Will the Real Amitakh Please Stand up?
Comments Posted at Rense.com re. Amitakh Stanford & David Booth
[Editor's Note: In digging around for additional information about Amitakh Stanford, I came across these e-mails posted at Jeff Rense's web site in 2004. At the time, a man by the name of David Booth was doing radio talk shows with Jeff Rense, George Noory and others forecasting an impending world shaking cataclysm that was suppose to occur in 2004. He was trying to promo a book and a DVD called, Code Red, blah, blah, blah. I'm assuming that David Booth's book sales have fallen off badly these days, perhaps along with his reputation- assuming that he had one. Anyway, it's more interesting to note that we have letters here in support of Amitakh Stanford from BOTH Dr. Joseph Chiappalone and Steffan Stanford (although Steffan only signs his name as "Steffan", in his e-mail to Jeff Rense, the e-mail address shown is the SAME one used by Steffan Stanford: firstname.lastname@example.org) .
It's also interesting to note that Amitakh was signing her name as Amitakh Chiappalone in a 2001 article posted at RumorMillNews.com, but is being referred to as Amitakh Stanford by her web master, Justinn D McFadyen, in reference to an article she posted in September 2002. So I have to assume that Amitakh divorces Joseph Chiappalone and marries Steffan Stanford somewhere between 2001 and 2002. I've already put up a photo of Dr. Chiappalone and Amitakh Chiappalone posing together that was originally posted at a web site maintained by Dr. Joseph Chiappalone. It gets weirder when I tell you that Dr Joseph Chiappalone talks glowingly of the female author and lecturer referred to as "D. M." whom, he says, he heard in a lecture 20 years ago and has known her for 20 years. Both Steffan Stanford (the current husband of Amitakh) and Amitakh's web master, Justinn D McFadyen, make it plain in their e-mails that "D. M." and Amitakh are the same person.
Why then, does Dr. Joseph Chiappalone refer to his former wife as "D. M.", instead of calling her "my former wife"?
It's obvious from an e-mail posted at Rumor Mill News in 2001 by Steffan Stanford, that he thinks very highly of Amitakh Chiappalone and finds her beauty, etc. to be exceptional, blah, blah. So we have an ardent admirer of Amitakh who becomes her husband in 2002, after she dumps Joseph Chiappalone, and we find Joseph Chiappalone writing with high praise of the author "D. M"., but doesn't refer to her as Amitakh Stanford or as his former wife, Amitakh Chiappalone. Why is that?
Also, what has happened to Dr. Joseph Chiappalone since March 28, 2004, the date of his e-mail to Jeff? His web site, www.Chiappalone.org, is down. Is he still alive? If anyone knows, please let me know. ( Update, Feb. 25, 2007: Got an e-mail today from a person in Australia who said that Dr. Joseph Chiappalone is working a medical practice in Stanthorpe, Qld Australia) .Thanks, Ken Adachi <Editor>]
E-Y Posted October 11, 2006
From Cleve McDaniel
The following is from the ZetaTalk website ("Booth Blunder," March 20) and is related to David Booth's recent appearance on Coast-to-Coast A.M.:
"So billed as delivering potential insider information on the 3rd Fatima vision, he reported on C2C live radio that a visit had occurred, a personal message relayed by the Sister, and a request by the Sister to keep the content private. Within a day, this report was dashed as the C2C producers announced they had called the Carmelite convent and found no visit had occurred, nor had the aging Sister entertained anyone for some time."
I confirmed with Coast-to-Coast that this was, indeed, true. So, there is validated evidence that David Booth never did meet with Sister Lucia. On the night of the interview and before his staff had checked out the facts with the convent, George Noory cut the interview with Booth and Green short when David kept refusing to answer any questions regarding what the Sister "told" him. The next night, apparently after having the information that Booth didn't really visit the Sister, George Noory said on his show that he had been "duped" by Booth and Green.
Also, David Booth had indicated on that show as well that this would be "his last public appearance." So, he apparently has said that more than once.
From Scott T Davis
Dear Jeff -
As to Mr Booth, I do believe you have some real issues to settle with him! From the the texts provided in this article, he did, at the very least, use excerpts of Mr Stanford's wife's aka DM web article posting. Here's where my problem lies with Stanford. DM and Mr Booth there is only a slight reference given to Mr Zecharia Sitchin and this is where the real problem lies. In DM'S article - and Mr Booth's - I do not read one original idea that Zechariah Sitchin did not intimately cover in his body of work entitled the 'Earth Chronicles'. I list the books so if anybody doesn't believe my statement, they may read for themselves. The books are The 12th Planet, The Stairway To Heaven, The War of Gods and Men, The Lost Realms, When Time Began, The Cosmic Code and two more recent publications: Divine Encounters and Genesis Revisited.
Many of these books have been published and copyrighted over twenty years ago and all of them before the Stanford- DM 2002 dated article. I believe all the parties are guilty of plagiarism of a brilliant man's diligent research and ideas that span over thirty years. At the very least, the parties involved owe Mr. Sitchin a profound apology.
Scott T Davis
I read the posting and I am shocked by this most outrageous plagiarism by David Booth! Any person who will steal the words and work of another cannot be trusted, they'll steal anything from anyone.
From Julie Rudd
I am so glad you posted Amitakh Stanford's response to David Booth's fraudulent claim of being the source of the information he has put forth as his own. It is good to see that you are willing to expose those who are deserving of exposure. I had wanted to write earlier because I was so upset when I discovered Booth's plagiarism. Jeff, I still have a copy of the Xee-A Magazine in which Amitakh's article: "Nibiru and the Anunnaki" was published long before David Booth ever thought about the topic.
Jeff, I have known Amitakh personally ever since 1986 when she came to California. She is the most amazing person I have ever met. Her breadth of knowledge and understanding of what is going on is phenomenal. Every prediction I have heard her make in the past has come to pass. No one has available to them the concepts she puts forth. They are unique to her alone. Thank you, Jeff, for letting her voice be heard, and for the Truth to emerge.
From Dr. J. Chiappalone
I thought it was time I waded into this matter of Booth being an obvious plagiarist.
Who else but a dishonest fool would simply paste the work of another, including the TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS in the work, concerning esoteric information he obviously knows nothing about, and call it his own?
Scott Davis, who is no doubt Booth disguising himself with this alias, in a further foolhardy and rather futile attempt to salvage some ground on which he can escape the moral mortification that awaits him, is trying to deflect attention away from Booth's (his) plagiarism and his dishonesty about his visions and supposed visits to various people. To me it is obvious that whatever ground he thinks he will make up with his pusillanimous and rather overt spuriousness, will only be used as his own shifty ground which will suffice to intellectually draw and quarter him, thus ridding us of an absurd, comical and rather distasteful and idiotic caricature of a dullard posing as a genuine human being with pretensions to scholasticism.
His reference to Sitchen is noted. And thus I add that Sitchen's Earth Chronicles are similar to other writings that I have read in the past. Besides, this person Davis is obviously going to support Booth regardless of how specious his arguments. Had, for instance, Booth plagiarized Sitchen word for word and paragraph for paragraph, then Davis would be attacking Sitchen. Davis supports Booth's plagiarism and all his fraudulent claims and will not be bothered by logic or rational arguments.
To clarify this point about Atlantis, etc., I would like to add that D. M. gave a very detailed lecture, which I attended, on the destruction of Atlantis being associated with aliens some 20 years ago. In fact, I am sure I have the tape that I personally made of it somewhere.
I have known D. M. for over 20 years. She knows what she is talking about. Her material is amazing, refreshing and unique. The concepts that she has revealed, such as Viables, The Amoebas, The Rescuers, The Attas, and The Vulturites, etc., are uniquely hers and shared by her co-workers. She used these terms and revealed this information long before anyone even mentioned Alien Abductions in public. Her main work is on Dualism, which she commenced more than 20 years ago. She also wrote and lectured extensively on the Existence of Evil as an external and malicious force.
