Search This Blog

Sunday, October 25, 2015


UPDATE:  Rachel Moran went to a survivor online who had posted a blurb PROMOTING her book, where I had posted a comment under it to the below blog post which is my personal experience, and she threatened to sue HER for slander!   

Way to go Rachel - go and threaten a survivor who has four months of "time" in recovery and is in treatment for severe PTSD right now.  You worthless piece of shit - threatening a newcomer with legal action because you can push her and intimidate her and you don't have the BALLS to stand up to me because you know you're wrong.  

SUE ME FOR DEFAMATION IF YOU'RE SUCH A BAD ASS - I DARE YOU.  You know you can't because then you've have to prove your story is true and you can't.  So you go around threatening newcomers because you can get your way knowing you can't fight me because I'd win because you're lying.  By the way, threats on facebook are not copyright protected.  Once I modify the threat so as to remove this survivor's identity from showing - it will be posted so people can see how you treat other survivors.  Unbelieveable.  


I don't know if people understand what I'm trying to accomplish in this blog sometimes - so let me try and clarify.  I'm not trying to "bash" anyone.  What I am trying to do is show what our experiences are without any spin, varnish, or agenda.  Over the years I've seen many nonprofits go through things that very few people know is happening because it's all covered up.

Any nonprofit that relies upon grants and fund raisers is not going to tell the public the WHOLE truth for fear of losing said money.  Now since we don't rely upon that - I can reveal all the skeletons in a closet and let you see what goes on behind the scenes.  I'll tell you a quick story to illustrate what I mean by that.

Many years ago, I got a call from a staff member working at a teen shelter in NY.  They had a problem they needed help with.  Every Friday night at about midnight a bunch of teens would show up asking for shelter.  A few hours later, their pimps would show up armed demanding their "property be returned" or they threatened to shoot everyone in the place.

Now they had a problem in that if they called 911 - then it would go out on the police radio (this was in the 1980's).  In NY - the press even listened to the police radio meaning the press would hear the call.  If the press heard that armed pimps were showing up at this shelter - then the word would spread and they were worried other teens might be afraid to come there.  Even worse, they were worried if the press got ahold of it their donors would also hear.  The concern was if the donors heard that armed pimps were showing up - then they might not want to come anywhere near their fundraisers.  If they didn't come up with a solution - then they were thinking about not accepting kids who might be prostitutes.

So I asked "what did you do?"  They replied they let the pimps have the prostitutes BUT they wanted to do something else other than let the kids come in at midnight and then send them back to the pimps by 2:00 a.m.  What we did was we set up a relay system whereby if someone showed up saying that a pimp was going to be following them we had a member of our program who was willing to open up their home to them which was a block away from the shelter.

From there - we would then be able to network them into a proper program.  Children of the Night didn't used to be able to afford air fare back then - so to send them there we needed time to raise up the cash for the ticket.  Sometimes we were able to get them into a program in NY.  But at least with this system the kids who had pimps coming after them were able to find help.  This way when the pimps showed up at 2:00 a.m. - the staff let them look around, see they weren't there - and then they left.

Now telling that story isn't "bashing" them.  It's talking about the real life problems programs like ours have.  It also shows our dilemma.  Because it became a problem.  This shelter was out raising  lot of money on the claim of "helping kids".  But when it came to the ones who were trafficking victims - they wanted to refuse them help because of the extra danger and work.  Well we didn't think it was right for them to be raising money to help kids and then them only helping the "EASY" cass.

Then to top it off - are we getting paid for this work?  No we weren't.  Mind you THEY'RE GETTING PAID for work WE'RE DOING.  THAT'S EXPLOITATION.  So basically what we had was their program was raising a lot of money to do the work where we were doing the "hard" work - and we're not getting paid.

When I went to the director about the fact we're doing work they're being paid to do - their attitude was "well don't do it then".  I'm not going to stand back and let a kid get taken back by their pimp.  Now what do I do about it?  Go to the press and risk getting the whole thing shut down?  Well that hurts the other kids.  So herein lies the dilemma.

So I am telling the story for a few reasons.  I'm showing people who run these programs there are things that happen which aren't going to show on the brochure for one.  I'm also showing what some of our dilemmas are.  Because I ask you - how am I supposed to go out and raise money to cover the work we're now doing when the program itself is going to deny it because they have to protect their ass?

Especially when I'm hiding these kids from their now ex-pimp?  Now do you think they want us running around doing fund raisers by saying we need help because we're doing what is "their" work? I'm also explaining how sometimes we do things that cost us money out of our personal pockets that I can't turn into a "kickstarter" campaign (if such a thing had existed in the 1980's).  If I advertise I'm doing this - then the pimps see it and come after us which destroys what we're doing.  See the problems?

I'm now going to tell you a story about the above people not to bash them - but to educate you about what we go through and experience.  The whole thing started when Ruth Jacobs came to me asking for an interview for her "In the Booth".  She was interviewing everyone for this blog.  I asked her why.  She gave me a song and dance about just "wanting to".  I said to her "no one does this for free sweetie - what's the angle?"

She then tells me that she's "writing a book for a trafficking program in England where all the proceeds will go to them for operating expenses".  Beep!  Not good enough of an answer.  Because if this was about them selling a book to raise money for them THEY would be calling me - not her.

I press because she has to be getting something out of this for herself.  She was insisting she "wasn't going to get a dime out of the book" that was to raise money for this program and claiming "pure alterism".

I wasn't buying it.  So I said basically "you want me to tell you my story so you can direct money to another program in the UK is that right?"  To which she said yes . I declined.  I then got called a bitch basically online by her in an attempt to try and shame me into doing this for her but I continued to  refused.

Ruth started telling anyone who would listen "oh Jody isn't going to do it" and "Jody won't help this other group" and that whole petty catty stuff started hitting the phone wires and social media.   I don't think it's being a "bitch" to say that I don't think my story should be used to raise money for another program when I run a program also.

Why would I do that?  She wasn't offering to help sell our books on this website.  She wasn't offering us a cut of the money.  So great.  Leave us out of it.  But no.  She was trying to get me to donate our work and materials so she could generate money for another program entirely along with some other agenda she wasn't being clear about.  Now our traditions speak about how we're "not supposed to affiliate" with anyone else also so I declined.  But it wasn't left at that.  Now I'm getting her attacking us for not supporting her work at no benefit to us and which violates our traditions.  

I'm sorry but if you want to do something that's a "win win" fine.  But to use me to make money and fame for someone else that I get nothing out of - to me that's exploiting me and my work for someone else's profit.  Not interested.

But the heat continues socially about why I'm not agreeing.  So I inquired about whether a percentage could be directed back to our program.  She declined and kept insisting that SHE was donating her work so why couldn't I donate mine?  All well and good but she wasn't having to pay for a hotline, web hosting, an 800 number, printing, postage, mail box rental, etc. on a monthly basis like we were so it's a little different than her blog that's free.  I kept pushing on her to know what the "angle" was to be pressuring me like this and she finally confessed she was going to be releasing a book of her own after this fund raising book.  

Okay now I get it.  I watched her play out her marketing campaign for "Soul Destruction".   She gets to play "hero" and generate a nice big fat mailing list of potential buyers for her first book "In Her Words".  Then after playing the "hero" with all this "generosity" of hers at how she's using this book to generate money for this other program in the UK she hasn't even told me the name of yet  - then she gets to use the same people she's now built up a relationship with to help her book launch and sales of her own for "Soul Destruction".

This way she builds up traffic to her site from people thinking she's doing this really generous act  - and then WHAM - hits them with the sales message for her book "Soul Destruction".  Got it.  Brilliant marketing I thought.  Which I had no problem with.  What I had a problem with was being told that if I didn't participate in her marketing scheme to elevate HER position and put money in her pocket then I get branded a "bitch".

Pimps you see can come in many forms.  I then told her frankly I didn't see why I should help her.  Not like she was a member of SWA or a personal friend.  I mean she didn't come near me until she wanted something from me.  That's when she told me she was an "ex-sex worker" but she wanted to keep "mum" about it.

I agreed to keep her confidence about supposedly being a sex worker herself, and did.  The only reason I'm saying anything now about any of this with her is because she's now made the announcement herself about the fact she supposedly was a sex worker herself at one time.  When I asked her why she was not telling people she was an ex-sex worker - she stated the obvious.  That if she was to be open about being a survivor she wouldn't be taken seriously as an author to get her book released and sold.

In other words it was about money with her.  

So then she starts up with the "maybe I should come to SWA phone meetings" and talking to me like she is interested in our program.  But then she starts saying  she "wants" to come to a phone meeting but she's "busy".  Again she's now released all of this information now herself so I'm not breaking any confidence here.  After her and I talked, made friends, she's saying she "wants to come to a phone meeting"and sounding like she's thinking about coming, so I agreed to a compromise with her based on her being a "sister in recovery".  I wanted to support her dream.  Again, isn't this how pimps operate?  They suck you into thinking they care about you and then ask you to support THEIR dream at YOUR expense.

I was not willing to donate my work to generate money for a program that I didn't even know what they did.  Nor was I to help her build a marketing lead list for her upcoming book.  Again, if I'm not hired to do it why should I?   We have a 7th tradition around here and "special workers" are entitled to be paid so why would I do this for her if she's not in return helping us in some fashion?

It was clear she was doing this so I'd tell our members to buy her book.  Only I wasn't going to tell all of our members to buy her book - especially if she's not really a member.   To compromise - I told her I'd give her an interview for her "in the booth" as long as it had our contact information for Sex Workers Anonymous.  (She'll probably take it down after this is published lol).  She agreed and as far as I know that's still up online.  But I refused to be in the book because none of the proceeds went to benefit SWA.

But keep in mind 'm now being trusted to keep her confidence about being in recovery now.  Shortly into this, I get a call from Jacqueline Homan.  She tells me Ruth Jacobs had contacted her to help a woman calling herself Catalina Lopez.  Now Ruth knows we have members of SWA in England, in Ireland, well for that matter SHE'S supposedly now a member of SWA only she keeps telling me she's "too busy" to come to the meetings when it's time.

Now I can't say any of this to Jacqueline when she calls but I am wondering why would Ruth being now a member of SWA (supposedly), and knowing we have other members living out there, and our hotline is there to help others anywhere in the world - why would Ruth contact Jacqueline about this woman INSTEAD of just calling me and having our program help her?  Why not turn it over to our hotline?  It's not making sense.  I mean Jacqueline was just another recovering survivor - she didn't run a worldwide program nor anything to help other victims like this Catalina was supposedly being so WHY would Ruth call Jacqueline about Catalina INSTEAD of calling OUR hotline?  

But I ask Jacqueline what's going on.  She tells me she's been trying to help this woman in Ireland online for about two hours now to no avail.  Keep in mind in the background that Polaris had just announced they were expanding their hotline internationally while this is going on.  I had been reading that Google and Polaris had just launched some project that basically was expanding into Ireland here in April of 2013.

So I come on the line and say pretty much "so why not call Polaris?" about this Catalina Lopez.  The story I got back was that Catalina was being pimped by her husband who was "friends" with the local police.  That she couldn't go to the police for help for that reason or they would "find out" she was asking for help.

Which was strange because I went online to find that Catalina had gone into each and every Facebook group with respect to trafficking saying she "needed help".  The one answer I kept hearing everyone tell Catalina is "call Polaris".  So if this was a test to see if everyone's answer had gone from "call Sex Workers Anonymous" (as was the case prior to 2002) to now being "call Polaris" - it was clear from Catalina's postings that people are now trained to not call SWA, not call 911, but to "call Polaris" because that's what everyone on line said to her.  I'm not seeing one single person saying to her "Call Sex Workers Anonymous".  

 Which was my suggestion - call Polaris.   They're the ones advertising they help trafficking victims right?  I mean look - our hotline is to help those who can't get help elsewhere.  It's to help those who want help to exit the industry.  I'm not trying to be number one here.  Now if they can't help her - that's another thing.  But if they can - go knock yourself out.

The answer I got back was that Polaris had told her to "contact the local police" who of course were supposedly friends with the pimp/husband so that wasn't an option.  That's why she said she was reaching out to us.  Well first most obvious I did was to say to Ruth "you go get her out of there".   I mean she's right there in the UK and she has friends so why can't Ruth go get her?

Ruth refused.  She said she was "too scared".   Then Catalina says she can't go into England because she'll "lose her benefits" anyway.  So I ask her "what do you want then?"  She says "I need to get into the states".  Well that's going to take paperwork.  I can arrange her a bed in a program here in the states.  I can arrange her a plane ticket.  But to get her papers to get into the USA - we're going to need to get her papers.  I ask her to send me her papers.  She tells me "the husband has them".  So I then said "what you want me to do is get you into the states with no money and no papers?"  To which she said "yes".

She also didn't have a car or money to get to the airport.  I learned this because she had been asking people online to wire her money for cab and/or bus fare.  I then asked the obvious "to go where?"  I mean you get into a cab or on the bus - to "go where?"  Especially since she's telling me she can't go to stay anywhere in England.  She then insists this is why she wants to go into the USA.

Now to double check - I contacted Polaris myself.  They said first of all they couldn't comment and Catalina had to call them for help.  So I asked her - did you call Polaris?  She claimed all they did was tell her to call the police where she's at. Which goes back to the husband issue.  Now seeing her posting all over the internet about wanting to leave - I caution Catalina she's got to stop posting online about what's going on.  The husband is going to see this and get very angry.  If he's like most pimps - if he sees she's online asking for help he'll just take the computer away from her.  Worse he might punish her, take the phone and computer, and then we'll lose contact.

