Now that all of the agencies involved have been notified, updated and evidence submitted, I will say this one thing and the rest will be said by my attorney.

I have never been convicted of or plead guilty of a criminal offense. I did get a traffic violation once for driving an unregistered vehicle though. The vehicle was not registered to me, but I was driving it so I took that L.

I testified under oath in a court of law that I had a job offer when I began my cross country migration from PA to CA. There was a job offer. While that offer is not where I currently work, it did exist. For the ‘record’ where I *DO* currently work, you cannot have a criminal history, and they did an extensive background check prior to my offer letter.

In January of 2023 there as a trial to determine if an ongoing order of protection should be issued against KM. I made an offer of settlement prior to the hearing which KM accepted. That offer was I would agree to a voluntary no contact order, and withdraw my legitimate request for the amount of $960 [I have the copy of the conversation where he agreed to that amount of money as reimbursement for rent for the month of July 2022 at the location I currently live]. I asked that he also agree to a voluntary no contact order and that he not attempt to sue me in the future. He agreed to this under oath.

I offered to settle the case against MJ on three [3] separate occasions prior to the trial in May of 2023. Each offer was declined, and as a document – which by the way I had ZERO hand in creating – shows, those legitimate offers were rejected in an attempt to run up the bill so to speak in attorney fees. That does not seem on the surface at least to support the behavior of a person who was NOT trying to ruin another. Regardless, while the court chose to not extend an ongoing order of protection against MJ, the case is not over. There is an additional hearing in July of 2023. Unlike a DV TRO a civil harassment TRO does not automatically come with the award of legal fees to the prevailing party. I am not on the hook for any fees until the case is fully adjudicated, and as of this writing, it is not.

The legal definition of libel is:

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

While truth is an absolute defense to libel, truth would have to be present in the statement.

The lengthy attack on my legally established business, certified with the State of California, and the allegations of my lack of clientele and/or results is injurious. While one can have an opinion on why they might not secure my services, the action of releasing a document which openly discourages others from using my services is a whole different arena.

The other party in the document is one of my oldest and closest friends. I’ve known them longer than I’ve known KM and despite his lies under oath, I am able to prove how long we’ve actually known one another. They were not recruited to do damage, they were subpoenaed to testify. The details of what they would have testified to are not needed in this moment, but I’ve got the ‘receipts’ on that as well. The same way I have the documented evidence of when it was discovered that they would be subpoenaed that an effort to prevent that testimony was exerted by KM. That is witness interference.

The remainder of the name calling and revisionist details of ‘how we got here’ aren’t worth the rebuttal. I’ve been called worse, and yet here I remain. #shrug Denial is a thing, but the Internet is forever and so are printouts of conversations.

What is worth a mention however is the legal definition of doxxing:

Doxxing (also spelled doxing) is the act of revealing someone’s personal information online. Doxxing is a form of online harassment that means publicly exposing someone’s real name, address, job, or other identifying data. Doxxing happens without a victim’s consent, with the aim of humiliating or bullying a victim.

There is a marked difference in someone posting that they needed to seek a restraining order against another person, and only using their name – which is a part of the public record of the case AND meets the legal criteria of legitimate public interest – vs a retaliatory and vindictive premature victory lap which can have a reputational and financial impact. So when you post a video online, or actively encourage people to request a link to the video, and that video discloses the name of the location where the person lives, well that is doxxing.

I’ve always used Vizionz to tell the story, warts and all. No I don’t always look good while doing such, but that is a part of why this remains. I am transparent and truthful. Do I editorialize? Sure, but not to a point of rewriting history. I can insert an adjective and tell a story and while some may not LIKE how I tell the story that doesn’t mean that what I said was false.

TL;dr:

Despite the allegations posted repeatedly online: I am not a convicted criminal, I do not owe lawyer fees, the other party mentioned did not volunteer their services they were subpoenaed, multiple law enforcement agencies have been notified of the criminal activity contained within the posts of those allegations, and the party who chose this route instead of letting it go, like they’ve alleged they wanted to for over a calendar year now, will be notified by my attorney of what comes next.