Plagiarism is very different from discussing concepts that other people discuss openly.
As I asserted above regarding Booth, only fools plagiarize and try to pass the work of others as their own, as he has done. Those of us who write, lecture and can think, and are honest with ourselves and with the public, know that such dishonesty as Booth/Davis has so ridiculously applied is scholastic anathema.
Keep up your invaluable and greatly appreciated work.
Dr. J. Chiappalone
PO Box 137
I just read Scott Davis' comment to the Booth article. This is another who is trying to cause a distraction. The issue is plagiarism (theft of someone's words). Those who would defend Booth cannot defend his actions, they must defend by taking the stance that plagiarism is acceptable. This Booth defender tries to switch this to use of anything anyone has ever heard or read being made unavailable for subsequent use, which is nonsense. There would be nothing scholarly produced if this were the case.
I will add that we do not have Earth Chronicles in our library; neither Amitakh nor I have read it.
Amitakh knows certain things that have happened in the near past and the distant past. She also knows things that will occur in the future.
From Larry Jamison
Jeff - thanks for clearing the air on David Booth and Wayne Green - If you substitute the word "Illuminati" for "Annunaki" in this piece, you have what we have today. Usury, mind control, created religions and even underground facilities are mentioned. I felt before that this thing did not feel good. Now, the detail that CC producers even checked with the convent and found that Booth never visited Sister Lucia in Portugal, really ties it all together. It looks like reading Zecharia Sitchin might be better. Although I have my doubts about him too because:
A. Sitchens office is in the Rockerfeller Center...duh!
B. Avon books, his publisher, is a division of the Hearst Corporation, also brotherhood.
Justinn D McFadyen
I am writing to you regarding your article "Doomsday - David Booth - Plagiarist?"
Firstly, I would like to say that I have been a reader of your website since 1997 and have always held it in the highest esteem.
You have always provided a forum for open minded individuals to seek a higher level of truth that is generally unavailable in the mainstream news, for which I commend you in the highest degree. Your site presents many diverse news items and articles of varying, philosophies, opinions, theories, religious beliefs etc... in an unbiased manner.
However, this is an age of much disinformation, misinformation and deliberate distortion and debunking of the Truth and unfortunately there are those playing on both sides of the fence of mainstream and alternative news and information for their own nefarious and selfish reasons.
As a webmaster of 4 years for the author Amitakh Stanford (D.M) of "Nibiru and the Anunnaki", I was one of the first to receive this article of which I posted shortly thereafter on September 11th 2002 to be precise. Now to see it reproduced almost in it's entirety in David L. Booth's "Code Red: The coming Destruction of America" I am shocked at the level of audacity of this fraudent liar who is posting under this forum under the pseudonym of "Anonymous Coward" which couldn't be a more appropriate if euphemistic label for one such as Booth.
Also I have read Sitchin's Twelfth Planet and can say beyond a doubt that there are absolutely no parallels between what Amitakh Stanford has written and the writings of others in fact her discussions of the theories of others such as Sitchin are merely that, and her views are in the main opposing to what others have written on this subject.
Justinn D McFadyen
I have read several of Amitakh Stanford's books and came across her article on Nibiru and the Annunaki in 2002 for the first time. Consequently I have seen it posted under D.M. on at least tow other websites.
Mrs. Stanford has her very own, distinctive style of writing. I think one can easily recognize it. Nibiru and the Annunaki was written by Mrs. Stanford.
I have read Rachal Booth's severl responses defending her father. She in no way addresses the issue, but seems to ramble on a bit. What I would really like to know is why can't we hear from David Booth?
From Diane Marks
I heard Booth give his word that your second program with him would be his last. Period. Pretty greasy behavior from him in going on Coast TWICE after giving his word not only to you but to all of US.
Here's a review of sorts...
"Booth said he met Sister Lucia, now 97, at a Carmelite convent in Portugal and held a private conversation with her for five minutes. He would only reveal that he was told that a "new star" that had been prophesized about would begin to shine. Because Booth had been booked on the show to discuss his meeting with Lucia, and refused to elaborate further upon it, the interview was cut short, and the last 90 minutes of the program was reserved for Open Lines."
From a message board 03/22:
"The show called the Carmelite Order in Portugal to see if David Booth met with Sr. Lucia.....HE DID NOT!!"
From a message board 03/25:
"I'm just amused that Booth never once seemed to realise how easy it would be to get in touch with either Sister Lucia's Order or the Vatican Press Office to check his story - and how likely it would be that any marginally competent journalist would do so."
From a message board 03/25, regarding 'proof' he met with Sister Lucia:
"The page at the link now appears to contain an anguished note from David's daughter and his "proof" which seems to consist of a photo of (I presume) David next to a door, a close-up photo of a stamped return address for the convent and a photo of what appears to be a hand-written note and the envelope the close-up was taken from. Of course, the note is too far away to read and you can't read the postmark or any signature on it and none of the photos prove that he actually spoke with the Sister."
From Ellen Santangelo
More notes on David Booth demonstrating inconsistencies in his story...
From Coast to Coast's Feb 23 interview with Booth:
"By correlating cross-cultural, ancient and current data, [Booth] believes what he saw will take place in the 2004 time frame, as part of a series of events that is started by the June 8th 'transit of Venus.' Further, he suggested that the world governments and the Vatican are already aware of the coming disaster, and he and Green suggested a range of survivalist techniques to prepare. The government, Booth added, will unleash a viral plague on humanity, shortly before the incident in order to cut down on the chaos that will ensue."
Jeff, I don't remember any talk of the 'transit of Venus' or a 'viral plague' when he was on your program. Surely these important concepts warranted mentioning then?
Bad Astronomy forum February 25, 2004:
"Anyway I guess I'm getting the replay of coast to coast with Noory, Wayne Green & David Booth... David supposedly had a vision back in 1979 about a plane that went down. Now he's saying something will hit the south pole sometime in September of 2004, dooming almost everyone on the planet. And that no one can see what's coming from North America because it's coming from the south, that why more than a 1000 astronomers were down at Antarctica... Booth went on to say around 600K (pre-selected from the government) will survive in bunkers underground, but first, the government, he said, "will unleash a viral plague on humanity shortly before the incident in order to cut down on the chaos that will ensue."
Jeff, again I don't remember any mention of the 600K pre-selected from the government surviving in bunkers? If this is part of his vision, why did he not discuss this during your interviews with him?
Bad Astronomy forum February 26, 2004:
"I listened to this Booth guy...He said that his 'dream' had him watching from space, where he saw the Earth and the moon, when a 'planetary' object came up from the Southern Hemisphere and literally wiped out the west coast of North America, and then caused a 'rippling' effect across the entire planet... It is supposed to happen in September (I guess) and there are ways to survive. I went to his site, and 'you still have time, IF you order the book today'. I guess you have to order his book to know how to survive this event. I guess he won't tell you for free..."
Bad Astronomy forum February 26, 2004:
"he [Booth] doesn't call it PX, but says it's Wormwood, Marduk, etc. and the ancients knew all about it. It sounds like a spin of Niburu by Sitchin, although Sitchin was never mentioned in the interview either."
Bad Astronomy forum February 25, 2004:
"Can this implied statement be confirmed somehow? '...Are you aware of the fact that over 1,000 of the worlds best astronomers have been to Antarctica this past year?...' http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/
Response February 25, 2004:
"I know a lot of astronomers. Of the "top 1000" I am pretty sure I know at least half by sight, and more than 3/4 by name. I'm probably on a first-name basis with over 100. This isn't boasting, it's just that we're a small community! I would bet that there isn't a single astronomer in the US who is more than one step removed from me (that is, a friend of a friend). So if that many astronomers visited Antarctica, I'd know. I'd know. And I haven't heard anything about it."
