Truthfulness or Defamation About People I've Named

I am stating again, for the record, that while I've written some fiction in this blog and done creative writing exercises, any time I've NAMED someone, I have not defamed them. If I have named someone at any point in this blog, if they did something, I was writing fact. If I don't know for sure, I write that I don't know for sure.

But I have never written anything fictional or defamatory about any individual in this blog, ever. They may not like what I've written, but it was true.

I had my ex-fiance tell me to say my entire blog was just pure fiction, for a "book" but I wouldn't. I went back and forth a couple times on things I wrote about him because I was trying to ascertain the truth of something, but he knew, as did I, that what I wrote was true.

He recently wrote me an email again, asking how I was doing. I asked him why he bothered to ask. He's written only before hearings, and has not followed through on promises he made, on one occasion, to testify I wasn't drug seeking, even though he wrote he knew I wasn't. I wrote back to him most recently that yeah, when he admitted too what he did with Mykal Holt, I would say my blog or what I wrote about him was fiction. I asked him not to write again unless he had a major conversion. He wanted to know where I was living, but offered no information about himself.

Would I really go back and claim something I said was true is false? No, not where I've written about others, because that would be highly immoral and wrong.

If I wrote it, it happened.

That said, sometimes I've named someone but not known for sure if they were up to no good or not, but I DO make a point to say if I have doubts because I would never falsely accuse someone of something.

Like I've said before, there are a few things about MYSELF that I've written which may or may not be true, but it doesn't involve OTHERS. If I've written something to be misleading or just keep my privacy more intact, or discern the truth, it was only about myself where it didn't or would NOT involve another person. If it doesn't concern or affect someone else, I think I have a right to write whatever I want in my own journal or blog, and if someone really wants to get to the bottom of things, they can ask me.

The other parts where I've written fiction, is creative writing stuff. That stuff is sometimes based on truth and other times out of creative license.

Again, I have only written about others, or named them, when I felt there was something "off" about them or their interaction with me and I have been trying to figure something out. I've never named my friends fully, nor do I name general strangers, or even people who insult me personally (like the recent cafe waitress). There are a lot of things which are NOT important to me to write about. If I didn't feel the need to protect myself and my son, by putting something out in the public record in case someone wants to come to me with information, I wouldn't write about anyone at all.

I didn't file for litigation against a church until AFTER I found out they were defaming me to police and the public. When I found out this was going on, my ONLY defense, really, was to try to clear my name through a lawsuit. So that's why I filed. It wasn't even for the money, though I did deserve to be compensated.

With my blog, I didn't begin blogging publicly until I was being harassed with vandalisms and property damage again, profiled by police, falsely arrested and jailed, and Wenatchee medical professionals were lying about me to CPS. In defense, I began writing in a blog to voice from my own position, what was going on, and because I hoped someone out there would help me piece together what was happening and where the assault was coming from.

With my son, I was very protective of him, and didn't use his name or photo online, or even write about him, until HE became an issue and people were doing things which were wrong, to take him from me to punish ME, or finally, when I began seeing the harms that affected him for which we needed assistance. It was DEFENSIVE, my writing, and a resort to discarding privacy when protection was a greater gain.

I have never once, gone out of my way to "start something". If I've ever written about anyone or made a complaint, it was only out of a defensive mode where I had to do something to protect myself or my son or the damages would and could have been greater.

As for what was happening in E.Wenatchee, yeah, I may have sounded nuts when I documented what I did, but I can surely attest that once I got some of the story out and got away, it's ummm, never happened since. Who would dare? By now, whomever was responsible knows too many people know potentially and they don't even know who may have already gone forward to some investigative agency with information. So I DID protect my son.

When I have police and the state ignoring odd bruising on my son's legs and other strange marks and the "scratch" on his face that doesn't add up, maybe it is very sad to put that up online, but who else is protecting my son and making it clear his mother isn't "seeing things" and is not delusional? The police in Wenatchee and the state BOTH have and were completely ignoring these things and were trying to say, my word against theirs, with no photo evidence, that I was paranoid and delusional. I think I've proved my point, at least with the public.

I hear comments like one recently from an annonymous, who says I should stop blogging now and then "blog away!" after I have my son again. What kind of sense does that make? The whole point to my blogging now is not just creative writing, but to protect myself and my son and put it out to a wider audience for better protection. If I had my son BACK, with me, I wouldn't even have a need to blog. When he was with my before, I blogged because we were being harassed by medical professionals and still, having car vandalisms and problems.

If I blogged at ALL after getting my son back, it would be to public stories of public interest only. Like something about Hanford, something about this or that legal case in Wenatchee. It would be something of an alternative newsource and I wouldn't even be interested in putting ANY information about my or my son's life online.

It's a little late, to start documenting things after you're dead. I feel, there have been many individuals who would bury me alive if they could and they do NOT WANT the public to know what's going on.

People are on their toes more, when I'm documenting things and blogging. They may hate me more and it may anger them, but they also know that if I keep writing, at some point, they might get into trouble.

Has blogging done me any good? Yes, it has.

It has been a healthy way to channel thoughts and emotions. It has convinced some groups to quit some of their forms of harassment against me and my son. It has put some groups on notice. It has been a form of public documentation that I'm not the crazy person in this whole thing. It may have made me look nuts to write about health problems and hacking and electrical issues in E.Wenatchee, but the fact is, it quit happening. If it had continued, my son and I would have been further harmed and that stuff didn't quit happening because I 'felt safe', because I didn't feel anymore safe in Canada than the U.S. Also, my stress levels were far higher after my son was taken from me, and people with true mental illness get WORSE, not better, with the addition of stress. What I reported was accurate and my perception of pain was also accurate. It was all true, and I was willing to go to jail or be considered nuts to protect my own son.

There is nothing I could have done differently. If I had never blogged or filed lawsuits, I would have continued to be harassed and pursued because it was going on and then only slowed down once I got public notice on what was happening.

What I have done, has been protective and defensive.

I think about not blogging, even now, and can't imagine how that can help me or my son. I'm supposed to sit through visitations while no one advocates for him and his wishes? or documents the marks on his body that are clearly not from "playing"? I'm supposed to allow the public to think the worst of me, that I'm a bad mom, and the state must have had something on me, when really I was just denied reasonable representation and then told to be pro se and hung up on so I couldn't even defend myself and giving them a win by default? I'm supposed to allow everyone to think my son and I never had actual physical injuries from childbirth and that I really AM just plain nuts or delusional or paranoid or "out to get" "people you don't like" who "don't do what you want"?

When I still have people lying about me, and TO me, who work for the state, and stalling on things, why am I supposed to think quitting my blog is going to help? It just goes back to making a process secretive and I'm told to put my faith in a justice system when I've already had it used against me. I'm told the court of public opinion isn't going to help me on this dependency case, and that I need to address issues with the Judge and the state, but no one is helping me there and so far, I still have people screwing with me, even though I have a lawyer. I'm getting the lawyer a little late in the game besides.

If no one is doing anything "wrong" or corrupt, no one should even care that I have a blog because they have nothing to be worried about. They know I would never write about them because they've done nothing wrong.

If people QUIT harassing me and just followed the law, this entire blog, along with their own concerns about it, would go away. There would be peace. But it seems that I'm expected to shut my mouth while I and my son take a beating in private.