Tim Cumper - The Propaganda Plant

Entangled by the bonds of hate, he

who seeks his own happiness by
inflicting pain on others, is never
delivered from hatred.

Tim Cumper - Proof of Vengeance.

Tim Cumper says "If more proof were necessary that the tactics of John Phillips Bengero (Jepoy) are nothing short of spiteful and malicious - read on."

Here is another extract from the pages of "timcumper.com" & "The Tim Cumper Watch" - in which Jepoy rightfully and observantly points out that I had taken all material causing these people their alleged grievancies - out of circulation.

That is exactly what I had decided to do - however - rather than delete the blogs immediately I promptly placed them all in "draft" mode - but the reason was deliberate in finally bringing them out of circulation - hoping that this would gradually bring an end to the seemingly interminable conflict occurring online.

How wrong I was in that assumption.

For shortly after Jepoy's discovery that my blogs were "off-air" - I discover that he had cloned my 34 page blog - plus the other 3 blogs - and was offering exact copies up to the readership at his newly acquired domain name (registered by Noemi Dado - see Tim Cumper - Good Timing) - "timcumper.com" - material that had been previously assembled & displayed by him at a sub-domain of gameops own website "The Tim Cumper Watch" - a website demonstrating a technique known as "scraping-the-barrel" - in order to twist & distort my story - distilling every drop of poison possible to assist their propaganda campaign.

Such a vast store-house of absurd accusations, lies and arrogant bigotry - that deserves only to be removed entirely from the Internet - illustrating, to perfection, the collective mind-set of all collaborators in the campaign.

Illustrating - better than anything else - the type of sordid atmosphere that is germane to racketeering, organised crime, confidence tricks & scamming - the sort of collaborative covering up and deception suspected in the very story that these people attempted to bury - a probability so vehemently denied by this self-same group of people.

Originally - as is patently obvious by the key-words & tags used in its initial stages - the SEO campaign was designed to profess the innocence of the real estate company, named by myself in the story.

A little history of that story.

Conceived as a memento - a photo-journal of my blissfully happy romantic trip to meet the girl of my dreams.

This was hosted - and was completely private, save for a few "friends" - on MySpace.

Let me stress - it was not publicly accessible - and made no appearances whatsoever in the search engines - to all intents and purposes, it was invisible.

When things started to go awry, I continued with the writing of the story - and as a strengthener to my position - when my pleas for official contact or documentation were not met - I sent the real estate firm and the girl the URL of the story (see Tim Cumper - Change of Mind)- made briefly public and accessible to them, so that they could be aware of my serious intent - hoping that this would stir them into action in sending me the proof that I so urgently required.

The key here is that they were among very few people who knew of its existence.

The signs up to this point were looking increasingly suspect - two previous requests for money in the month of my return to the UK - and instructions to send the money for this, the third request, via Western Union - instructions I received 2 days before my previously arranged 2nd trip to visit the girl - I would have overtaken the money - there was a 3 day hold on money transfers to the Philippines.

All the classic signs of a "hospital type scam" - so very popular from these islands.

Apart from perhaps one critical area - the fact that, yes - we had slept together and engaged in unprotected sex during my first trip a month previously.

However, as such - this represents a golden opportunity for a scam - if there were any inclination, any slight deviation towards this intention - here was a chance to cash in.

Again - we are steeped in ambiguity.

For one interpretation we need only believe all the information at face value - as being true.

But another interpretation sees the following ingredients.

The coincidence of the pregnancy being proclaimed a "false alarm" - on the confirmation of my 2nd trip - I could have had the girl checked for pregnancy when I arrived.

The fact that there is a small window of opportunity in which to stage a realistic ectopic rupture - as it is - the dates suggest that it was untypically rather early.

As the girl knew that I had no access to further cash once I had arrived on my proposed 2nd trip (no credit card) - the money would have had to be sent before I departed - ie - the emergency would have had to happen before I left English soil - the first suggestion was to send it via Western Union - the method I had transferred the 2 previous amounts of cash to her.

If our relationship had continued - after this episode - there would definitely be no further unprotected sex between us - so the first suggestion of a pregnancy by the girl (whether real or not - it has not been proved) - represents the last and only opportunity to use the knowledge, that we both had, of our previous unprotected sex as a distinct advantage in the likelihood of a successful scam.

All those pointers almost define the date precisely - to when I got the call "from the hospital" - 5 days before my second trip.

As you can see, it is impossible to detect "truth" from information alone - information reads the same in either case - truth or falsehood.

However - behaviour is more difficult to falsify - behaviour is always a genuine reaction to real circumstances - which effects the appropriateness and timing of a response, indicated in the emotional content and importantly, the context of any response.

Perhaps these areas should be regarded as stronger indicators of "truth" than mere information alone.

Nevertheless - this could easily be just as ambiguous to interpret - accurate perception is a rare gift - especially in stressful circumstances such as these.

But I have digressed.

The story was eventually made public after the revelation which followed all the previous ambiguity - of a scar that appeared to be fake - inviting one to seriously question the probability of that happening.

I opened up the updated story on MySpace.

Within the hour - my account there was hacked - and my blogs deleted - months of work - gone forever.

So I thought at least - and so thought whomever it was responsible for the deletion.

Who could it have been I wonder?

One of my friends on MySpace?

Who else knew of its existence?

MySpace were extremely wonderful - after some security & ID checks - they managed to resurrect the files from their servers.

At this point - convinced that I was dealing with a bunch of crooks - I made efforts to publish the story - from this platform at blogspot - owned by Google.

For the very first time I noticed an appearance of the story in the search engines.

However - ambiguity was still in my thoughts - I needed unambiguous, irrefutable proof - and hoped that the wide publication of the story would achieve that for me - someone, somewhere would know something about the actual events - either way.

The real estate company - in the face of all this publicity - would surely send me the irrefutable proof that I required - and then it would all be removed - job done.

Boy! - was I wrong in that regard.

I published a letter - linking to the story - on a site called Filipina Images - little realising that the web-site owner also worked in Real Estate in the Philippines.

In fact it was an article on the very same real estate company involved in the story - which first showed me the link to Filipina Images - I did not realise these were web-sites owned by the same person.

The rest - as they say is history - except that it isn't - because it is still going on.

Realising, perhaps, that the initial thrust of the SEO campaign that was organised - directly linking to the name of the real estate company - was only adding to the saturation of bad-press in the search engines - and was also exposing the various contributors to pointed questions from myself, for which they had no answer - and also exposing the bigotry and the feeding-frenzy of contemptuous behaviour - not nice - what was to be done?

What would be the answer?

Continue with the campaign - but change the direction of thrust - to purely a personal attack on the author of the original story - accusing him of "stalking and harassment."

Meanwhile - block the author from commenting on the web-sites containing the propaganda material against him.

Meanwhile - incite support from a vast and already established base of  blog-followers (from the Philippines) - by presenting them with a severely distorted and unsubstantiated account of what happened - that they will find irresistible .

Meanwhile - retreat into stony silence in response to any attempted communication from the author.

Hence Jepoy's continued acts of vengeance - to a story that he himself has faked - despite his admitted knowledge that I had removed all material  connected to their grievances from circulation.

Of course - as a protective measure against misrepresentation by his new website - going under my name - "timcumper.com" - I felt forced to reinstate those blogs which were out of circulation - and create even more - this time using their various names - in order to keep my head above the rising tide of pollution in the SERPs - for my name.

Oakville Houses For Sale Wedding Pictures

Tim Cumper - Various Points of Law

DEFAMATION

In the UK, there is no statutory definition of defamation. Instead, various statements by the courts contribute to a common law definition of defamation.

Each definition has a common link to the reputation of the person or business about whom the statement is made. The most widely regarded definition of defamation is a statement made which ‘tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally’. If there is no injury to the reputation or character of the person or business, then it is unlikely that the statement is defamatory. For example, a mere insult, or simple abuse, may not realistically injure the person’s reputation. However, where the statement exposes the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or causes the person to be shunned or avoided, it may be defamatory.

Whilst not part of the definition of defamation per se, the defences of justification or truth, and fair comment, are important considerations in determining whether a statement is defamatory. Under the defence of justification, if it can be proved that the statement is substantially true, then the statement will not be defamatory. Similarly, under the defence of fair comment, if it can be established that the statement was intended as an expression of a genuinely held opinion, and not as a statement of fact, and that the opinion was made in relation to provable facts, then it may not be defamatory. Other defences, variations of a privilege defence, also exist.

SOURCE

"Aside from stalking via e-mail, online messaging, and social networking sites, Escudero said during Tuesday’s justice committee hearing that he also wants cyberstalking to cover the creation of websites dedicated to the person being stalked, especially if his or her pictures and whereabouts are being posted there." [GMA News Online 24th May 2011]


SOURCE

Libel Laws of the Philippines.

Under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, libel is defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to discredit or cause the dishonor or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. Thus, the elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c) identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.
[Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67]

In libel cases, the question is not what the writer of an alleged libel means, but what the words used by him mean. Jurisprudence has laid down a test to determine the defamatory character of words used in the following manner, viz:

“Words calculated to induce suspicion are sometimes more effective to destroy reputation than false charges directly made. Ironical and metaphorical language is a favored vehicle for slander. A charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue, or reputation, or to hold the person or persons up to public ridicule. . . . ”
[Lacsa v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 161 SCRA 427 (1988) citing U.S. v. O'Connell, 37 Phil. 767 (1918)]

An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstances which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. It is not required that the person defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a third person has read or heard the libelous statement, for “a man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him in, not the good opinion which he has of himself.”
[Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 51 (1995)]

On the other hand, to satisfy the element of identifiability, it must be shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement. In the case of Corpus vs. Cuaderno, Sr. (16 SCRA 807) the Supreme Court ruled that “in order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable (People vs. Monton, L-16772, November 30, 1962), although it is not necessary that he be named (19 A.L.R. 116).” In an earlier case, the high court also declared that” … defamatory matter which does not reveal the identity of the person upon whom the imputation is cast, affords no ground of action unless it be shown that the readers of the libel could have identified the personality of the individual defamed.” [Kunkle vs. Cablenews-American and Lyons 42 Phil. 760].

This principle has been recognized to be of vital importance, especially where a group or class of persons, as in the case at bar, claim to have been defamed, for it is evident that the larger the collectivity, the more difficult it is for the individual member to prove that the defamatory remarks apply to him. [Cf. 70 ALR 2d. 1384].

PRESUMPTION OF MALICE:

The law also presumes that malice is present in every defamatory imputation. Thus, Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides that:

“Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.”

Paragraph 2 aforequoted refers to a qualifiedly privileged communication, the character of which is a matter of defense that may be lost by positive proof of express malice on the part of the accused. Once it is established that the article is of a privileged character, the onus of proving actual malice rests on the plaintiff who must then convince the court that the offender was prompted by malice or ill will. When this is accomplished the defense of privilege becomes unavailing.
[Santos v. Court of Appeals, No. L-45031, 21 October 1991, 203 SCRA 110, 114]

Prescinding from this provision, when the imputation is defamatory, as in this case, the prosecution need not prove malice on the part of the defendant (malice in fact), for the law already presumes that the defendant’s imputation is malicious (malice in law). The burden is on the side of the defendant to show good intention and justifiable motive in order to overcome the legal inference of malice.

In order to constitute malice, ill will must be personal. So if the ill will is engendered by one’s sense of justice or other legitimate or plausible motive, such feeling negatives actual malice.
[Aquino, Ramon C., The Revised Penal Code, Vol. III, Bk. II, 1997 Ed., citing People v. de los Reyes, Jr., 47 OG 3569]

It is established doctrine that the malice that attends the dissemination of the article alleged to be libelous must attend the distribution itself. It cannot be merely a resentment against a person, manifested unconnectedly several months earlier or one displayed at a much later date.

HOW COMMITTED:

Under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, libel may be committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.

PERSONS RESPONSIBLE:

Any person who shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or bysimilar means, shall be responsible for the same. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.

DEFENSES:

In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.

Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation shall have been made against Government employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties.

In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.

It is important to remember that any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true; if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed. Truth then is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends.

SOURCE

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress. Cyberstalking is different from spatial or offline stalking. However, it sometimes leads to it, or is accompanied by it.

Stalking is a continuous process, consisting of a series of actions, each of which may be entirely legal in itself. Technology ethics professor Lambèr Royakkers writes that:
"Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has), with motives that are directly or indirectly traceable to the affective sphere. Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)."

When identifying cyberstalking "in the field," and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment, and threats.

A number of key factors have been identified:
False accusations. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.

Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.

Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyberstalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.

False victimization. The cyberstalker will claim that the victim is harassing him/her. Bocij writes that this phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.

Attacks on data and equipment. They may try to damage the victim's computer by sending viruses.

Ordering goods and services. They order items or subscribe to magazines in the victim's name. These often involve subscriptions to pornography or ordering sex toys then having them delivered to the victim's workplace.

Arranging to meet. Young people face a particularly high risk of having cyberstalkers try to set up meetings between them.

SOURCE