Another response February 25, 2004:
Well, wonder of wonders, I just received a reply from David about this, in response to my inquiry at his website re his "...the fact that over 1,000 of the worlds best astronomers have been to Antarctica this past year?...":
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004
From: David Booth
The information I have comes from a number of people I know at NASA, JPL, University of Chicago and The Russian Acadamy of Sciences. I also have a close friend who pilots one of the charter runs to Antarctica. Of course the information they've given me may be wrong. Thanks for writing, David.
Given the limited facilities there plus the weather's no-fly days, combined with the aforementioned secrecy issue, it does seem unlikely. Also, the object of his concern is supposed to be smaller than the Earth, but larger than our moon.
One more response February 26, 2004:
And I just posted on this in another thread ... briefly, in the winter (at night) fewer than 100 people are at the South Pole and almost all of them are support personel. Also, its not just "nearly" impossible to come/go in June, it IS impossible to come/go from Pole in mid-winter. Even in August it is a very risky and almost never attempted feat. (done only once as a life saving medevac).
From H. Naitoi
Boy this whole David Booth thing doesn't want to go away does it? Thanks for your great journalistic scruples once again in giving every opportunity for the truth to come out. I can't thank you enough, especially when I see the intentional disinformation and censoring going on nearly everywhere else.
If you've seen any of the other boards you know that lots of CIA involvement has come out in this Booth thing, some heavy stuff, so there are going to be lots of denials and silence that speaks volumes. Boy am I annoyed at Rachel Booth's posting. She tries to make it as if David Booth (who is the culprit, thief, and liar here) is some sort of Christlike figure. She praises his silence even more than his words. What a load of crap. Well, his silence (and total cowardice) speaks a lot more than his words, that much I agree with! But please let's not elevate this complete jerk Booth to some sort of mysterious spirituality that is beyond us all. That's just total crap. And, Rachel's attacking the writer her father has already victimized is just plain wicked. What are they, they tag team from hell?
Once again, you got it going Jeff, right into the heart of the beast. I wish you could get these people on your show so everyone can hear the truth come out. My oh my would that be a show to remember!
Thanks as always,
From Tom Austin
Late in my life, I came across a shining light. That person was Amitakh Stanford. To see her used and abused by David Booth and Wayne Green in the way they have is a source of sorrow for me. I thank you for exposing the lies Booth told you about his wish to keep his radio visits exclusively to you, and his inability to count the number of books his associate Wayne Green printed and sold. A hundred books would have gone in minutes after just one visit. Not only that he is a plagiarist as well.
I heard Booth say he was a plane skyjacker aged 14 on another show he appeared on...not a good career decision for a young man. His thinking and ethics have not improved with age.
Thank you for providing us with a great site with some old fashioned morals.
From: Justinn [D McFadyen]
Regarding the article written by Amitakh Stanford entitled ìNibiru and the Annunakiî, I would like to testify to the following facts which are true and accurate on all accounts to the best of my knowledge.
The above mentioned article was first released by Amitakh on September 11 2002 on her website at http://www.tarra-ha-tikas.net and later posted on another of her websites at http://www.xeeatwelve.com.
Prior to the release of 'Nibiru and the Annunaki' I was contacted by Steffan Stanford informing me that Amitakh was writing a new article on the Annunaki and that I would be receiving it on the evening of the 10th September 2002 and to post it at my convenience. As I have mentioned previously I am the webmaster for several sites run by Amitakh.
All files relating to the posting of this article by Amitakh are still time and date stamped on my computer from September 10 & 11 2002.
All web pages are hand coded in HTML format by myself, also I am the creator of all graphic design work that appears on Amitakh's websites. I receive in WordPerfect format all of Amitakhís postings a day prior to their posting from which I then code them in HTML format.
I still have all the original Wordperfect files for each of Amitakh's original postings which again are time and date stamped to within a day of their release. I can name and date each specific article written by Amitakh and posted by myself since 2000. I also keep each of Amitakh's emails thanking me for my work on each of her postings for personal reasons. I can also say that at no stage have any of these postings been released for commercial gain or profit, there has never been any member fees or charges to access the information released by Amitakh on her websites.
I am only a volunteer myself, who has recognized Amitakh's unique and brilliant contribution to numerous and diverse areas of metaphysics and spirituality and I seek to be a supporter of Truth in a world where, as you know Truth has little or no value and deceit and corruption are rampant from the lowest to the highest levels.
Further, I would like to add that in October 2002 I attended a lecture in Missoula, Montana, USA by Amitakh Stanford in which information from the above article was discussed by her, which was recorded on CD at the time.
It now appears Rayelan Allan of Rumour Mill News is starting a smear campaign against Amitakh in support of David L. Booth. This is so incredulously absurd when all the facts and overwhelming evidence indicate that David Booth is indeed a plagiarist beyond all shadow of doubt.
There are many now jumping on the bandwagon to distort and confuse this issue even further and Booth has not even the courage to come forward and defend himself; Wayne Green is nowhere to be seen, and Rayelan is speaking out with the 'forked tongue' of a reptilian serpent using non-sensical arguments to camouflage and deflect the focus away from the real issue at hand. She is also using a form of double-speak that is meaningless in the extreme.
Finally, I would like to testify from personal experience, that Amitakh and Steffan Stanford have the highest integrity of anyone I have ever before known or worked with, and their love and dedication to the many causes they support and contribute to is second to none that I have ever before witnessed in any form.
Justinn D McFadyen
From Name Withheld
The plot thickens. Wayne Green was on Alex Merklinger's show talking about David Booth. He said that David's daughter has taken over his website. Alex had asked if there were any pics on the website with David and Sister Lucia. Wayne replied that there was a picture but the daughter, Rachel, had removed the "sister" from the picture. GIMME A BREAK. This is getting as foolish as the WMD story. Obviously, the guy has lost all credibility (if, indeed, he had it in the first place).
From Dennis Smith
Wayne Green was on Mysteries of the Mind with Alex Merklinger last night (March 31st). He claimed that David Booth himself authored the section he was accused of plagerising back in the early eighties-and that this whole "hornets nest" and claims against David now are designed to discredit an innocent man.Wayne said he thought that the claims against David are immaterial anyway-that it is the message that is important and the powers that be don't want people to get the message-hence do all you can to discredit the messenger!
Alex was a little upset because David supposedly also promised HIM that his last exclusive interview would be on "Mysteries of the Mind".
Wayne also claimed that he and David explained to George Noorey exactly what David would and would not say on the C2C program of the 18th regarding the interview with Sister Lucia PRIOR to the show and so they were shocked when they were thrown off the show and the interview was cut short.
I must say however that their entire thrust seemed to be commercial in nature-as their response to almost every question was "buy the book and DVD"....Wayne was upset because Noorey wouldn't let him promote his goods as much as he wanted...he said the big question everyone has is "What can we do?", but Noorey wouldn't let him (Wayne) address that question..probably because he (Noorey) already knew the answer-"BUY THE BOOK AND DVD!".
Supposedy they are now coming out with ANOTHER DVD that is supposed to be narrated by Art Bell....??
For a couple of multi-millionaire "gentlemen scholars" who claim that they are not interested in commercialising all this..they certainly seem to be doing a fine job of it!
Just thought you might want ot know.
Response To Steffan Stanford
Mr. Steffan Stanford
Queensland and Tasmania Barrister at Law
Washington State Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 901
Atherton, Queensland 4883
(07) 4095 1353
April 2, 2004
We have received this date your letter to our clients, dated March 23, 2003, in which you both allege that our clients "copied" protected material and seek immediate remedy to same.
Our understanding is that this response will be posted on our clients Internet Website, WWW. Whatdoesitmean.Com, prior to your receiving the Fed Ex package we have sent to you this date. We have advised our clients against this intended action and stipulated to them that they are not authorized to post any information accompanying this letter that names our firm, our associated firms, our addresses or phone numbers, in any country that we currently, or have in the past, practiced in, or any of the names of our attorneys.
We have further cautioned our client that in the posting of this letter to neither add nor subtract anything from it. If our clients have not abided by this agreement please submit to us proof of same at your earliest convenience. In our previously mentioned package you will find adequate contact information for our United States, European and Australian offices.
As to the facts regarding your allegations, against our clients, we can find no substantiation and in fact have advised them that your actions, and those of other parties apparently working in concert with you, are in fact libelous.
We have verified your standing as an attorney (United States, Washington State) and as a Barrister at Law (Queensland, Australia) and hereby inform you that we have filed complaints against you with the proper legal associations having jurisdiction in both locations.
The reason for taking these, and other, actions against you is due to your total and flagrant disregard for the legal procedures as outlined for litigation in matters involving claims such as yours. Your actions on behalf of your client are reprehensible to say the least, and in fact have 'poisoned' any further legal action you may have intended to pursue on behalf of him/her/they.
Your actions, and as you are no doubt well aware of, seem 'designed' not for defending your client, but rather seems intended to libeling ours. Prior to notifying our clients about your concerns, and/or intended litigation, you embarked instead on a course of publicly ridiculing our clients with unsubstantiated charges and lending public credence to same by the use of your position as an Attorney/Barrister.
As you are aware, before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin. Furthermore, works that are published in the United States are subject to mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. Neither you nor your client have registered nor filed the documentation required under United States law, with the Library of Congress, to support your claim. Our research further shows that neither you nor your client, D.M. (Which is one of the many aliases that your client goes by.) have any copyrighted materials and/or publications filed with the Library of Congress.
Under currently existing international laws, and as outlined in the provisions of The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), you are as aware as we are that litigation of these matters would fall under the current jurisdiction of the European Court and our claims would have to be filed in Belgium. Knowing this fact you are also aware of the 'almost' prohibitive costs associated with filing legal actions against you and your client, and thus your 'seeming' immunity from your continued libeling of our clients. With this being so I do however strongly advise you to cease your present actions against our clients as they are fully prepared to embark on this course of action should you continue your libelous actions against them.
Our research into yours and your clients actions further lead us to believe that you may in fact be in violation of various criminal laws prosecutable under Australian jurisdiction and have presented this evidence to the appropriate authorities in your country for their consideration.
Your allegations and suggested remedies, as outlined in your aforementioned letter, are denied. Included in this package is a return overnight mailer and we are expecting your prompt response to not only this letter but to the other information contained herein.
Note From Rachal Booth:
We have received a number of emails from Internet sites stating that they have been either hacked into or have been attacked by DNS (denial of service). Our investigation into the person, Steffan Stanford, who has been attacking my father shows that he is associated with a software development firm, named Trontos. We are unable to track down to whom this company belongs to or to which country it is registered in. I am not accusing Steffan Stanford or Trontos with being behind the attacks on other websites but rather find it interesting that in knowing he has the motive he also apparently has the skills, or at least those associated with him.
For anyone of you who are reading this that have more information on Trontos please contact me at email@example.com
Isn't it strange that on the "Mysteries of the Mind" radio show, Wayne Green casually mentioned that David Booth is Malachi Martin's "cousin." And at the same time Coast To Coast extends the so-called very limited offer of the Malachi Martin/Art Bell interview on CD?
The Coast to Coast CD is starting to look about as 'limited' as Booth's book publication. It seems that both sides are using Martin to try to add credibility and/or profit to themselves.
Wayne Green also mentioned that his old ham radio buddy Art Bell had been invited to narrate Booth's new DVD. The DVD is supposed to provide video and audio proof that Booth visited with Sister Lucia. Green stated that proceeds from the sales will go to "survival groups." There is no word yet as to whether Bell has accepted the offer.
So are there really two sides here? Or more?
It seems that things are not at all as they appear.
