I'm gonna sue you!

Issue between DaveHope and myself was settled between the two of us in October, 2015.

May 19, 2017     Because of free speech, I can be the target of people who disagree with me. Conversely, I have a right; and a duty to defend myself against undue cyberbullying directed towards not only myself, but homeopaths and homeopathic patients who promote it. This matter is newsworthy in that it highlights the purposeful, sustained, malicious nature and lengths to which the Twitter anti homeopathy activists will go. For me personally, this has included vulgar insults, threats of legal action, even a demand for money.



May 19, 2017



The Twitter anti homeopathy activist @MetalOllie is unhappy with my documentary evidence of cyberbullying by him, @medtek, and a few anti homeopathy activists. See content contained under the headings: "Lies vs Truth", "@medtek on Twitter" and "Homeopathy Skeptics Promoting Hate." MetalOllie also has a blog where he exercises his right to publish his own narrative against people (I am his target on three blog pages) with whom he disagrees. Warning: Language content on both his Twitter account and his blog may be offensive to many. 1st blog post   2nd blog post  and this Rant about me and another homeopathy supporter.

It is imperative to note that all image content on my blog was first published on Twitter. If there is a legal question regarding the intent and purpose of a tweet or direct message (which can be obtained by warrant), the content can be used by either party's defense team. Additionally, direct messages are permissible evidence in any dispute regarding claims of harassment or cyber bullying by either party involved in such a dispute. Blogger guidelines regarding content they would consider inappropriate and remove can be found HERE

En masse, anti homeopathy activists have reported my Google blogger content on several occasions. On two occasions while undergoing legal review, I was not able to add, delete or edit any content. After both reviews, no action was taken to suspend me, remove my blog or any of its content.

Based on cyberbullying guidelines (Refer to links 1 and 2 below), the manner in which MetalOllie has portrayed and threatened legal action against me reveals a clearly defined malicious and repeated intent to cause Mental Anguish If the threatened legal action moves forward, Twitter will be required to supply every tweet via subpoena and direct message via warrant by all parties involved. There are many more than are included on this blog. It's not going to be pretty for the party who is making the legal threats; and @medtek who encouraged Dave to ask for money so that he would forgive me. Look at MetalOllie’s and MedTek’s Twitter timelines to see what the real beef against me was, and still is. My crime is supporting and promoting homeopathy on Twitter. Had the anti homeopathy activists not intervened, the outcome with the father would have been different; a positive one.

I did not know Dave’s underlying medical condition or family situation prior to tweeting him. He told me sometime later. However, all of the anti homeopathy activists knew. Could it be, since the end justifies the means, that the opportunity was too tempting and convenient for the parties involved to persistently tell Dave how uncaring and vicious I was? Their communications with this grieving father made him so distraught and worked up that he threatened to “fly to New Mexico and find her.” Twitter has a record of this and it was reported to the local authorities. Additionally, because he was so upset, he even tweeted he wanted to “end it all.”

I made a mistake to assume that his family life and his mental condition were stable. David and I talked. I apologized and offered to help him set up a website or blog. He accepted my apology and tweeted to the parties involved that he had done so. See his tweets and direct messages which are published on this blog under the "Lies vs Truth heading, as documentary evidence.

This matter should have been over and forgotten in the Fall of 2015. I have not kept this going, the original parties that turned this man against me and of course homeopathy, just added to his grief. Is the thinking that this behavior, if successful, will justify the means if both my Twitter and Blogger accounts suspended and Dave just collateral damage?

I will not be surprised if any of the original parties involved bring this man into the picture again. I hope not. If they do, I will again affirm my conviction that Dave only served as a pawn in the battle to eliminate any discussion of the benefits of homeopathy by myself on Twitter, or any other social media.

1. A strong case can be made that the anti homeopathy activists on my blog have been engaging in Cyberbullying

2. Additional confirmation that a strong case can be made that these anti homeopathy activists have been engaging in Cyberbullying

Addendum: 5/17/2017 p.m.

"Interestingly, in 2010, Twitter signed an agreement with the Library of Congress providing that every public tweet from Twitter's inception and beyond would be archived by the {**36 Misc 3d at 875} Library of Congress.[FN8] Also, Twitter's privacy policy states in part:

‘Our Services are primarily designed to help you share information with the world. Most of the information you provide us is information you are asking us to make public. This includes not only the messages you Tweet and the metadata provided with Tweets, such as when you Tweeted, but also the lists you create, the people you follow, the Tweets you mark as favorites or Retweet, and many other bits of information that result from your use of the Services.’ " (See Twitter, Twitter Privacy Policy, https://twitter.com/privacy [accessed June 11, 2012].)

February 3, 2017 A recent precedent setting court case "Police with warrant can view private Twitter messages A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that law enforcement agencies can view private messages and tweets from private accounts on Twitter if they get a warrant"..

Finally, via the process known as "discovery" any defendant(s) can demand that the plaintiff(s)either appear in person before the presiding judge for direct questioning; or be able to provide live testimony via electronic means.