Joe and Lee Bennion Attempt to Squash Journalism!
Joe and Lee Bennion Attempt to Squash Journalism!
Writing about criminal allegations as stalking!
Author’s Note: Readers, go to Das Cafe in Spring City, have a meal and donate to David Lee Hamblin’s victim Tobias Schroeder. His family members run Das Cafe, and they have suffered greatly during the two years that the Hamblin case has unfolded. If you want to support victims, go have a good meal and donate to Tobias Schroeder’s expenses, which are substantial as he has taken off of work multiple times over two years to attend hearings in Hamblin’s criminal case.
That’s Das Cafe in Spring City at 33 N Main St, Spring City, UT 84662, open Tuesday through Saturday, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Fight evil: eat at Das Cafe!
Let the Schroeder family know they have support in their community. If you’re not in Utah, you can call Das Cafe to learn how the family would prefer to receive your donations. Stand with victims. Support Das Cafe and Tobias Schroeder.
DO NOT CONFRONT OR HARASS CHURCH OF SATAN MEMBERS DISCLAIMER:
Yet again, I remind you, my readers-or, as the Bennion’s attorney and son-in-law Caleb Proulx terms you, my acolytes-not to directly harass or confront any alleged member of the LDS Church of Satan. Do not indirectly contact or harass any alleged member of the LDS Church of Satan. Doing so could be construed as stalking, and stalking is illegal. Do not commit two or more acts directed at any specific individual who is alleged to be a member of the LDS Church of Satan, such as following, monitoring, observing, photographing, surveilling, threatening, or communicating to or about an individual, or interfering with an individual’s property, or approaching or confronting an individual, appearing at their workplace or contacting their employer or coworker, appearing at their residence or contacting their neighbor, entering property owned leased, or occupied by the individual, or sending material by any means to the individual or for the purpose of obtaining or disseminating information about or communicating with the individual to a member of the individual’s family or household, employer, coworker, friend, or associate of the individual, placing an object or delivering an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by an individual, or to the individual’s place of employment with the intent that the object be delivered to the individual, or using a computer, the Internet, text messaging, or any other electronic means to commit an act that is a part of the course of conduct…UNLESS you have a legitimate business purpose for doing so, such as investigative journalism or satirical content. DO NOT DO ANY OF THESE THINGS WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS PURPOSE.
As Investigations in Ritual Abuse has always contended, the recent shenanigans of Joseph Wood and Lee Patricia Bennion have nothing to do with stalking, and everything to do with squashing any attempt to investigate or cover the voluminous allegations against them. To wit, Caleb Proulx, the Bennion’s son in law by either marriage or live-in arrangements, has draft an Ex Parte Motion to Enforce Order and Sanctions, in which he explicitly cites my posts “Joe Bennion Files an Ex Parte Civil Stalking Injunction Against Goel! The Saga Continues” as well as “Request for Hearing with Joe and Lee Bennion Granted!” and The Alleged Crimes of Joseph Wood Bennion and Lee Patricia Udall Bennion Pts. I-III.”
You can see Proulx’s desperate attempts at intimidating Investigations in Ritual Abuse in the gallery below.
Mr. Proulx has also filed any number of additional documents in the case, all of which come with a 28 day time limit on response. This is unnecessary, as the Bennions and their attorney-and I use that last designation very loosely-have failed to show the following in their initial Verified Petition for an Ex Parte Injunction:
That IRA and Jamin Darcy have ever committed two or more acts in violation of Utah Code 76-5-106.5, which is the prerequisite to show that an individual is stalking another individual in order to merit injunctive relief.
The statute specifically defines a course of conduct as the following: (A)acts in which the actor follows, monitors, observes, photographs, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about an individual, or interferes with an individual's property:
(I)directly, indirectly, or through any third party; and
(II)by any action, method, device, or means; or
(B)when the actor engages in any of the following acts or causes someone else to engage in any of these acts:
(I)approaches or confronts an individual;
(II)appears at the individual's workplace or contacts the individual's employer or coworker;
(III)appears at an individual's residence or contacts an individual's neighbor, or enters property owned, leased, or occupied by an individual;
(IV)sends material by any means to the individual or for the purpose of obtaining or disseminating information about or communicating with the individual to a member of the individual's family or household, employer, coworker, friend, or associate of the individual;
(V)places an object on or delivers an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by an individual, or to the individual's place of employment with the intent that the object be delivered to the individual; or
(VI)uses a computer, the Internet, text messaging, or any other electronic means to commit an act that is a part of the course of conduct.
It further says that
“(2)An actor commits stalking if the actor intentionally or knowingly:
(a)engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific individual and knows or is reckless as to whether the course of conduct would cause a reasonable person:
(i)to fear for the individual's own safety or the safety of a third individual; or
(ii)to suffer other emotional distress; or
(b)violates:
(i)a stalking injunction issued under Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 7, Civil Stalking Injunctions; or
(ii)a permanent criminal stalking injunction issued under Title 78B, Chapter 7, Part 9, Criminal Stalking Injunctions.”
However, the statute provides a clear exception in (6)(a)(ii):
(6) (a)Except as provided in Subsection (6)(b), an actor does not violate this section if the actor is acting:
(i)in the actor's official capacity as a law enforcement officer, governmental investigator, or private investigator; and
(ii)for a legitimate official or business purpose.
Mr. Proulx and his clients might argue that I am not acting in an official capacity as a law enforcement officer, governmental investigator, or private investigator, but I am acting for a legitimate business purpose in the form of investigative journalism. Writing about the allegations against Joseph Wood Bennion and Lee Patricia Udall Bennion does not constitute stalking. If the absurd interpretation of the stalking statute advocated for by Caleb Proulx and the Bennions were adopted by any court, any individual accused of a crime could march to court to quash any journalist’s efforts to cover those allegations or to ascertain whether or not the allegations are true.
What is truly amazing about the effort mounted by the Bennions and their attorney is this: they purport to be Democrats in favor a free and open press, free from judicial overreach or the abuse of those in power who would seek to abuse the judicial process in order to quell any coverage of their criminal conduct. That is, unless the coverage in question examines the decades of allegations contained with the Hamblin Victims Statements against Joe and Lee Bennion, who are accused of trafficking, raping, torturing, and murdering children and adults as members of a group of Latter Day Saints that self-designated as the Church of Satan.
In that case, the Bennions represent investigative journalism as stalking. They cite my visits to David Lee Hamblin’s old property in Spring City as evidence of stalking with respect to their plight, even though they do not own, lease, or occupy the property in question and the current tenant gave me permission to walk the property and take pictures. In fact, the current tenant indicated he would consent to the Utah County Sheriff’s Office sending a Crime Scene Investigation Unit to his home to search for forensic evidence corroborative of the allegations made by Rachel, Eliza, and Katherine Hamblin. I forwarded his information to the UCSO via email.
He informed me that Detective Elise Hines had already visited the property once before, while he was out of town, but his wife declined to allow UCSO to search the premises without her husband’s permission.
Despite the fact that the Bennion’s own Verified Petition clearly notes that I informed my readers and viewers to never directly contact or harass any alleged member of the Church of Satan, somehow Caleb Proulx has conjured up a theory in which a single text to Zina Bennion-which she never responded to, and would not fit within the context of the statute with respect to her parents anyway because she is not a member of their household and they cannot show that the text was intended to elicit improper information about the Bennions-suffices as the basis for a stalking injunction, which he also views as a means of restricting what IRA can write about with respect to the allegations against his client.
The Bennions and their attorney also seek to mount a fishing expedition with regards to the sources, donors, and supporters of IRA. They specifically seek all communications with regards to those sources, which IRA will never turn over and which are protected under Rule 509 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Under Rule 509, unless the Bennions can show the threat of substantial injury or death, they cannot overcome the privileges afforded to reporters and investigative journalists with respect to confidential information.
The absurdity of Joseph Wood and Lee Patricia Udall Bennion’s position is obvious, but nevertheless, the Bennions and their son in law, attorney Caleb Proulx, seek to abuse the legal process in order to restrict what can be written with regards to the criminal allegations against them on a Substack formed for the express purpose of investigative journalism with respect to David Lee Hamblin and his alleged accomplices in the Church of Satan. As a matter of law, and as a matter of constitutional precedent, they will fail. The most they can do is utilize the legal process to attempt to hassle IRA and direct our energies away from investigative journalism towards addressing their frivolous and utterly meritless legal filings.
The Bennions are not filing a defamation lawsuit, because truth is an absolute defense to defamation and they do not want to be in the position of giving sworn testimony as to the allegations against them. Their failure to deny the those allegations, and their abject failure to present a single piece of evidence rebutting those allegations over the nearly two years of IRA’s existence, speaks volumes. Their use of the legal process to obtain a spurious and constitutionally unenforceable injunction to intimidate an investigative journalist is further confirmation of how they perceive their position: they are immune to further examination, unwilling to address the allegations against them with a sworn affidavit denying those allegations, unwilling to sue the Hamblin sisters who made the allegations for defamation, and entitled to a life free of scrutiny in the face of those allegations.
For at least fifty years, Joe and Lee Bennion have been beyond the reach of the law. They have publicly taken positions that contradict their own Church’s doctrine, yet they expect to remain members in good standing within that Church. They have allegedly engaged in conduct that warrants excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, with respect to Joe Bennion’s extramarital sexual dalliances with Roselle Stevenson, and Lee Bennion’s alleged homosexual dalliances with other women. Consensual adult relationships are not criminal, but if they take place outside of legal marriages, they are violations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ doctrine with regards to the Law of Chastity. There is no context in which homosexual acts would be within the permissive bounds of the Law of Chastity.
Instead of decamping from the Church they clearly disagree with, the Bennions have remained as members for the obvious purpose of undermining the Church from within. They have produced three adult daughters who no longer attend or hold active membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, one of whom identifies as a witch.
According to Rachel, Eliza, and Katherine Hamblin, the Bennions have also participated in dozens of instances of child sexual abuse, torture, rape, and murder. They have allegedly engaged in cannibalism, and they have disposed of the bodies of Church of Satan victims by burning them in the kiln at Horseshoe Mountain Pottery, the storefront business of Joseph Wood Bennion in Spring City.
It is understandable why the Bennions would not want these allegations written about, investigated, or discussed. After all, these allegations, if proven, could result in lengthy prison sentences and even capital punishment for Joe and Lee Bennion and their accomplices. Additionally, the Bennions could simply go on social media, at Facebook, Instagram, or YouTube, and record their denial of these allegations and present any evidence they have in rebuttal of the allegations. They have not done so over the two years since the GRAMA requested records with respect to the Church of Satan were released to the public.
Their children, Louisa, Zina, and Adah Lee Bennion could have denied the allegations. They have not. The Bennion family as a whole could have sworn out affidavits, or proactively contacted law enforcement to provide any evidence to disprove the allegations and establish that Rachel, Eliza, and Katherine Hamblin were lying. They have not. Instead, Joe and Lee Bennion have sought to avoid addressing the merits of the allegations against them, by misapplying a stalking statute against an investigative journalist who spent two years writing about the Hamblin case and finding one corroborative piece of evidence after another that indicated the Hamblin sisters were telling the truth.
IRA will write about the Hamblin case with respect to Joe and Lee Bennion regardless of the outcome of Wednesday’s court hearing. The First Amendment is absolute, and the Bennions have not cited a single instance where IRA’s coverage is defamatory or inaccurate. The reason for their failure to do so is obvious.
Instead, the Bennions contend that by writing about those allegations and printing the verbatim quotes from the Hamblin Victims Statements, I have violated a stalking inunction that was entered ex parte, without a hearing, and without a legal or factual basis that would have warranted an injunction in the first place. The Bennions and their attorney took a month to serve me those papers in person. They are seeking a fine of $1,000 and a possible jail sentence of 30 days against me for writing about those allegations.
That is the position of Joseph Wood and Lee Patricia Bennion: that writing about the criminal allegations against them contained within police reports and victims statements is stalking, and therefore warrants jail time and fines. Their view of the legal system and its processes is that it can be used as a cudgel to silence journalism, and to silence investigative journalism with respect to allegations that the Bennions raped, tortured, trafficked, drugged, and murdered children and adults while also engaging in cannibalism within a ritualized context in order to worship Lucifer.
The Bennions would likely also view any protests outside of their storefront as a form of stalking, or any boycott of their businesses as a form of stalking. If one were to contact David Ericson Fine Art in order to urge him to discontinue the gallery’s affiliation with Lee Bennion due to the horrific allegations of child sexual abuse and murder against her, that would be impermissible to the Bennions. They believe in the First Amendment when it applies to them, but not to anyone else, and especially not with respect to the allegations against them, which go well beyond those allegations contained within the Hamblin Victims Statements.
I don’t believe that I will go to jail for writing about Joe and Lee Bennion, or that I will face thousands of dollars in fines. Regardless of Judge Bagley’s ruling on Wednesday, I am confident in the First Amendment and in Heavenly Father. I do, however, find it outrageous that the Bennions and a licensed attorney would attempt to pervert the legal process to the extent of trying to argue for jail time and fines for those who engage in investigative journalism with respect to the allegations against them. In any event, IRA will never capitulate to such tactics.
Part IV of the Alleged Crimes of Joseph Wood and Lee Patricia Udall Bennion will be up tonight.