The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

Sherri Kane Lies, Lunar Pages Complies, & Offline We Go

By Ken Adachi, Editor
August 26, 2011

Sherri Kane Lies, Lunar Pages Complies, & Offline We Go by Ken Adachi, Editor (Aug. 26, 2011)

My web site,, was taken offline from August 19-24, 2011 because Sherri Kane. the 'business partner' of Len Horowitz, filed ("under penalty of perjury") an untruthful DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) complaint with my internet service provider, Lunar Pages, claiming that I had "stolen" her copyrighted video and had "posted" it to my web site without her permission. She also claimed that I was using copyrighted material belonging to her in three other urls from my web site. I wasn't aware of any of this until the early afternoon of Saturday, Aug. 20, when I saw my web site was not available and saw a posted note from Lunar Pages saying that my site was under "suspension.".

I initially called Lunar Pages support and was told by a tech that they had a "cease and desist" on me and that I should look at the e-mail I was sent on Aug. 17 to my e-mail address at

I did that and then read for the first time the absolutely unbelievable and outlandish allegations being concocted against me by Sherri Kane under the pretext of an "infringement" of "her" copyright under the DMCA, which is spelled out in 17 U.S.C. 512.

Sherri Kane apparently believes that she is impervious to criminal prosecution considering the brazen recklessness she displays when filing formal charges against her critics, either in a Laguna Hills California courthouse in the case of Dr A True Ott with her absurd "restraining order" gambit, or in a DMCA complaint sent to my server, Lunar Pages. This woman will say anything in documents that are supposedly signed under "penalty of perjury" (that is, assuming that she actually signs the document. In the case of the DMCA complaint against me, I have no proof -so far-that she actually signed anything).

In the case of Kane's bogus " temporary restraining order" harassment against Dr Ott in late May, Sherri didn't sign the restraining order application form--which was rubber stamped by Laguna Hills Superior Court Judge Cramin anyway--until after True Ott pointed out to Sherri and Lenny Horowitz that the judge issued a restraining order without her even signing the petition? (What kind of Superior Court Clerk accepts an unsigned petition for a temporary restraining order and then has the judge sign off on it? )

I explained to the Lunar Pages tech on Aug. 20 that Kane's allegation that I had posted "her" video were not true because if he simply looked at the url which Kane cited, he could see that I didn't post the video. I merely posted a LINK to the video which was posted at another web site, I asked the tech how can a LINK to another web site be the basis for a DMCA copyright infringement? The tech agreed with me and suggested that I make the same reply in my written response to the Lunar Pages e-mail I received on August 17 and I would probably see my web site up in a day or so. He told me an "administrator" was available 24/7 to make these decisions and that my e-mail response would be handled as "'priority."

The next day, Sunday, Aug. 21, was a repeat of the same riggamorole that I went through on Saturday. I talked to another tech and had to repeat the whole story from top to bottom and I was once again told that an "administrator" would respond and that my reply would be forwarded with the 'highest' priority. I finally got a reply from Lunar Pages on Monday, Aug. 22, but it was not the one I was expecting.

Lunar Pages told me via e-mail that they were neutral in the matter and were not taking a decision on the merits of Kane's claims, but that in order to meet their "Safe Harbor policy" and to put my web site back online, I would have to sign off on a DMCA "counter-notification" which included a laundry list of 'requirements' to meet. One of those requirements is to waive my right to be served in person by a process server, and instead accept "service" at my PO Box.

I told a tech at Lunar Pages when I spoke to him on Monday, after reading the administrator's reply, that I wasn't going to forfeit even ONE of my constitutional rights just for the sake of "answering' the DMCA complaint from Sherri Kane. I told him that they had already made a decision in Kane's favor by taking down my entire web site, when the DMCA only authorized blocking access to the alleged "infringing material," so they were hardly being 'neutral' in their action towards me. Far from it, they had OVER-REACTED and exceeded the authority granted by the DMCA by taking down the entire web site.

I got another e-mail from Lunar Pages on the morning of Aug. 23, informing me that they had received "another complaint" about me. This time, it's a 5 page poison pen diatribe from Barbara Hartwell, the Queen Snake of CIA Programmed Liars, telling Lunar Pages just what a terrible person I am and how I had ruined her life by 'slandering' her, etc., as is typical of Hartwell's habit to reverse the facts and blame others for the very affronts and outrages that she has rained upon others.

MY Photo?Thanks to a rumor started by Tim White about 2.5 years ago, Hartwell, Kane, Horowitz, Alex Studer, Xena Carpenter, Craig Oxley, and other associates of the Tim White Rumor Brigade have been repeating whenever possible that my "real name" is so and so and recently White has even dug up a photo of a chipper looking fellow with pink suspenders and a bow tie which he claims is a photograph of me; but neither the photo nor the name which Tim White has assigned to me, are mine. I find it odd that Hartwell (and even Len Horowitz of all people), who claim to detest and despise Tim White as a "barking dog" would actually put stock in anything Tim has to say and run with it as if it were established fact. These people should limit their lives to the pages of The National Enquirer--and nowhere else. True Ott sent me a copy of an e-mail he sent to two of Tim White's Rumor Brigade that they got the story wrong, but I don't know if it will make any difference. I'm going to have to talk to my 'alter ego' and see if we shouldn't file some lawsuits.

(you have to admit, though, I am looking fairly chipper. It must be all of those vitamins and supplements or maybe I've been grooving on the Lenny H 528 Love Boat Buzz all these years and I didn't know it!)

Update, Aug. 28, 2011. Don Nicoloff did a forensic analysis of this photo. I post a link here to what he found.

(Update, Aug. 27, 2011. Tim White, in his typical Freddy Kruger, psychotic fashion, wanted me to know that he was not the person who first claimed that the above photo was me, but rather it was Sherri Kane who first made the claim. If that's true, it didn't stop White from running with Kane's incredible 'research' and sending out a flood of e-mails to his Rumor Brigade associating me with the above photo. I thought Tim originated the photo because I received an e-mail from someone a week or two ago telling me that White, besides his bad mouthing me as usual, was sending this photo around.

**I'm looking for more information about Tim White and Xena Carpenter. Can you help?

Looking for More Info on Tim White and Xena Carpenter (Aug. 27, 2011) )

After reading Hartwell's screed sent to me by Lunar Pages on Aug. 23, I composed a much longer four page response to Flora Lui, Lunar Pages representative, reviewing every detail of Kane's bogus accusations and making it clear that I'm not going to continue to be on the receiving end of their heavy handed over-reaction and if I had to find another web server, I would, but I would also sue them, at minimum, for breach of contract.

Internet service providers like Lunar Pages have an obligation - to their customers- to weigh the evidence and merits of a DMCA complaint before taking action against the customer. Any loose canon like Sherri Kane can file any sort of malicious false accusations they wish to file (what does it matter to Sherri Kane if it says 'under penalty of perjury'? Look how she lied through her teeth in the Dr. True Ott temporary restraining order gambit). I made it clear enough in my Aug 20 conversation and e-mail to Lunar Pages that positing a LINK to a video is not a DMCA violation, that the video didn't belong to Kane anyway, and the photos posted to the internet of Sherri Kane on the web site were NOT copyrighted to Sherri Kane. Taking down an entire web site is not authorized under 17 U.S.C. 512. At most, servers can block access to "infringing material," but not en entire web site.

Here's the letter I sent to Flora Lui on Aug. 23.

August 23, 2011
From Ken Adachi, owner educate-yourself.og
ticket ID  2337613

To: Flora Lui
Customer Service Representative III
Lunarpages Internet Solutions
Phone: 1-714-521-8150

Dear Flora Lui,

Today is August 23, 2011. 5 days have gone by since the entire contents of my web site, have been taken offline by Lunar Pages on August 19, 2011.

In April 2011, I paid Lunar Pages one year in advance to provide internet hosting service for my web site until April of 2012.

You sent me an e-mail on August 17, 2011 informing me of a DMCA complaint of COPYRIGHT infringement from Sherri Kane who sent you these 4 urls links from my web site CLAIMING they contain copyrighted material owned by Sherri Kane.

These are the ONLY 4 urls which Sherri Kane included in her complaint to you. She did not claim that the entire contents of my web site were infringing upon her copyright ownership. The first listed url,


included a LINK to another web site at stupid that had previously posted a video owned by Roxie Hampton, for which Roxie Hampton provided a RELEASE form to place her video into PUBLIC DOMAIN. (I've attached a copy of Hampton's release form with this e-mail.) This is the video that Sherri Kane had CLAIMED in her complaint to Lunar Pages was owned by her and that it was "stolen" from her by ME and POSTED by ME to MY web site.

I explained in my August 20, 2011 reply to you, that these claims by Sherri Kane are NOT TRUE and I told you to examine the above url yourself to verify that I did not post the video as falsely claimed by Kane. Therefore, if I didn't post the video which Kane had claimed belonged to her, then I couldn't have very well "stolen" it from her either. I'm reasonably certain that positing a LINK to a video posted at ANOTHER web site is NOT considered an infringement of copyright under DMCA.

I will remind you that I DID NOT POST THIS VIDEO TO MY WEB SITE. Rather, I posted a LINK to this video which was posted at If Lunar Pages considers a LINK to another web site could possibly be construed by DMCA to be a violation of Kane's copyright, then I told Lunar tech "Tony" yesterday on the phone, that I would be willing to REMOVE the link from the above url if that's what it takes to satisfy you.


This url contains photos of Sherri Kane which she had posted to the internet in March of 2009 at a casting agency web site called Her photos were posted at this link:

I included this link on my page as the SOURCE of Kane's photos. NONE of Kane's photos displayed at the web site included a copyright notice from Sherri Kane. Kane has since removed her photos and other descriptions of her career talents from this web site, but you can still find the page in the internet archives posted at*/

I told Tony over the phone yesterday, that I would be willing to REMOVE all of Kane's NON copyrighted photos from the above url if that's what it takes to satisfy you.


This url has an article written by Dr A True Ott with some introductory commentary from me. Please examine this url and you will see that there are only WORDS written on this page which include a discussion of the conduct of Sherri Kane, but no photos or videos that could be construed as belonging to, or copyrighted by Sherri Kane. Therefore, there is NO justification for considering this url to contain any copyrighted material belonging to Sherri Kane. Kane has included this url in her DMCA complaint merely because the article is CRITICAL of her and for no other reason.

If you think any of the words written by Dr A True Ott or myself have any bearing or relevance to Kane's DMCA copyright complaint, then please let me know what they are. If not, you need to dismiss the contents of this url as having any relevance to Kane's DMCA complaint.


This in another article written by me which includes pdf files of California COURT documents sent to Dr A true Ott by Sherri Kane in which she accuses Dr Ott of harassing and threatening her and CLAIMED that Dr Ott was involved in the MURDER of two individuals and CLAIMED that Dr. Ott was conspiring to cause her harm. The article also includes re-prints of e-mails sent to Dr Ott from both Sherri Kane and Len Horowitz. Dr Ott was not aware that Sherri Kane had obtained a Temporary Restraining Order from a California court until after the fact when he was sent the above mentioned court documents by Sherri Kane in May 2011. Dr Ott, who lives in Utah and has never met Sherri Kane, had to hire an attorney for $5,000 to appear on his behalf in a California courtroom in July where ALL OF Kane's allegations and bogus claims against Dr Ott were DISMISSED. The Temporary Restraining Order initially obtained by Sherri Kane in late May was VACATED and her request for a Permanent Restraining Order against Dr Ott was ALSO dismissed by the court.

The pdf files name Dr Ott as a defendant and Sherri Kane as the complainant. These documents were sent to Dr Ott who sent them to me. They are NOT owned or copyrighted by Sherri Kane, as ALL court documents are PUBLIC RECORD anyway. Sherri Kane cannot claim copyright infringement under DMCA of e-mails that she had sent to Dr True Ott.

If you think that any of the words of Dr Ott or myself, or the pdf files of court documents, or the re-prints of Kane's' e-mails have any bearing or relevance to Kane's DMCA copyright complaint, then please let me know what they are. If not, you need to dismiss the contents of this url as having any relevance to Kane's DMCA complaint.

I explained to Tony on the phone yesterday that one critical provision that you stipulate I MUST comply with in order to "answer" the DMCA complaint from Kane would require me to FORFEIT and waive my CONSTITUTIONAL right to be served by a process server in PERSON and instead accept a subpoena or summons sent to my PO Box as sufficient evidence of being "served" if I was sued by Sherri Kane.

This in an unfair and unacceptable coercion and prejudicial liability being forced against me which should NOT be a PRECONDITION in order to merely respond to Kane's DMCA complaint. Lunar Pages has no right to insist on such a "policy"

I've made it clear that Sherri Kane has the money and willingness to instigate frivolous and bogus lawsuits against her critics merely as a tactic to harass them and burden them with costly litigation as she has done with Dr Ott. I am not going to be victimized in this way by agreeing to a waiver of my process rights.

You already have my name, address, and phone number and I've already explained in great detail that Kane's DMCA copyright infringement claims are bogus and without merit, but I'm still willing to take down the video link and the photos of Kane if that will resolve the issue for you.

The DMCA complaint filed by Kane can ONLY consider issues of copyright infringement or theft of copyright material. Sherri Kane or Barbara Hartwell's long winded poison pen diatribe against me sent to you on August 22 are utterly IRRELEVANT and non issues in this matter. Kane and Hartwell are allies who have been working in league with each other to try to silence their internet critics by contacting the servers of their enemies and trying to get their web sites shut down because they don't like it when the spotlight of truth is shining on them, but they have no problem in defaming, smearing, and slandering others, such as myself, Dr Ott, and Ted Gunderson, and many other individuals that Kane and Hartwell have INITIATED smear campaigns against in the past 12 months. .

I, Sherri Kane, Barbara Hartwell and everyone else in this country have a First Amendment right to express our opinions. It's called Free Speech. As a representative of my web hosting server, you and Lunar Pages have no authority to decide which of my opinions are libelous or slanderous and therefore you have no authority to censor my opinions by suspending access to my web site just because Sherri Kane or Barbara Hartwell don't like what I've writing about them.

Only a COURT OF LAW can render a decision about what is libelous or slanderous towards Kane or Hartwell and only a court order can LEGALLY censor access to a web site or a web page that might be judged by a court to be libelous or slanderous. Lunar Pages does NOT have the authority to render such decisions or to censor the contents of my web site in any manner.

I have already PAID Lunar Pages in advance for hosting services. You have a contractual obligation to make my web site accessible to the public on the internet. I have already told you that I am willing to take down the link and the Kane photos to resolve any POSSIBLE hint of DMCA infringement--according to Lunar Pages.

I expect you to restore my web site to public access within 24 hours or I will proceed to take further legal action against Lunar Pages including suing you for breach of contract and for infringing upon and censoring my constitutional right of Free Speech. If I am forced to change servers in order to get back on the internet, I will take legal action against Lunar Pages AND invest a great deal of time in posting internet articles about your heavy handed mistreatment of me.

You've made a huge error in acquiescing to Kane's bogus claims of injury and copyright infringement by keeping my web site suspended when I had already explained to you all of the relevant facts in my e-mail reply of August 20, 2011.

I made it clear that I'm willing to cooperate fully on the link and the photos. There are no DMCA issues beyond these to consider. I also made it clear that I have no obligation to expose myself to greater legal liability by waiving my rights to process serving.

Please send an affirmative reply to this e-mail and restore access to my web site and we can put this matter behind us.

(I've attached two images of a SIGNED and NOTARIZED letter from Roxie (RJ) Hampton affirming that she, RJ Hampton, is the owner of the video to which I had placed a link and that neither Sherri Kane nor Len Horowitz own the video, nor do they possess any copyright ownership as Kane had FALSELY claimed in her DMCA complaint to you)

Sincerely, Ken Adachi

Hampton Letter

Hampton notary seal



Subject: missing page on your site and outrage at the attack on your website
From: June
Date: Fri, August 26, 2011
To: Ken Adachi

Dear Ken,

You probably already know this. The following page is missing and I got a 404 notice when I tried to view it. Defusing Hurrincae Irene with the Power of Thought (Aug. 27, 2011)

I also want you to know that I feel it is disgusting that Lunar Pages would shut down your site. Although most of mainstream media, and even many smaller"independent" media have tossed out anything vaguely resembling investigative journalism that actually seeks the truth, one would expect one's server would, at the very least would investigate Kane's claim to some degree before shutting down the service. They promised to give you service in return for the fees you've paid to them. Service should include protecting your site from outside attack. That is usually assumed to be attack of your site by hacking. Shutting down your site from August 19th to the 24th is far worse than any hacking attempt, and worse, it came from your server!

I have more to say about this.

Kane presents herself as the accuser. So the spirit of the law is seemingly upheld. I am wondering who is pulling the strings, since she has a private web server and the courts jumping to her inadequate claims. They choose to remain anonymous.

A current example of the use of anonymity to unfairly run people off their land is happening in the Antelope Valley. This appeared on David Icke's site:

Los Angeles County is harassing poor home owners in the Antelope Valley. The county seems to want to remove these people from living on their own land. The county claims neighbors have complained about their homes, but will not tell who exactly is complaining.

Interestingly, one man has no near neighbors. Clearly, here, the spirit of being able to confront the witnesses against these people is being stopped by the county. Perhaps the county feels safe in not honoring the spirit of the 6th amendment because they are not criminal prosecutions.

My points are:

1. Lunar Pages is your server, and should be serving you, including protecting you from attack. To be acting in behalf of Kane is at the very least a conflict of interest.

2. That Kane got support from the court system to harass A. True Ott with a restraining order without proper paper work, as well as support to harass you through Lunar Pages implies that she is getting support, or direction from an anonymous higher-up.

3. Americans have reason to expect to be able to confront their accuser. The spirit of the 6th amendment is that we can confront our accusers. The idea being, justice is difficult if not impossible to pursue if the accuser is anonymous. I give the example of the land owners being driven off their property because anonymous "neighbors" have complained. This is un-American!

My examples may not conform to the provision of "criminal prosecutions", but as Americans, we have reason to champion fair play by being able to confront our accusers. Kane is the accuser in your case and in A. True Ott's case. But with all the help she is getting for her lame accusations both from the court system and from your private web server, I have to wonder if there is an anonymous puppet master pulling strings in the courts system, pulling strings in a private web server, and in fact pulling Kane's strings.

Thanks for all you do, and blessings to you!


Copyright 2011  All Rights Reserved.

Free Newsletter

Email Address:

Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

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.