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 herePlease do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.


  1. Wouldn’t it be better to just leave this subject alone? It just keeps the fires burning, otherwise. I find the whole thing too multilayered to be interested in who is right.

    Many years ago, I was involved in an online community of wacky, mostly American mothers. Every once in a while, a cat fight would spring up, and the only way it resolved itself was if one woman accepted if she was wrong. Otherwise, some one would have to leave. It was incredibly destructive to the community, but strangely captivating at the time. This just looks like a cat fight to me, from the outside.

    1. Hi Lucia, unfortunately for some people this is a big issue which will not go away until the law acts against Sperling.

      If you’re having trouble following, it’s actually quite simple. Sperling lashes out at people who cross her path. She says many, many things that contain only the slightest smattering of the truth.

      I’d love to tell the whole story here. Sadly I am not able to. But clearly I need to try and communicate much more clearly just how evil this woman is.

      1. If Sperling lashes out at people crossing her path, then why not stop crossing her path? All these posts keep the issue alive, and let more people know about what is going on than would notice.

    2. It is not a blog-cat fight if only one blogger is blogging. Jackie is writing about it online. Madeline is not and denies having commented on her blog, denies trying to contact her in any capacity but a formal legal capacity.

      The basic gist I’ve gleaned from reading the judgment and speaking to Madeline and reading Jackie’s posts and comments in her RSS feed (where the deleted ones are still all visible) is that Jackie peripherally popped up in a family violence case Madeline was acting for the victim in. She began blogging about the case and Madeline’s client because she was friends with the offender and was no longer friends with Madeline’s client after she published details of the client’s mental breakdown on her blog.

      Family Court is closed, Madeline was legally obligated to warn her on behalf of the client. She began publishing Madeline was a drug addict lawyer who files forged evidence in court and breaks multiple other regulations the law requires of lawyer routinely. She then emailed Madeline’s boss the link to these blog posts.

      Then she blogged more about Madeline.

      Madeline had a lawyer write to her to ask her to cease and desist. She ignored it.

      Madeline filed in court against her and offered to withdraw in exchange for her taking her posts down and agreeing to stop. Jackie went on a mental blogging spree saying countless defamatory things about Madeline, her posts attracted media attention, the media published quotes attributed to Madeline gleaned from the bits of affidavit Jackie had published.

      It went 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 found 15 counts of harassment on Jackie’s part but declined to make a restraining order because he’d read Jackie’s latest blog post claiming she’d removed everything and was angst filled about her behaviour – he thought it was over – and Madeline’s employment status was now stable, her boss had realised she was not a drug addict and was not in breach of rules for lawyers afterall. He urged Sperling to stop and move on.

      Sperling then put all the posts back up, added in links to Madeline’s work’s website to several of them, and began publishing more including her husband’s bank account details and accusations of Madeline’s husband and Madeline committing fraud, harassing her and being an incompetent lawyer. She also claims to have now made a formal law society complaint against Madeline.

      Throughout Madeline has said virtually nothing publicly.

      1. Excellent summary JK.

        After extensive reading on this matter I realised jacqueline sperling was not the victim as she portrayed and was in fact the perpetrator BUT it was an EXTENSIVE amount of reading that most people would not have bothered with; which is precisely what sperling is counting on to convince the masses she is the victim and further defame both Ms Brown and Ms Flanagan.

        It disturbs me immensely that sperling is training to be a counsellor; if her treatment of Ms Brown is anything to go by it is not a career she is cut out for. One can only hope a psych evaluation and background checks (of all known aliases) are normal practice before a counsellor is authorised to practice. Even more disturbing is her 24 July suggestion that once she has qulaified and is in a position of trust she may blog anonymously. Will she then do the same with her clients as she did to Debbie Brown? Which incidentally is precisely what started this whole saga.

        “There is so much confidentiality involved in my choice of career – and certain ethical standards relating to confidentiality that i will have to adhere to – that having a blog will probably not be all that appropriate. That will be a wonderful way to end old Wonderful Now though…. At that point in time i will probably start an anonymous blog.”

        In response to Lucia, It is not Scrubone who is keeping “this whole thing alive” as he is only responding to sperlings posts/comments (on far more than just her own blog I might add).

        If the law does not act to ensure this situation is ended it will be a grave miscarriage of justice. IMHO, the Judge gave sperling a chance she shouldn’t have had and she blew it.

      2. Thanks zechariah8v16.

        Indeed, I’m not keeping this alive – in fact, I have a strong feeling that few people actually appreciate what “this” even is.

        I note that Sperling posted her rabid rant at a time where I had been quiet on the matter for several weeks. She also posted something the other day which probably escaped your notice, but would probably count as harassment given the context.

        You’re not the first Lucia, to make that point either. I suggest you contact me via email and we can make a time to chat about your concerns if you feel strongly. I respect your opinion, as you know.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: