Introduction
The Linda Cortile UFO abduction case has been subjected to uninformed, inaccurate public abuse for over two decades. The different sources of the abuse each have had their own unique reasons for disseminating it. Some have publicly presented distortions of the case material in an attempt to launch public careers for themselves such as legitimate paranormal investigators or professional documentary makers. The case material in such instances has been intentionally manipulated to support the false theories and accusations of those distorting and distributing the material. Differentiating who is distributing accurate material and who is distributing inaccurate material boils down to who provides the means to show that they are correct. A person can only be taken at their word if they haven't been caught telling lies. The value and validity of testimony hinges on that factor.
Anyone who publicly puts forth a detailed defense of an alien abduction case open themselves up to a diverse array of potential response types. These can include compliments, constructive criticisms, inaccurate criticisms, ridicule based criticisms and in some cases all out ad hominem attacks. By examining a broad cross section of the responses one can gauge and obtain an approximate idea of some of the positive and negative features of their work as perceived by the public at large. Dispassionate, logical, constructive criticism is among the most valuable of response types as it allows the identification, consideration and reparation of weaknesses in one's work. This kind of input needs to be considered and adhered to.
In the event that one receives abusive, baseless, emotionally-laden ad hominem attacks, especially when it comes from individuals or groups who publicly purport themselves as honest, informed and objective, then the use of their own words can aptly demonstrate their subjectivity. It's in that spirit that this section of the website has been built. A place that will permanently showcase any and all case related hate mail that is received.
Anyone who publicly puts forth a detailed defense of an alien abduction case open themselves up to a diverse array of potential response types. These can include compliments, constructive criticisms, inaccurate criticisms, ridicule based criticisms and in some cases all out ad hominem attacks. By examining a broad cross section of the responses one can gauge and obtain an approximate idea of some of the positive and negative features of their work as perceived by the public at large. Dispassionate, logical, constructive criticism is among the most valuable of response types as it allows the identification, consideration and reparation of weaknesses in one's work. This kind of input needs to be considered and adhered to.
In the event that one receives abusive, baseless, emotionally-laden ad hominem attacks, especially when it comes from individuals or groups who publicly purport themselves as honest, informed and objective, then the use of their own words can aptly demonstrate their subjectivity. It's in that spirit that this section of the website has been built. A place that will permanently showcase any and all case related hate mail that is received.
Addendum
The primary purpose of constructing the “Case Related Hate Mail” section at Linda’s website was to house all of the overt and interwoven foulness, ridicule and duplicity that has been launched against Linda, Budd Hopkins, myself and Linda’s case. When I chose the title “Case Related Hate Mail” I did so because it is a term capable of encompassing those three aforementioned qualities.
Over time this section has evolved. Initially, it was limited to containing the ad hominem attacks and flawed, ridicule based polemics that came in response to Linda’s case being publicly defended. When Linda and I began receiving threats I decided to add them to this section.
An example of one of these threats, which alleged to be of a legal nature, quoted from an old contract that was made between Linda and the individual making the threat regarding the rights of the use of certain case footage. The individual indicated that any use of the footage was a violation of that contract and against the law. What the individual didn’t mention was that the contract in question was null and void because they did not fulfill their contracted end of the agreement. They also failed to mention that they freely gave Linda samples of the footage to keep, as a gift. Since there is no legally valid contract restricting the use of the footage Linda is not legally bound in her use of it and can do what she wishes with it.
Essentially the threat boiled down to an aggressive bluff, which upon its failure was followed by an angry and venomous email, which is also posted here, from the individual who made the threat. The apparent purpose of their threat was to try and get material removed from this website, despite no legal grounds existing for such a removal to be warranted. It was the dishonest and scornful structure of the threat that merited its place at this section of the website. It was also placed here to give the email that followed it a clear context.
The primary purpose of this recent addendum is to provide the reader with some clarification and further information regarding the placement of certain items at this section of the website. This section is an important part of both Linda’s case and website because it collectively showcases numerous documented examples of the inherently dishonest, unprofessional and vulgar behaviour of some of the case’s alleged “objective investigators”. Having a place to hold such behaviour to account, memorialised forever in cyberspace, helps to give people a better understanding of what abductees are subjected to simply by coming forward with their accounts.
Over time this section has evolved. Initially, it was limited to containing the ad hominem attacks and flawed, ridicule based polemics that came in response to Linda’s case being publicly defended. When Linda and I began receiving threats I decided to add them to this section.
An example of one of these threats, which alleged to be of a legal nature, quoted from an old contract that was made between Linda and the individual making the threat regarding the rights of the use of certain case footage. The individual indicated that any use of the footage was a violation of that contract and against the law. What the individual didn’t mention was that the contract in question was null and void because they did not fulfill their contracted end of the agreement. They also failed to mention that they freely gave Linda samples of the footage to keep, as a gift. Since there is no legally valid contract restricting the use of the footage Linda is not legally bound in her use of it and can do what she wishes with it.
Essentially the threat boiled down to an aggressive bluff, which upon its failure was followed by an angry and venomous email, which is also posted here, from the individual who made the threat. The apparent purpose of their threat was to try and get material removed from this website, despite no legal grounds existing for such a removal to be warranted. It was the dishonest and scornful structure of the threat that merited its place at this section of the website. It was also placed here to give the email that followed it a clear context.
The primary purpose of this recent addendum is to provide the reader with some clarification and further information regarding the placement of certain items at this section of the website. This section is an important part of both Linda’s case and website because it collectively showcases numerous documented examples of the inherently dishonest, unprofessional and vulgar behaviour of some of the case’s alleged “objective investigators”. Having a place to hold such behaviour to account, memorialised forever in cyberspace, helps to give people a better understanding of what abductees are subjected to simply by coming forward with their accounts.
-- Sean F. Meers
November 7, 2012
November 7, 2012
Hate Mail Received from Jeremy Vaeni
Shortly after the release of my article "Free-for-all: the assassination of Budd Hopkins and Linda Cortile" I received two emails from Jeremy Vaeni of Paratopia. The first email he sent to me was an "invitation" to appear on his Paratopia podcast. Given how abusively vulgar his "invitation" was I naturally declined. The second equally vulgar email he sent me was also received by many other individuals in the UFO field as Vaeni had used a UFO emailing list operated by Andre Skondras to send it. As a result of his second email Vaeni was contacted by Skondras and notified that he was being dropped from the list.
Vaeni’s two "hate mail" emails are posted here below. In addition to this I've posted Skondras’ email notifying Vaeni that he has been dropped from Skondras’ UFO mailing list. The email from Skondras is not a hate mail. It is presented here because it is a response from an independent third party affected by one of the hate mails presented here.
Vaeni’s two "hate mail" emails are posted here below. In addition to this I've posted Skondras’ email notifying Vaeni that he has been dropped from Skondras’ UFO mailing list. The email from Skondras is not a hate mail. It is presented here because it is a response from an independent third party affected by one of the hate mails presented here.
Email #1 - Jeremy Vaeni's invitation to me to be on his show "Paratopia"
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/1375/52583019.jpg
URL: http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/1375/52583019.jpg
Email #2 - Jeremy Vaeni's email to me and others in the UFO community
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/9679/32658077.jpg
URL: http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/9679/32658077.jpg
Email #3 - Andre Skondras email to Vaeni removing him from the email list
New Hate Mail from Carol Rainey (Dali27)
and Jeremy Vaeni (Dancemonster)
(Sunday, April 1, 2012)
Email #4 - Followup from Jeremy Vaeni
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/7690/newjvabuse2.jpg
Hate Mail from Lance Moody
Post #1
Obtained from
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/critique-rejected-by-sean-f-meers.8257/#post-111251
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/1970/79472888.jpg
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/critique-rejected-by-sean-f-meers.8257/#post-111251
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/1970/79472888.jpg
Post #2
Obtained from
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/critique-rejected-by-sean-f-meers.8257/#post-111258
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/4829/26563094.jpg
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/critique-rejected-by-sean-f-meers.8257/#post-111258
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/4829/26563094.jpg
Post #3
Obtained from
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/critique-rejected-by-sean-f-meers.8257/#post-111264
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3175/40974934.jpg
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/critique-rejected-by-sean-f-meers.8257/#post-111264
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/3175/40974934.jpg
Post #4
Obtained from
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/the-linda-cortile-ufo-abduction-website.10148/page-2#post-136414
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8837/14049747.jpg
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/the-linda-cortile-ufo-abduction-website.10148/page-2#post-136414
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8837/14049747.jpg
Hate Mail from Paracast User Lauren Jones
Post #1
Obtained from
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/critique-rejected-by-sean-f-meers.8257/#post-111266
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8050/53840890.jpg
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/critique-rejected-by-sean-f-meers.8257/#post-111266
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8050/53840890.jpg
Post #2
Obtained from
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/my-rebuttal-to-carol-rainey-paratopia-and-other-attackers-of-hopkins-and-cortile.8124/#post-108707
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8043/66752878.jpg
URL: http://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/my-rebuttal-to-carol-rainey-paratopia-and-other-attackers-of-hopkins-and-cortile.8124/#post-108707
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/8043/66752878.jpg
New Hate Mail from Carol Rainey
Received by Email
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/7863/10657789.jpg
Full Size Version Available at the below URL
URL: http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/7863/10657789.jpg
Carol Rainey's legal threats against this website
A few months back Carol Rainey contacted me making legal threats against Linda's website. She contacted the web provider making complaints to try and get the material removed. When the web provider informed me of this I contacted them, filed a counter notice and provided them with thorough documentation of the legal grounds behind every piece of material posted at the website. On doing this the web provider supported me and dismissed Rainey's complaint. Linda's website has and does remain 100% fully intact.
I kept this attempt of hers private initially because I didn't feel it was significant enough on its own to even bring up. However, in light of her recent, unfettered email abuse of both me and Linda I've decided to post all evidence of her earlier attempt to them to the Case Related Hate Mail section of the website for all to see.
I will do the same with any such attempts by her to surreptitiously try and intimidate or bully people. She cannot hurt Budd Hopkins any more so I do not have to hold back as I once did.
I kept this attempt of hers private initially because I didn't feel it was significant enough on its own to even bring up. However, in light of her recent, unfettered email abuse of both me and Linda I've decided to post all evidence of her earlier attempt to them to the Case Related Hate Mail section of the website for all to see.
I will do the same with any such attempts by her to surreptitiously try and intimidate or bully people. She cannot hurt Budd Hopkins any more so I do not have to hold back as I once did.
Received by email
Memo to: S. Meers
From: Carol Rainey
Date: April 13, 2012
Mr. Meers,
It has come to my attention that your website, www.lindacortilecase.com, stands in substantial violation of copyright issues related to my documentary film-in-progress about that case. As you are aware, legal determination of “fair use” is anything but definitive, with cases brought to court each decided on their own narrow specificities. In the real world of copyright law, there are no black-and-white certainties such as you possess about your right to post stolen footage owned by another. (The matter of extensive theft of physical property and your knowing utilization of such stolen property will be brought separately from the issue of fair use in this communiqué.)
My attorney and I are confident that your use of the material listed below does not pass the four-factor balancing test under US trademark law. As a courtesy, I am sending you this one personal request that you pull down the offending material within the next 24 hours after transmittal of this memo. If that is not done, attorneys will take over.
I will begin with the simplest violation on your website:
1. My UFO Updates post of March 10, 2011, now posted on your site.
http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/mar/m10-008.shtml
On the first page of UFO Updates, the policy of the site states clearly:
“Permission must be obtained from both the poster and the List Moderator to reproduce UFO UpDates posts anywhere else.”
You have never requested my permission and I do not give it. Remove the post immediately.
2. Four factors: As to the additional copyright infringements on your site, you should be aware that in determination of “fair use,” the court always looks at the following four factors:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
b. The nature of the copyrighted work;
b. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
c. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (from Wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Use).
Your use of my original materials does not serve any broader educational purpose—nor is it “transformative” in anyway related to public education. On the contrary, it is grossly promotional of a certain narrow interpretation of anomalous human experiences. It does nothing to broaden public dialogue about these genuine human mysteries but rather further attempts to fire up a “debunkers versus seekers-of-truth” mentality in the UFO community of interest. You accomplish this on the site through use of derogatory and demeaning language about anyone who criticizes the recovered memory methodology and findings of your mentor, Budd Hopkins, and his most controversial subject yet, Linda Cortile.
Far from educational, your use of my original audio/video material is essentially self-serving. It is intended to elevate your position and bring attention to yourself in the marginal subculture called “ufology,” or the study of UFOs. For example, your point that your use of Rich Rosenthal’s footage, owned by me, shows that Budd was supervised in his work and had genuine collaborators is entirely false. It shows nothing of the kind--only that Budd had a conversation with a former NYPD employee—not that the man in any way shaped the case or substantially contributed to vetting the facts about the Cortile case. He emphatically did not and your use of that footage does not demonstrate your point. Therefore your use of my original footage--never before seen--is not educational in any way: it is erroneous, misleading, a copyright infringement, and a theft.
For each one of the videos you have used, I will mount a similar argument as to why each one does not meet “fair use” standards.
I assume you understand that the burden is on you, the defendant, to show “educational value,” which, in this case, would mean you would have to prove in a court of law that both alien abductions and the Linda Cortile case are true, evidence-based, event-level occurrences of great concern to the public. The best minds in ufology have never been able to pass that bar, unfortunately.
Neither is your website registered or designed to be educational at all (.edu). It is, in fact, a dot com, a commercial, for profit website: www.lindacortilecase.com. You are “selling” a belief system and attempting to use my copyrighted, original work to promote dogmatic, simplistic ideas about a complex phenomenon that I do not share. That is both illegal and highly unethical.
As to the nature of the material used—you have posted stolen footage on a public website for purposes of self- and ideology promotion. You have posted to your website, lindacortilecase.com, original footage shot by me, paid for by me, owned exclusively by me, for a documentary that is in progress. Although I have posted several excerpts of the film to YouTube, I have deliberately withheld some videotaped material for inclusion in the final film. The footage of Robert N., Rich Rosenthal, John Cortile, and Jay Sapir has never been seen by the public—not in any forum. By your posting of audio portions of these multiple videotapes (in 3-7 minute clips), along with many pages of transcripts of said video, you have substantially devalued the worth of my film and made it difficult to acquire post-production funding.
The amount of material posted on your site (both in lengthy and multiple audio clips of several subjects and in lengthy transcripts) and the substance of content far exceeds “fair use” doctrine. Along with promotion of your views on the subject of UFOs, you utilized my footage in a way that brings premature disclosure of information about the content of my film, with the specific result of lessening public interest in the final film. That, of course, leads directly to significant decrease in the film’s market value (“we’ve already seen that”) and my ability to raise post production funding for it.
Wikkipedia’s summary of Fair Use states: “The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. In the aforementioned Nation case regarding President Ford's memoirs, the Supreme Court labeled this factor "the single most important element of fair use." I have worked on this film for 10 years and can put a dollar figure on that time and the potential revenue of a non-despoiled film.
As to Linda Cortile’s rights to the footage, which you cite—she has none. She cannot either disperse my footage or the rights to it to anyone. Those rights “are the sole property of the Producer.” Again, your claim of right to usage is erroneous. Please see Paragraph 2 of the release she signed on 1/17/96:
In Folsom v Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342, the court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:
[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy...
In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
In summary, and for the reasons stated above, I hereby request that the following material owned by me and stolen from my studio be removed from your website (www.lindacortilecase.com) within 24 hours of transmittal of this message:
Sincerely,
Carol Rainey
[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy...
In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
In summary, and for the reasons stated above, I hereby request that the following material owned by me and stolen from my studio be removed from your website (www.lindacortilecase.com) within 24 hours of transmittal of this message:
- Transcript of Rich Rosenthal videotape, approximately 4 pages of transcribed interview between me and Mr. Rosenthal.
- A 7:00 audio portion of Rosenthal video, shot by me
- A transcript of Johnny “Cortile,” taken from video produced and directed by me
- A 6:33 audio portion of a videotape of John “Cortile” shot and owned by me—a description of allegedly meeting UN official deCuellar.
- 4 audio portions of videotaped witness Robert N., stolen from my studio, and used to excessive length in 3-4 minute segments each. http://www.lindacortilecase.com/firsthand-eyewitness-bobby.html
- Transcript of Robert N. videotape
- Audio portion of videotape of Phillip Klass shot and owned by me, never before seen in public and stolen from my studio.
- Audio portions of videotaped interview with Jay Sapir by me, 3 clips varying in length from 2:47 to 3:35—never before made public.
- Transcript of videotaped interview with Jay Sapir by me, same
- Audio portion of videotaped interview with Linda Cortile by me.
Sincerely,
Carol Rainey
| cirlcr041312.doc |
Carol Rainey's Email Urging Me to Speak With Her Therapist About Her
On Sunday July 8, 2012, the last time Linda and I received an unsolicited communication from Carol Rainey, I told Rainey bluntly that if she ever contacted us again I would call the Police. The email I sent her conveying this message is presented below:
Despite this very clear warning, nearly a year later on April 1, 2013, both Linda and I received yet another unsolicited email from Carol Rainey. In her latest email she accuses Linda and I of making unfounded allegations about her (Rainey’s) mental health. Rainey stated that I had been “informed that a therapist, Leslie Darhansoff, diagnosed [Rainey] as having Boarderline [sic] Personality Disorder.” Rainey indicated that this wasn’t true and that she had given permission to this therapist to speak to me about Rainey’s mental health. I have never heard of this individual, never been informed of or heard about any claims she made about Carol Rainey’s health, never personally made any claims about Rainey’s health and I have absolutely no interest in speaking with the therapist or Carol Rainey for that matter.
That Carol continues to contact me and Linda with accusatory nonsense, despite Linda and I clearly spelling out that we do not care about her or her actions, leaves us only to deduce that Rainey has nothing better to do, and no one better to contact. I’ve contacted the authorities and am exploring my options before I proceed with any actions.
For the pseudoskeptical, hate spreading dregs of the paranormal community, who were quick to applaud and unconditionally support Rainey’s unproven claims against Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs and Linda Cortile, I sincerely hope that this material gives them something to consider in their appraisals of the situation. Though I very much doubt so.
-- Sean F. Meers
April 1, 2013
Available for Download in PDF format below
| crhm.pdf |