make a convincing argument doesn’t suddenly change the judges findings of fact.

So to say that this will help bloggers who are being falsely sued is idiotic. At best, this ruling may help bloggers who chose to harass someone online escape the consequences for that harassment.

But that just means that lawyers

a) will pursue other directions in law

b) will seek changes to the law


Never once did i go on to those women’s blogs, look at their Facebook pages, or contact them. You are not harassing someone when that person comes to you – and having a lawyer won’t change that.

By this logic, if someone knocks on your door selling vacuum cleaners, you can then make daily posts on your blog stating that they are a pedophile. I think we can all agree that life doesn’t work that way.

In reality, Madeleine was acting for Ms Brown and Sperling decided she hated this and added Madeleine to the list of people she was trashing online. I would say that in this case she found someone who was not willing to put up with it, but the reality is that Sperling has been successfully taken to court for her blog writings on several previous occasions. Thanks to this (rather public) lawsuit, Madeleine has now been contacted by several previous victims, and will in future be immediately identifiable as someone who is able to assist with actions against her. In other words, she has a history of throwing stones in a house that is quickly installing more and more glass.

For this reason, when the Law society finally does review cyber harassment law, the name Jacqueline Sperling will come up rather often. The irony is of course that, as part of the “I’m the victim” narrative Sperling has built up over the past weeks, she has welcomed this review which will use her to demonstrate the need for better internet harassment law.

Had [Ms] Brown and Madeleine Flannagan not attempted to bully me with vexatious legal proceedings – no one would be the wiser regarding their identities in relation to the few times i had mentioned my interactions with them on my blog.

Lest I repeat myself, by Sperling’s own admission the court found that the proceedings were not vexatious – quite the opposite in fact.

Certainly, the allegations that Sperling tried to ruin Madeleine’s life with are now public. But so is the fact that Sperling [insists on pushing a false narrative with little basis in the real world***] and not someone with the slightest credibility before the courts.

The reality is that when Sperling realised that she was once again going to be taken to court she took down the offending posts. Ever since then, she has pretended that they never existed. Let us be clear: she has fooled a lot of people who have visited her blog into believing that.

But she was never going to fool the courts. Ever.

Which is probably why she never made a serious attempt to try. But she’s certainly willing to continue attempting to fool the public.

I rest easy knowing that He who weighs the hearts and actions of men knows the truth, and I am grateful that God gave the State the power of the sword to mete out his vengeance so that we who are wronged can seek justice in this life and know that it is God’s justice being measured out on earth. ~ Madeleine Flannagan in one of her many emails to me.

God knew the truth.

God does indeed know the truth. The courts also stumbled on a bit of it too:

His Honour also found Ms Sperling had not substantiated her claims that [Ms Brown] and Ms Flannagan were obsessed with her; he instead stated that this was the other way around.

Commenting on Ms Sperling’s evidence, Harvey DCJ stated that Ms Sperling’s assumption of the role of victim in this matter could not be justified. Further, that she was naïve to expect the court to accept her claim she was not intending to harass [Ms  Brown] or Ms Flannagan.

After summarising this, and applying the law to the facts, Harvey DCJ found that a total of 14 specific acts of Harassment had occurred.

That’s a small excerpt from Madeleine’s statement to the media.

The end.

Translation: “And I’m going to keep lying my ass off until someone stops me.”


**I have changed the opening since original publishing. It originally read “this nasty little liar”. I wrote: A harsh opening, I know. But this post doesn’t even scratch the surface. I’ve seen video where she is interviewed about another situation, and without so much as a flinch tells lies even worse than those she told in this one. This woman should be in jail.”

I stand by those comments. I do however think that some comments I have made detract from the purpose of making them and thus they have been changed.

*My favorite comment being, “I never defamed those crazy people”. The idea that Sperling has not defamed Madeleine and Ms Brown is utterly ridiculous and gets not the least bit of respect from this blogger.

*** Shall we say this part was originally a lot more blunt and leave it at that.


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, 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.


Comments on: "Cyber Harassment and Jacqueline Sperling" (1)

  1. […] a comment The other day, I was fisking LMC and quoted this section and replied thus: It sets a precedent in that the law clearly states that if you obsess over someone and refuse to […]

Comments are closed.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: