[The first two messages, below, date from March 31st, 2017, and then we leap forward to the present day (the last day of July and the first day of August of 2023) in the ensuing messages. I have put Anna's text into bold italics throughout, to make the flow of the conversation easier to follow.]
[2017]
Hi guys,
We've stalled in donations and I don't want the case to have to be put on hold. Do you have any ideas as to how we can re-inject some life into it?
Sent from my iPhone
———
Anna,
My opinion doesn't count for much, but I offer it.
I think you made a serious strategic error in presenting the case (initially) in terms of, "If only he would apologize, the whole case will be nullified". That made it seem as if there were no consequences, either way: nothing to win, and nothing to lose.
I think that the videos you made presenting your case were, also, aesthetically weak: as you know, by contrast, I made some very dramatic videos (weeping on camera at least once) in the fundraising for my own court-case.
[Click on the line below, or on the title of the article above, to display the text in full.]
You also started from an EXTREMELY SMALL subscriber base: you had near-zero regular viewers/fans …and, in fact, you'd both (1) stopped making videos and (2) stopped identifying as vegan (due to medical complications, etc., I know, BUT STILL, it is a strategic factor). As such, you were starting from a very weak position: raising 50% of the necessary funds is a huge victory, relative to how weak your starting position was. A channel with 10,000 regular viewers (uploading regularly) with a position as a valued, regular member of the vegan demimonde, would have had huge advantages.
It is also true that you delayed to your detriment: if you had pressed charges back when the issue was hot (and when Charles was defaming different people every day) the whole mood of the case would have been different. Instead, you waited for many months, and looked into it only after the fact (as you've narrated yourself in your videos). And Charles, meanwhile, has become a RELATIVELY sympathetic figure: he has (yet again) transformed the nature of his web-presence. And his behavior has changed (quite possibly due to a change in "diet", i.e., steroid use).
Overall, I would say that you have to fund the other half of the money yourself, and basically consider yourself lucky to have had a 50% discount on court-costs, provided by people who hate Charles.
You may recall a young woman from New Zealand (Hannah Chloe) who actually had sex with Durianrider, and tried to raise funds for her own court-case (defamation). Her fundraiser got almost zero donations —a stark contrast to my own. There were many, many factors involved there (including her own less-than-100% sincerity about what the situation was, i.e., she DID have sex with Harley, whereas her video made it seem as if she had refused) —HOWEVER, her channel actually had a considerable number of regular viewers, and she had been a regular contributer to the vegan Demimonde for years (I'd already known her for years, etc.). So, even with her MANY advantages, she raised less than 5% of what you raised (I forget, but she got remarkably close to zero in donations: only a few hundred).
I think that's the context you need to see it in.
E.M.
———
[2023]
Long time no talk. I know you hate me and that’s fine, but I wanted to clear something up.
I saw this comment under Charles’ video and it’s completely false. My lawyer was a nightmare to work with. He was volatile and quit and rehired himself several times during the case. He also failed to provide receipts for any of his time, which is illegal in California. When asked, he would become agitated. He screwed up by spending far too much on things he didn’t need to spend money on (like skip traces when we knew where Charles lived). He also dragged his feet so much that it caused us to go to trial which he originally told me would not happen. Because he didn’t tell me how much he was spending and quoted me $25k, I was shocked when he wanted another $12k for the trial plus travel to LA and room and board. I did try to raise this but was unable to. Vegan gains, who had helped before, said he felt it was beating a dead horse and I couldn’t get others to bite.
Charles also threatened to shoot me. I reported this to the police but i could not get protection in LA because I no longer have ties to California.
My lawyer screwed up so badly that i reported him to the bar and he had to go to ethics courses to restore his license at his own expense.
So yeah, I guess that’s just me being “eccentric” and “inexplicable.”
———
Also, I didn’t consider it an untenable burden for myself to fly to LA to speak under oath. Please don’t make things up. I’m not wealthy, I don’t have the money to do these things out of pocket.
———
Lastly, I did look for another lawyer, but they wanted far more money than I was able to raise, forcing me to stay with Bruce until he suggested we drop the case if I couldn’t afford a trial.
I know you don’t find me trustworthy for whatever reason, but I don’t appreciate the jumping to conclusions without knowing the whole picture.
———
I, also, have had many bad experiences with bad lawyers.
In Thailand. In France. Here in Canada, also.
Re: "I know you don’t find me trustworthy for whatever reason…"
Oh, you don't suppose you could imagine why? You don't suppose the tiniest amount of introspection on your part might lead to a trail of breadcrumbs leading back to some primitive sense of responsibility on your part, deep down inside?
Re: "I know you hate me and that’s fine…"
That's a really bad attitude for you to have, Anna. You're a grown woman: if you know I've got reasons to hate you then, from your perspective, it shouldn't be fine.
E.M.
———
I’m sorry, where is my responsibility in this? I tried my best to see it through. I worked with the police to try and get an order of protection from Charles after the threat was made and was unable to do so because when I received the threat, I was at my family’s home in Georgia and they don’t grant them to out of state threats. I sat with free clinics and the police for days. At the time, Charles was living with Will and had access to guns and neither my partner or I felt safe being near him as it was obvious he was using.
I tried to reach out to numerous people to help raise the extra money, but it wasn’t possible in the time allotted.
What else should I have done? I had already exhausted my own resources.
I’m not sure what I’ve done to make you find me untrustworthy, but in the end, it doesn’t matter as long as you’re aware of what actually happened and not believing I just didn’t go because I found the idea of flying to LA to testify under oath an unacceptable burden. I was also unfortunately involved in another court case in the US (that I thankfully won with a great lawyer) and I was able to use Zoom. This is often used in court, so it was also shocking that I had was required to be there in person.
As far as hating me, I’m honestly not sure what prompted you to block me on Twitter, but I’m not going to fight with you about it. I can’t force everyone to like me and I have to make peace with that as an adult.
Best,
Anna
———
Re: "At the time, Charles was living with Will and had access to guns and neither my partner or I felt safe being near him as it was obvious he was using."
I used to live in Cambodia, Anna.
I dealt with very credible death threats from powerful people in Laos, and equally credible death threats from one utterly powerless person (who nevertheless had a machete in his hands and swung it at me) in Thailand.
I've dealt with threats from corrupt police and Communist government officials in a third world country, and so on.
Can you remember a more recent situation in which I received credible threats of violence?
Can you remember me facing up to someone Durianrider directly said would beat me up, face to face, in Chiang Mai? Depending on how you count them, I met up with at least two of those guys, perhaps four. One was very nervous and trembling when he met me, because he was aware that Durianrider had basically promised that he'd hunt me down. The first thing he said to me was that I was much larger than he'd imagined.
As you may recall: when Durianrider offered to meet me with a gang of thugs to beat me up, I replied by asking for the place and the time. He was quite unprepared for that, and I didn't back down: I had a public event (in Chiang Mai) and let everyone (including Durianrider) know where I'd be in advance, and so on.
Real people do real things.
I still have all my teeth. But I'm generous with them, these teeth. Anyone can take them away from me.
Oh, yes, I actually have a very amusing tale of facing down a young man who threatened to kill me here in Canada, just about two weeks ago: we were standing right next to a bridge, and the death threats went on and on, it was quite remarkable. I assume he was high on cocaine, because I bumped into him a few days later, and he had no memory of ever seeing me before, but he was swinging his fists at me (and spitting on me) while explaining in detail that if he didn't kill me himself, I would be killed by his own father, who was supposedly some powerful person (whom he named, etc.) to get away with murder in Canada. I have two witnesses to the fact that I wasn't afraid.
Real people do real things.
And I am 44 years old now. I deal with threats of violence face to face, on the streets, myself. Even now. At 44.
Tell me something, Anna: who has suffered less?
Who has suffered less, in trying to change the world, than you and I?
Name some revolutionary who had a more comfortable cave to live in.
If you want to do something to make the world a better place, ultimately, Anna, you have to risk your own life: all of us, each and every single one. And some of us risk it by merely mixing ink and paper.
I've suffered. I've suffered terribly. But tell me: who has suffered less?
Re: "I tried to reach out to numerous people to help raise the extra money, but it wasn’t possible in the time allotted."
I was one of them, remember?
You reached out to numerous people, including me.
And I sent you replies, and you didn't want to hear them.
Oh, and please refresh my memory: did you help me with my own fundraising efforts? At any stage, at any time?
Perhaps I don't remember: perhaps you held a fundraising party on Younow, and I just don't recall. Perhaps we recorded a podcast together. Perhaps you made videos about my case, and urging others to support me. Perhaps you've helped me in innumerable ways I don't know of, because you're so shy and bashful about what a generous and supportive person you are toward others.
It couldn't possibly be that you're someone who raised vastly more money in donations than I ever did, and that you collected vastly more in donations than Hannah Chloe ever did…
…and that you nevertheless had the attitude of taking and taking and taking, while showing absolutely zero human interest (or human decency) when another person was going through a (remarkably similar) criminal defamation case "elsewhere" in the vegan world.
Oh, I'm sorry, but you're ex-vegan, correct? So I suppose I can't quite describe "the geography" that way (as you weren't quite "in" the vegan world, hm?).
And tell me, Anna: who have you spoken to more often and more recently, myself or my ex-wife, Mireille?
And did you ask Mireille to help out with fundraising for your court case, too? I'm sure she could have been of tremendous help. I really wonder why you didn't ask her and her father to bankroll the whole thing, frankly.
Re: "What else should I have done? I had already exhausted my own resources."
Oh, I'm very forthcoming with good advice: look back at the email I
sent you on April 5th, 2017. For some reason, you didn't reply.
If you go back and re-read that email now… what do you think?
Re: "I’m not sure what I’ve done to make you find me untrustworthy, but in the end, it doesn’t matter…"
No no, Anna: it doesn't matter TO YOU.
It's a matter of indifference TO YOU.
Not to me.
That's why you're supposed to care about it: being a good person, you see, involves caring about others, not just yourself.
Indeed, simply "not being a bad person" requires a great deal of that kind of… thinking. Making an effort along those lines, you know: short term, selfish thinking starts to resemble evil, with time.
Re: "[Zoom calls are] often used in court, so it was also shocking that I had was required to be there in person."
I'm an old political science major, Anna: I am not surprised that you were required to be there in person at all. I had to testify in Thailand repeatedly in the court case against Durianrider, at great inconvenience and at great expense. Take a vow on a stack of bibles and all that.
And tell me, honestly: if I talked to Bruce, you don't suppose I'd get a very different version of events?
The client may decide to terminate a court case for many reasons: a client may decide that the case is untenable because she can no longer afford the fees —and she may decide the case is untenable because of the poor quality of the lawyer, or for innumerable other reasons. You have already stated that you had SOME OTHER court case ongoing at the same time.
What I know about your court case (and how and why it ended) is based on no other source of information than you, Anna: I think you're kidding yourself about what a bad job you did of communicating what happened in the court case and why. It's quite possible that this was because you were struggling to maintain a working relationship with your lawyer (Bruce) while also trying to find a better lawyer (or a second opinion, etc.) as you've already described.
For whatever combination of reasons, you ended the case because you found it untenable: you explained that —publicly, on youtube, years ago— and you explained it very poorly. And so it is, now, that you're writing to me with this grievance.
E.M.
———
The only thing I’ll even respond to here is this:
The other court case happened years later and was pro bono.
[She's here quoting my earlier message:]
It's quite possible that this wasbecause you were struggling to maintain a working relationship withyour lawyer (Bruce) while also trying to find a better lawyer (or asecond opinion, etc.) as you've already described.
I did not feel it was appropriate to disclose the issues during the ongoing case as I wanted to try and see it through. It also gives the other party huge ammunition. Afterwards, it was not disclosed because I had to go through another lawyer (also pro bono via a favor from a friend) to ensure he faced repercussions for where he failed to meet the standards of the bar. At that point most people had lost interest and I didn’t want to publicly belabor it but most people in private know what occurred. I also thought the fact that I couldn’t raise enough money was pretty well established as I refunded those who donated to that effort or donated the excess to charity.
Sure, you could ask Bruce, but the fact is that he did have to take ethics courses at his own expense to keep his license because he failed to provide services required of a lawyer in that state. He couldn’t deny that.
———
Also Hannah and I are close. She decided not to pursue litigation pretty quickly after the fundraiser started for a variety of reasons that I don’t feel are appropriate to disclose, so of course she didn’t receive the same amount as me.
———
Oh, and I suppose you and Mireille "are close" also, hm?
(哈哈哈哈哈哈哈 哈哈哈哈)
The four of you are a natural match: you're all ex-vegans!
E.M.
———
I’ve never met Mireille in person so no, I’m not that close to her.
———
[Title:] Hannah Chloe and Norvegan lied to everyone (including you)
If you actually read the legal documents carefully…
the legal documents that Norvegan showed on screen for just a fraction of a second each…
you will find…
that Hannah and her boyfriend lied to everyone…
even you, Anna, although you're her "close friend", I'm sure.
And yes, if you haven't guessed, the long (long!) video Norvegan made with my ex-father-in-law was full of laughably obvious lies… but you already know that, correct? You're nobody's fool, right Anna?
E.M.
———
Ah, yes, and here's the sequel, with a self-explanatory title:
"The Paperwork: Norvegan is the Lowest of the Low."
You should watch both videos, really. The one already linked to in the earlier message is "Norvegan Blames the Police, I BLAME HIM."
Oh, yes, while we're at it…
can you remember anything I've ever lied to you about, Anna?
I can't remember a single thing.
But I'm sure you find Norvegan and Hannah both to be very trustworthy characters, despite the lies they've told that are —really— much more serious (qua defamation) than anything Vegan Cheetah ever said about you.
E.M.
———
[Title:] So Cheetah is guilty of defamation, but not Hannah & Norvegan?
So given your position on defamation, per se…
you don't see anything wrong with the campaign that Norvegan and Hannah Chloe carried on against me?
You don't find any fault with your "good friend" Hannah, when she was interviewing my ex-father-in-law, and spins out one defamatory lie after another?
You don't see what Hannah and Norvegan did to me as quite a bit more damaging and genuinely malign than what Cheetah did to you?
No?
It's a little bit too much of a leap of inference for you to feel some of that sympathy and compassion for someone else, when your very good friend is the one doing the defaming?
When Norvegan defamed Durianrider, I did the right thing: I defended Durianrider and pointed out the defamation just because it was the right thing to do. When Cheetah defamed Durianrider, I did the right thing: I defended Durianrider just because it was the right thing to do. Even though Durianrider has hurt me, personally: I know the difference between the truth and a lie, and I know the difference between right and wrong.
You don't, Anna.
You didn't lift a finger to help me, when I was the one who told the truth, and when people like Hannah Chloe (and my ex-wife!) were the ones telling lies.
E.M.
———
[Title:] Breadcrumbs
You see what I mean, now, about the need for a little bit of self-examination on your side…
following the trail of breadcrumbs?
And tell me, if our positions were reversed: do you think that I would have been speaking to your ex-husband (in parallel circumstances) without mentioning it to you ("behind your back") in the way that you did to me?
And do you think I would have been talking to Norvegan and Hannah Chloe, as my "good friends", if they had been doing to you what they'd done to me —i.e., something far worse than what Cheetah did to you?
Breadcrumbs, Anna.
You're an utterly despicable person. You're worse than Cheetah, and you're worse than Durianrider (and I know both of those men well enough to say so!).
I assume this is the last time I'll ever hear from you, or that you'll ever hear from me, given (1) that you have this indescribably awful disease that's killing you, and (2) given that you're a coward and an imbecile. I want to reassure you: there is no afterlife, however, in the same sense that each of us lives with an unequal amount of light, each of us —in death— goes into a different degree of darkness. And you, Anna, have been dim in this life, and shall be abyssal in that darkness.
E.M.
———
I’m sorry you’re in so much pain in your life that this is how you choose to speak to people you don’t even really know and/or feel they owe everything to you because you briefly supported them. I didn’t realize our relationship was so serious and that you were so loyal to me and that I owed so much loyalty to you. I really do feel badly for you, and it must be sad and lonely to lash out at people you don’t really know so horribly. I will daven for you and hope you find some inner peace.
PS- you gave me advice in 2017, I dropped the case in 2019.
———
I'm gleaming in the darkness, Anna.
The light I bring to the world is something that creatures like you and Mireille and Hannah will never understand.
This "daven" you speak of won't help you, and it won't help me, either: you're preparing for a transition from being a nonentity in this life to being something blacker still —a darker shade of nonentity.
People like you are trying to pray your way out of hell, while I'm trying to kick down the gates and fight my way in.
Oh, and the irony is that you're proud of yourself: that you sat in the audience cheering Hannah and Norvegan on, while they defamed me, without feeling the slightest sense of hypocrisy as you'd heaped so much scorn on Cheetah's audience when they gossiped and lied about you —when they enjoyed the lies being told about you as a kind of sport —as an exhibition. But that's why you were in Cheetah's audience in the first place, wasn't it? You were one of them: you dined on gossip, you regarded it as entertainment to see other people's reputations being destroyed —and so too you were thoroughly entertained to see Norvegan and Hannah doing it to me (and you were delighted to see Hannah conspire with me ex-wife against me, etc.). You must have been smiling from ear to ear as you saw this little conspiracy with my ex-father-in-law unfold: it never occurred to you that you ought to stand up for the same principle you supposedly stood up for in your own case. It never occurred to you that you were —now— guilty of the same evil you'd reproached others for in the past.
Hell is real, Anna: there are neither gods nor souls, and yet here I am, trying to lead an army, to break down the gates of hell.
E.M.
