Douglas Misicko alias Douglas Mesner defamation case

Due to repeated harassment and defamatory statements, the founder of SMART, Neil Brick has brought a defamation case against Douglas Misicko, alias Douglas Mesner. Mesner in reply posted an article on the Internet. This article has several factual inaccuracies.

Background

We recommend you read these pages before reading this page:
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/harassment-by-false-memory-proponents/
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/rebuttal-to-the-report-from-the-smart-2009-conference/

These pages will give readers the full background on this subject as well as a rebuttal to Mesner’s comments about ritual abuse and our conference. These pages list many of the comments posted by Douglas Mesner as well as other aliases. These pages will show connections between Mesner and websites like process, radiofreesatan.com and the book “Might is Right.”

Douglas Misicko stopped payment on the check he used to pay for the conference after the conference. Our conference brochure, which all that register are required to read, states “Members of secret organizations, acting out perpetrators, and/or members of unsympathetic organizations are excluded from the conference. This is for the protection and safety of those in attendance.” Also, it is clearly announced at the beginning of the conference, “Please note that media people are not allowed in the conference at any time without the written permission of SMART.” This is also for the protection and safety of those in attendance.

Reply to Recent Posted Article

He states in his article that he heard Neil Brick give a speech at the conference in which he encouraged vigorous debate with skeptics and that it was Neil Brick’s failure to successfully do this which caused the lawsuit.

The actual reason for the lawsuit is Douglas Mesner’s repeated defamatory statements about SMART, the conference and Neil Brick. These include false statements made by Douglas Mesner. These will be presented in court. Some of these are mentioned at our website in the above links. SMART, Neil Brick and others did debate Douglas Mesner on the Internet after the conference and rebutted his arguments.

Neil Brick stated at the conference:
“The important thing is to make sure that the victims’ sides of the story are heard. To get their versions of the story out to as many people as possible, so that those responsible for these crimes will continue to be held accountable and so that when children are raped…they will be believed….We need to be our own advocates. If enough of us speak up, we will be heard.”

Mesner continues to make misstatements about Neil Brick and SMART in his recent post. He misrepresents SMART’s position in this article.

He critiques the use of the word “alleged” by a survivor, yet the use of this word in writing is used for legal reasons.

He writes in his recent post “The case, not surprisingly, was dismissed…” Yet, the case has just started.

He continues to attack a 68 year old speaker named Julaine at the conference, as he did at his original article. Here is her reply to him in regard to his original article:

“As a speaker at the conference as well as “named” throughout this commentary, I am amazed and appalled at the inclusion of a seriously flawed “report” from a man who faked his identity to attend, canceled his check that was to pay for his attendance, misrepresented who he was, and then failed to check his “facts” about not only myself but others in attendance as well. His errors include such small details as my age and health, reason for sitting at a table (too many papers to juggle standing up), and larger ones such as misquoting and putting words in my mouth. My presentation is on tape, and it would have been easy for him to verify any of his shaky “facts”, but he chose to make fun of our pain, as well.”

Mesner states in essence that he is not responsible for any damage caused to SMART or Neil Brick by his statements, since he believes he has shown problems with their views. Yet, if he has misrepresented these views, then he is responsible.

In another post about the defamation suit, Mesner writes that few of the statements in his original conference report are contested by Neil Brick. Obviously, this is not true and the links above at this website will show this.

Here are links rebutting his opinions on various topics mentioned in his recent post.

Proof That Ritual Abuse Exists
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/

Basic Information on Dissociative Identity Disorder
http://ritualabuse.us/research/did/

Recovered Memory Data
http://ritualabuse.us/research/memory-fms/recovered-memory-data/

http://defamationcase.blogspot.com/