Thursday, December 23, 2010

Douglas Misicko alias Douglas Mesner defamation case

copied with permission from

Due to repeated harassment and defamatory statements, the founder of SMART, Neil Brick has brought a defamation case against Douglas Misicko, alias Douglas Mesner. Mesner in reply posted an article on the Internet. This article has several factual inaccuracies.


We recommend you read these pages before reading this page:

These pages will give readers the full background on this subject as well as a rebuttal to Mesner’s comments about ritual abuse and our conference. These pages list many of the comments posted by Douglas Mesner as well as other aliases. These pages will show connections between Mesner and websites like process, and the book “Might is Right.”

Douglas Misicko stopped payment on the check he used to pay for the conference after the conference. Our conference brochure, which all that register are required to read, states “Members of secret organizations, acting out perpetrators, and/or members of unsympathetic organizations are excluded from the conference. This is for the protection and safety of those in attendance.” Also, it is clearly announced at the beginning of the conference, “Please note that media people are not allowed in the conference at any time without the written permission of SMART.” This is also for the protection and safety of those in attendance.

Reply to Recent Posted Article

He states in his article that he heard Neil Brick give a speech at the conference in which he encouraged vigorous debate with skeptics and that it was Neil Brick’s failure to successfully do this which caused the lawsuit.

The actual reason for the lawsuit is Douglas Mesner’s repeated defamatory statements about SMART, the conference and Neil Brick. These include false statements made by Douglas Mesner. These will be presented in court. Some of these are mentioned at our website in the above links. SMART, Neil Brick and others did debate Douglas Mesner on the Internet after the conference and rebutted his arguments.

Neil Brick stated at the conference:

The important thing is to make sure that the victims’ sides of the story are heard. To get their versions of the story out to as many people as possible, so that those responsible for these crimes will continue to be held accountable and so that when children are raped…they will be believed….We need to be our own advocates. If enough of us speak up, we will be heard.”

Mesner continues to make misstatements about Neil Brick and SMART in his recent post. He misrepresents SMART’s position in this article.

He critiques the use of the word “alleged” by a survivor, yet the use of this word in writing is used for legal reasons.

He wrote in a post about the case “The case, not surprisingly, was dismissed…” Yet, the case had just started.

Click here for the rest of the article.

No comments: