NOTE: Here is PART 2 of my report: Trafficking with the Devil
This report is posted in two parts (two separate posts) due to formatting problems, but Part 2 does not stand alone. Please read the first post (link above) before continuing with Part 2.
BUSYBODY/STALKER MICHELLE WOLVEN: ATTACKS ON BARBARA HARTWELL
Michelle Wolven, another minion of corrupt corporate entities (such as Big Pharma and the Medical Mafia) and corrupt government agencies (including FDA) began her attacks of libel/slander on Barbara Hartwell, promoting outrageous falsehoods, after I appeared as a guest on Dr. Antonella Carpenter's radio program, The Medical Conspiracy. Wolven, who had been viciously attacking Dr. Carpenter and associates for years, later escalated her attacks on Barbara Hartwell by harassing known associates of mine, and by sending a libelous letter to the station manager of Orion Talk Radio, complaining that Barbara Hartwell was allowed as a guest on Dr, Carpenter's program.
Samples of Wolven's libel:
"I am extremely concerned because they [Dr. Carpenter and Lase Med Inc.] have taken a crazy and dangerous turn in their tactics. That, having a fraudulent person claiming to be ex-CIA..."
"Ms. Carpenter has Barbara Hartwell coming on the Medical Conspiracy radio show now 4 or 5 times saying that she is now " MY ENEMY" because I am the enemy of Ms. Carpenter of Lase Med Inc."
In both cases, these demonic characters, Adachi and Wolven, have made a very PUBLIC spectacle with their scandalmongering in defaming the name of Barbara Hartwell --of which any and all associates, friends, colleagues of mine are well aware.
This report will continue in addressing the issues of respecting the privacy and personal boundaries of the Individual, when confronted with the malicious invasions, intrusions and assaults on any given Individual by evildoers such as Adachi and Wolven.
It will explore the difference between what is "private" and what is "public".
Shortly after the conversation with Janet Phelan re her comparison of my "promoting" of the talk show host with whom she had "issues", I received an e-mail from Janet.
The subject line stated: Michelle Wolven called me.
The one line of text stated: " Get back to me when you can."
Following are a number of e-mails between me and Janet Phelan. I am making them public at Janet's request (see below), and because they are mostly self-explanatory in defining my position as opposed to Janet's. I have REMOVED only small amounts of personal/private info which does not change the meaning or content of the messages, as well as the names of certain third parties, to protect their privacy. My additional comments are interspersed, along with the e-mails.
Barbara Hartwell's respone to "Michelle Wolven called me":
I was not online yesterday (illness) so did not get your e-mail message until today. But I would like to know why she called you, and what it had to do with me (I assume it was in connection with me?)
Wolven is another Tim White, a stalker contacting anyone she can who is a known associate of mine. I don't understand why you would call her back? Wolven has attacked me publicly and has been exposed for same.
She has been exposed again on my website, and on Dr. Carpenter's radio show, today.
So when you are able, please call and let me know what this is about, thanks."
Next thing I know, I get another e-mail from Janet stating only:
"I went ahead and called her so you can ignore this request."
"Janet, I don't understand what this is about re Michelle Wolven? I tried to call you on skype just now, got a busy signal. If you can, please call me back so I know what's going on, thanks."
Janet Phelan to Barbara Hartwell:
[Personal info removed for privacy. I have only included the relevant comments.]
"I tried to reach you yesterday after Michelle first called me. I decided to just go ahead and call her and I did today."
Note that in both of these terse responses, I received no explanation and no answer to my questions re Wolven. What's the point of telling me about this call, if I am not going to be given the facts, if no explanation is forthcoming as to WHY?
I should say that just because I could not be immediately reached, and because I did not promptly respond, that is not a valid reason to "go ahead" and make a return call. What? If I HAD immediately responded, and expressed my wishes that I did NOT want my personal boundaries violated by a call to a busybody/stalker trying to get in my business (which anyone who knows me as well as Janet should have been aware), then no call would have been made? And it is "fair game" to make such a call simply because I did not snap to! in responding to a message about a contact from this provocateur, Michelle Wolven?
I find it important to state that every other "known associate" of mine who was targeted by Michelle Wolven, specifically using my name, simply DISREGARDED the e-mails/phone calls. They did not respond to Wolven in any way, they only apprised me of the attempts at contact by Wolven, which were specifically for the purpose of extracting information (invading MY privacy) and influencing these "known associates". If the contact was by e-mail, the recipients forwarded the e-mails directly to me, just as I would have done had such a busybody/stalker approached me in attempts to invade privacy of others.
Being very concerned about this contact with the perp, Michelle Wolven, not being able to reach Janet by skype (the usual method of communication), and anxious to resolve this matter, I decided to write an e-mail to Janet, outlining my concerns.
I have deleted only the "personal" comments re my health, etc. as well as a few private comments not directly relevant, but all that relates to the other issues I have left in the original form, except to REMOVE the names of third parties and replace them with X.
BARBARA HARTWELL TO JANET PHELAN
I am concerned about some issues on which it seems we have a disagreement, that is, if I am interpreting this correctly. I don't mind disagreeing as long as we can 'agree to disagree', but I would like to straighten this out; I will be happy to discuss it with you, but I am outlining it here, in the hope it will make things clearer.
I understand that you were not happy with my adding X's name to a list of talk show hosts, described as "decent and honorable". I understand that you no longer want any dealings with X, because of the way he treated you. But to my knowledge, he has not publicly libeled/slandered you, nor made a public issue of it, and your problem with X had nothing to do with me. So, I meant it as no disrespect to you, I was only referring to one subject: the issue of the Jew-hater/Nazis and talk show hosts willing to cover the issue. Leaving his name out would have been a glaring omission (as would removing it after the fact.)
As I told you, now that I know the extent of your feelings about this, I will not mention your name ever again in connection with X. As I also told you, I have not discussed you with him, nor would I. But I don't allow myself to get in the middle of other people's conflicts, so any possible future issues/dealings re X will never be connected to you.
But I do have a problem with something connected to this: which is that you compared me mentioning X with the situation re Chris Zucker, so I need to set my position straight on that. I do not know Chris Zucker. I have never had any contact/dealings with him, by my own choice. He tried to use you, Geral (and others) as intermediaries to contact me. As you know, I made it clear I wanted no dealings with him, and that was my prerogative.
For years he was promoting Ken Adachi on his website, and as a result, my reputation was further damaged each time someone clicked the link to Adachi's site, because of Chris Zucker. It also implicated him as a promoter of Adachi. I therefore made a decision, per my own policy, to put his name in the hall of shame.
Geral was also having problems with Zucker for other reasons (see his e-mail below), and finally decided he wanted no further dealings with him, including because of Zucker's promotion of the demonic liar Ken Adachi, but not limited to that. None of this was connected to you in any way.
When Zucker wrote the complaint against me, it was also sent to Geral, and thus made "public". Geral sent it to me, you did not, but I have no reason to trust Zucker, no way of knowing who else he may have sent it to, and I was not about to let it slide. I did not use your name, to protect your privacy, but I have the right to defend myself against anyone who is launching complaints against me, and it is my policy always to set the record straight.
I do not respect people who try to use others as intermediaries in connection with me, especially once it has been made clear that their advances are not welcome. Zucker was doing this for years, and should have minded his own business, instead of making his complaints to those he knew were my friends, AS IF this were some "communal" issue, where others "have a say". No one has any "say" in my decisions, except me, and I respect the same right in others.
But the point is, there is no parallel between me putting X's name in a report, as relevant to the issue of radio shows, and the issue of Chris Zucker, none at all.
You are free to disagree, but my position is different, and I have my own reasons for everything I do. Also, this was never an issue of "divisiveness", as you mentioned you told Zucker, as I operate completely independently, and I am not involved in any groups, organizations, etc.
I was not privy to his further complaints against me, so I can't comment further than that. The issue, for me, is that a person I do not know, never wanted to know, tried to aggressively push his way into my professional work, and when his efforts failed, he seemed to think he was 'entitled' to be "recognized" by me, and angry that he was not. Why he would care, I don't know, but I am totally independent of anything but my own agenda, based on my own principles. I have no reason to want to discuss Zucker, as he is of no importance to me. Your dealings with him (if any) are a separate issue, and I would only appreciate that, as you said, as you are not involved, that you not discuss me with him in future.
Here is an e-mail sent to me by Geral:
Barbara- I blocked all email from Chris Zucker because I do not care to entertain his comments against either you or me. In my last message to Chris I wished him well and I stated that I have no animosity toward him. I dropped him from Ning because of his careless postings on his site (and on my Ning) of links to persons who slandered you and who engaged in a kind of psyop against you. I repeatedly brought all of these concerns to his attention, but he casually dismissed my concerns. Anyone who attempts to malign you, as Chris did recently in his message about your hall of shame (listing Chris) page, is no friend of mine. I have nothing to do with such personalities.
As you know I am under great strain here and no end is in sight; I endure the pain as best I can, and I try to eliminate from my contacts anyone who drains me of my time and resources such as Chris did.
Love to you and all my kind wishes to Janet.
The only other thing is the issue with Wolven, another aggressive busybody trying to exploit known associates of mine for her own ends. She has been aggressively libeling and harassing me (publicly), and contacting a number of those who are "known associates" of mine. Busybody/stalkers like Wolven are just like Tim White. I would appreciate it, in future, if such a person tries to contact you, specifically re anything to do with me, that you simply disregard the call/message, etc.
These creeps are coming out of the woodwork, all over the place, and they have no shame, no reservations, no respect whatsoever for the privacy and personal boundaries of others. I have set things up so they cannot get directly to me, nor would I ever engage them in any way. My way of dealing with them is only to EXPOSE THEM.
I am sorry that people like this are trying to 'get to me' through you, simply because it is public knowledge that you are associated with me, but as you know, I have no control over what they do; all I can do is admonish them in a public report for their harassment of those associated with me.
As I said, I would be glad to discuss any of this with you.
I will be out most of the rest of the day, but might be on skype later this evening, assuming there are no other pressing problems I have to deal with.
This is Janet's response, and apparently she does not 'get it'; she is commingling issues not related, and dragging in third parties. I have again REMOVED the names to protect their privacy.
I will deal first with the Wolven situation. She called me and I immediately emailed you. I did not get a reply (you wrote me later that you were sick) and so I returned the call and left her a voicemail which I was sure would result in her never, ever calling me again. As she contacted me, it was my decision to return her call.
Just as, apparently, it is your decision to promote X, which is pretty much what you have de facto done by listing him as a talk show host whom you describe as decent and honorable. You were well aware of the distress he caused me by his on air behavior followed up by his off air behavior. So you made a decision relevant to X and I made a decision relevant to Wolven. My decision did not result in any sort of public promotion of her, however. I dealt with her swiftly and definitively and am fairly sure she will never darken my door again. But for some reason, you feel that I am not to return her call in deference to your wishes but feel free to promote X, even in the face of all the distress he caused me.
There is enormous divisiveness among people now. The way I generally work is in a more or less hands off manner. In other words, if , for example, XX behaves in a suspect manner towards me but is good to you, I don't try to insist that you d.c. your contact with him or check with me before communicating with him!!!. However, in the case of X you actively solicited my comments about your article AFTER it was published. Parenthetically, there have been many times when I lob over something I have written about someone's situation to them PRIOR to publication, asking them to check it for accuracy. In this case, you solicited my input and you got it.
In terms of the divisiveness, there are people you are in touch with, whom you are apparently allied with, whom I consider to be highly suspect. In terms of a hands off policy, that is your right and I don't really try to intervene. If you want to promote X, it is your right. But when you ask for my input, then please don't try to rationalize away what you have asked for from me. The situations you describe, you and Zucker, me and X, they are really not all that different. Some of the details, perhaps, but in broad sweeps, not really.
[REMOVED re private info unrelated]
I am sorry you are also not well.
All the best,
Once I realized how serious the problem/disagreement was I wrote this e-mail:
It seems the disagreements are more serious than I thought. I hope they can be resolved, if only in agreeing to disagree, or in reaching a mutual understanding of one another's position.
I'd rather not continue a discussion by e-mail, as it's too time-consuming and, for me, not the best way to communicate.
I haven't been well today and unless I feel better will be going offline, but hopefully we can talk soon.
Now this from Janet. This response appeared to me to be evasive (though perhaps I am mistaken in this interpretation), but most significantly, there was no indication given that she would be willing to discuss these issues with me.
"I am getting ready to leave the country so I am not very available right now. I will be on and offline and my schedule is not too predictable at this juncture. Hope you feel better soon."