On the Events of Yesterday's Court Hearings

Supporter Criticism and Feedback

Some supporters have provided feedback about my conduct in yesterday’s hearing in Manti before Judge Bagley, as well as the substance of my mocking emails towards Caleb Proulx, the attorney and son-in-law of Joseph Wood Bennion and his wife Lee Patricia Udall Bennion.

Yesterday’s hearing commenced because I filed a response requesting a hearing. In that response, I filed a motion to dismiss the injunction, and addressed Caleb Proulx’s Verified Petition. In the opening of the hearing, Judge Bagley allowed Caleb Proulx to speak at length for ten plus minutes without interruption, and cite email responses to Proulx where I mocked him and his spurious petition for a stalking injunction. As a matter of law, I have not stalked either of the Bennions.

Judge Bagley insisted that he had already ruled that I had stalked the Bennions, which rendered the hearing pointless. When asked, he could not cite which two instances in the Verified Petition constituted stalking. In fact, the only thing that Judge Bagley did specifically cite as proof of stalking was the allegation that I called the Bennions Satanists. I corrected that error, because I have always referred to the Bennions as alleged Satanists, alleged child rapists, and alleged murderers, and alleged members of the Church of Satan. I am well aware of appropriate courtroom decorum, and I am also aware of the law.

I did interject to say that the examples Caleb Proulx cited were not stalking under the statute, because they were not. Judge Bagley admonished me for interrupting Caleb, and I abstained from doing so for the rest of the hearing. Judge Bagley then proceeded to cut me off a minute and a half into my remarks, and then proceeded to constantly cut my microphone so that I could not speak. He interrupted me repeatedly, and told me that he had already ruled on the Verified Petition, and he informed me that he was denying my motion to dismiss.

Judge Bagley did not give me a fair hearing by any standard. He clearly had no intention of doing so, and he could not cite two or more instances where my conduct violated the stalking statute. He insisted that I did not have to contact the Bennions at all in order to violate the stalking statute.

That is an absurd position. I have never monitored, observed, photographed, surveilled, threatened, or communicated to or about the Bennions directly or indirectly by any action, means, or device. The extent of what I have done with respect to Joe and Lee Bennion is writing about them on a Substack. That is all I have done. I have not engaged in a single act that would fit within the course of conduct outlined in the statute. I’ve never approached or confronted the Bennions, appeared at their workplace, contacted their employer or coworkers, appeared at their residence, or contacted their neighbor, and I’ve never entered a property owned, leased, or occupied by the Bennions. I have never sent material to the Bennions at all. I have never placed or delivered an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by the Bennions, or to their place of employment. I’ve never used a computer in the course of conduct the statute identifies as stalking.

In short, Judge Bagley’s position is that you don’t have to ever contact or interact with an individual to be guilty of stalking them. His position is that you don’t have to physically follow them, monitor them, surveil them, or do anything other than offend their sensibilities by writing about criminal allegations against them contained in police reports and victims statements. Judge Bagley’s position is that if I say that the Hamblin sisters have identified the Bennions as alleged members of a satanic group, which they have, and I do it more than two times, I am guilty of stalking the Bennions.

With regards to my demeanor, once I realized that Judge Bagley had no intention of giving me a fair hearing, I decided to pivot. Antagonizing Judge Bagley yielded two valuable statements: one, that I did not have to have any direct or indirect contact with the Bennions to stalk them; and, two, that calling someone a Satanist-which I did not do, since I noted that the Bennions are alleged Satanists-constitutes stalking. Both positions are illogical and without a basis in the law. I have not found a single stalking case in which an individual who never had direct or indirect contact with the alleged victim was adjudicated guilty of stalking, and I have looked. Judge Bagley’s position is absurd.

It is not the only absurd position Judge Bagley has ever taken with regards to stalking. In an earlier case involving William James and Michael Noel, Judge Bagley held that by jousting with with James to be the last person to speak at a Kanab City Council meeting, Noel had stalked James. Bagley issued an injunction. He did not cite anything about Noel’s actions that would have caused James to fear for his safety or suffer emotional distress. The two men kept trying to get behind each other in order to be the final speaker at a City Hall meeting, and both men shouted at each other.

The Utah Court of Appeals overturned the stalking injunction issued by Judge Bagley because he had not issued any findings of fact regarding which specific acts Noel engaged in that would have caused James to fear for his safety or suffer emotional distress. That is, a man can get into an in-person shouting match with another man, joust with him for position in a line to speak at a City Council meeting, and ultimately see his stalking injunction overturned because the judge in his case made no findings of fact as to which specific actions would have met the threshold for the stalking statute as it pertained to fear for safety or emotional distress.

In my case, after ruling on the Verified Petition to issue a Temporary Restraining Order, Judge Bagley issued no Findings of Fact as to which acts constituted the basis for emotional distress or the Bennions’ fear for their safety. He could not identify which specific alleged acts I engaged in that were within the course of conduct outlined in the stalking statute. Judge Bagley then continued the case until November 18th, a month and a half after his September 30th retirement.

In the meantime, I am left in limbo, and Caleb Proulx is granted an opportunity to attempt a fishing expedition over confidential sources and communications that have nothing to do with Joe or Lee Bennion. For example, Proulx is requesting all written or recorded correspondence or communications between myself and Cindy Metcalf, the executive director of the nonprofit Relentless Hope, even though I had never discussed Joe or Lee Bennion with Cindy Metcalf before the recent injunction was served on me.

He is also seeking all written or recorded correspondence between myself and my “proteges,” including the Wolfhunter, an individual I have trained in investigative techniques. Proulx does not request communications related to the Bennions; instead, he is demanding all communications I have ever had with the Wolfhunter and any other “protege.” This has nothing to do with stalking the Bennions.

In fact, Proulx references my use of the term protege in an article on Paul Rytting, an article which has no bearing on the Bennions at all. Francine Bennion is mentioned as part of the pattern CS members allegedly retaining CS music instructors to teach their children how to play instruments.

Given the pattern of CS members having CS families give music lessons to their children-Roselle Stevenson’s piano teacher was none other than Joe Bennion’s aunt Francine Bennion, wife of psychologist Robert Cannon Bennion-this places Paul Rytting at least CS adjacent to the Hamblin group. It would also provide circumstantial evidence to confirm the Hamblin sisters’ allegation of Gatekeepers within the LDS and the state of Utah who could intercept and squash allegations of sexual abuse by CS members.

Francine Bennion is mentioned in a 1969 newspaper article as one of Roselle Stevenson’s music teachers. Reviewing old newspaper articles and doing genealogical work that shows the relationship between an individual mentioned in the article and an individual mentioned in a police record is not stalking. Writing about that relationship is not stalking.

Proulx also demand that I “[i]dentify every document that relates to the issue or matter not in your possession but which you know or believe to know exists in another person or entities’ possession to a reasonable certainty.” In essence, Caleb Proulx and the Bennions are attempting to use the spurious stalking injunction to mount a fishing expedition to ascertain information beyond any act that would constitute stalking.

As a matter of law, I am a journalist. Utah Rules of Evidence Rule 509 expressly enables reporters to refuse to turn over exactly the type of information the Bennions are seeking.

(b) Statement of the Privilege for Confidential Source Information. A news reporter or confidential source has a privilege to refuse to disclose — and to prevent any other person from disclosing — confidential source information, unless the person seeking the information demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure is necessary to prevent substantial injury or death.

(c) Statement of the Privilege for Confidential Unpublished News Information. A news reporter has a privilege to refuse to disclose confidential unpublished news information, unless the person seeking the information demonstrates a need for that information that substantially outweighs the interest of a continued free flow of information to news reporters.

(d) Statement of the Privilege for Other Unpublished News Information. A news reporter has a privilege to refuse to disclose other unpublished news information if the person claiming the privilege demonstrates that the interest of a continued free flow of information to news reporters outweighs the need for disclosure.

(e) Who May Claim. The privileges may be claimed, as applicable, by the news reporter, the organization or entity on whose behalf the news reporter was acting, the confidential source, the news reporter’s or confidential source's guardian or conservator or the personal representative of a deceased news reporter or confidential source.

I am fully aware that my demeanor is pugilistic, and that I come across as abrasive at times. Part of that is my nature, and the other part of it is situational. In a setting where all parties are professional and ethical, I maintain a pleasant and professional demeanor. When parties are cheating, I do not. That is exactly what happened during the hearing.

At that point, I had a choice. I could either simply allow Judge Bagley to leave me with nothing, or I could attempt to gain something out of the situation. The two statements that Judge Bagley made will be useful as the matter progresses.

If I offended anyone in attendance outside of the Bennions or their counsel, my apologies. As it pertains to my tendency to mock the absurdity of those who are allegedly within the CS, I have found that the one thing people with an inflated sense of self dislike is mockery. My favorite Greek god is Momus, the god of mockery, and invectives such as those of Catullus have always intrigued me. Mocking morons with power is another interest of mine, and doing it well is a passion. Humor is the most effective means of defusing the intimidation of powerful idiots.

To wit, I have created yet another satirical video mocking the CS and the absurdity of Utah’s record on prosecuting and convicting rapists. Thanks for reading, and thanks for watching, and thanks for the feedback. I assure you there is almost always a method to my apparent madness. I think, therefore I act. Enjoy the first advertisement of the Utah Sex Tourism and Arts Board, celebrating their inaugural event.