From Scott T Davis
Dear Jeff - As noted by Mr. Booth's attorney and so pointed out in the posted letter to Mr Steffan Stanford. I feel my posted comment of 3-27-04 has been vindicated and substantiated. I assumed since Mr Stanford as claimed to an attorney of law, might be able understand the point I was making in the statement, "published and copyrighted" in reference to what I felt was the obvious use of Mr Sitchin's published material. His rebuttal to my statement instead of being based on any rational understanding of copyright laws entered into an arrogant foray in witch he inferred my premise was nonsense and nothing scholarly can be produce unless one embellishes copyrighted material, then claims how his whole point of reason is substantiated by his reference that A. Stanford aka DM has some supposed level of clairvoyant ability. If I were Mr. Stanford's client, would hope that we had more than clairvoyance to substantiate a charge of plagiarism in a court of law in the United States..
From Name Withheld
Letter from Scott T Davis.
I assume that the purpose of any letter in your thread is designed to state readers' opinions and add light and perspective to move things on? After reading what Mr Davis has written, I feel confused and unclear what he is trying to say.
His note contains several grammatical howlers, makes some strange assumptions, and sets me back from where this began.
Mr Davis draws some strange conclusions from a letter purporting to come from Ms Booth? He thinks that letter came from an attorney acting for Mr Booth, but nothing in it gives me any clue that it did. I assume that Mr Davis is clairvoyant to make his giant leap of faith, and accept that that letter did in fact come from Booth's attorney? I see no evidence to support that at all. Indeed, it appears logical to me to keep that kind of post off the Internet altogether.
Then we see that Mr Sitchin is suddenly added to this mix! As far as I can tell this is irrelevant and merely a way to muddy the waters as the "attorney" letter never mentions Sitchin.
I am concerned about Rachal Booth's attempt to gather information about Mr Stanford's server, and by association suggest he may be linked to DNS issues on other websites. I see that this cheeky letter has been removed from Mr Booth's website, and so has all advertising for his book. This is smearing of Mr Stanford by implication and is reprehensible in my opinion.
I doubt that Mr Stanford needs any assistance from Mr Scott T Davis on legal matters, and Mr Davis confirms my opinion in his own writing above. If you cannot express your argument clearly, surely it is better to say nothing at all.
From Scott T Davis
Dear Jeff - In a final comment on what I feel has become a moot subject...I did enjoy reading the comment posted by Name Withheld, and I feel better, as I presume you do, since we were both scolded. I, for my inadvertent grammatical errors, and you for choosing what material to post on your own web site! We now have Plato, Socrates and Name Withheld as the truly great literary philosophers. As to Name Withheld's comment about me being clairvoyant in assuming the attorney letter posted represented Mr Booth, apparently Name Withheld does not understand the difference between clairvoyance and reasonable deduction. Regarding the point that one would have to be raised in a cave by wolves not to realize who the posted the "attorney" letter represented...ugh. Maybe in the future, Name Withheld will evolve to the point of having a spinal column - and allow his/her name to be posted with such great legal and literary insight of this Plagiarism issue.
From George P
I just read with amusement, Peter La Borde's ignorant, closed minded comments on Steffan Stanford's clarifications on the differences between Amitakh's work, refuting Sitchin, whom some ignoramous named 'Davis' keeps insisting, she is plagiarizing. Maybe Velikovsky and Darwin will rise from the dead and accuse this wonderful being, Amitakh, of plagiarizing their verbiage, too? Apparently, he's never read Sitchin, or he would know the vast differences in Amitakh and Zach's works.
All points are moot for La Borde, he's a plant with implantations to obfuscate, deny and smear the unsmearable, as is Davis. Take it or leave it, La Borda, you will see, too soon, for your sceptical deluded mind, how things come about. Many will not recognize the Truth, no matter, it is still the Truth, whether anyone on this dying carcass of a planet recognizes it, or not.
Anyway, what qualifications does La Borda have to comment on Amitakh and Steffan's work? You could no more connect to Amitakh's work, then any close minded dead shrimp.
|All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.|