I explain this to Catalina.  I explain that if she keeps talking online about leaving - the pimp will come and cut off her communications and then no one will be able to help her.  She refuses.  Now I'm looking at everything she's saying online - and I can tell that the minute the pimp sees any of this she's going to have her communications cut off and worse if she leaves - he'll know she's talking to us about helping her.  But she won't stop talking about it online for some reason.  She's now blasting all over the internet that "Jody has said she'll help me".

Which means she's not leaving a trail of bread crumbs for the pimp to know we rescued her when she disappears.  That worries me.  The minute she's gone, he's going to go looking, and then finding her posts online, come immediately after us.  But she won't shut up.  I then go back to Ruth and ask her to bottle Catalina's mouth up.  She says she "has no control" over her.  I asked the group admin's to block her.  I mean I'm really worried about leaving a trail he can find.  If she won't stop talking about it - then maybe I can get her removed from these groups where she's posting this information.
Next thing I know I'm being attacked and accused of "trying to run Catalina off line"  That wasn't what I was doing.  I was talking to some people I knew and they were telling me that they had a way to get her paperwork to get into the states for help but they needed three days to get the paperwork together.

One of the members I'm talking to about this case knew a woman who lived in Ireland willing to take this woman to the bus stop and ride with her to the airport.   Okay so I just need three days.  But if Catalina keeps posting online that we're helping her - I'm worried he's going to know right where she's gone.  If I can't get her to shut up - then maybe I can get these group's she's in to remove her to stop her from posting this information.

In return I"m being accused now of trying to "chase her offline" by people who admitted they knew nothing about organizing rescues telling me how to handle this situation.  At that point all I could think of to do was deny it publicly.  I went online and said we would not be helping her to throw off the pimp.  I then contacted her and said we would be helping her, these people said they needed three days, and that was all I was doing was covering her trail so when she did leave the pimp would not know where to look for her.  We weren't in reality denying her help but I felt if I issued a public denial online then at least the pimp wouldn't think she was with us when she disappeared.

When I told Catalina I had found a way to get her into the states - I did not get the reaction I am used to.  She sounded freaked out actually.  But I was then met with all these people online insisting I go online and talk about helping her.  Why?  I had no idea.  I asked these people "do you know anything about  rescue?" to back them off and still no one is listening.  For some reason these women kept wanting me to say that we were going to help her and take her into the states online which I refused because again I'm thinking once she's gone - he's going to go online looking for her and why would I leave a trail of bread crumbs?

I've since by the way learned those "people" telling me to do this were "catfish" people.  They're called "influencers" by video game marketing people.  They're the people who post phony reviews online, or post phony blogs about how much they loved the product, etc.  How do I know this?  I started noticing that I had women like this 20 year old Hispanic woman who had Billy Graham on her facebook page was one telling me how to organize this rescue.  Billy Graham?  So with her I confronted her as being a "catfish".   Her profile then literally transformed into someone else in front of my eyes.  Now at the time - this had never happened to me so I was just learning this on the fly.    But as I went to more and more of these so called "people" I learned maybe two out of 10 were actual real people.   Meaning here I am in what appears to be a group of 50 people.  I have 45 of these people telling me to post "we're helping Catalina escape her pimp" in this group.  I'm saying that's stupid and refusing.  Then they're attacking me saying this is what I need to do.  Only when I started going through their profiles I learned 40 of these so called "people" were in reality "influencers".  The beauty of this is now someone new come into the group and SEES 45 people all telling me I'm wrong and guess what they're doing to then think?  I"m wrong.

Noam Chomsky calls it "manufacturing consent".  Here's information on a famous experiment on social conformity. Here's a video on this.

So what's happening when 45 out of 50 of these people in these groups are all ganging up on me saying I"m not only "wrong" but I need to do things "their way".  Well most normal people will conform.  Only I know no matter how many people tell me to do something wrong - it's wrong.   It is STUPID to post online that I'm helping this woman escape her pimp to the states when in reality all that's doing is pointing a finger at us for her pimp to follow.   But keep in mind this was when I was thinking Catalina was a real victim in need of real help and I'm trying to organize a rescue mission for a woman who wasn't what she was pretending to be.  What was also happening here was it was creating what appeared to be a lot of people saying I was "wrong".

In reality me posting online we were the people helping a victim escape her pimp  endangers us.  I don't want the other woman who is going to ride with Catalina on the bus to the airport to be met with a pimp who has a gun and cop friends trying to stop them because he read online we were helping her to escape.  So to cover our tracks from the pimp - I said online I didn't believe she was a survivor and I wasn't going to help her and I backed up off talking to anyone.  Which then triggered a HUGE backlash from people who were insisting I go back online and say she was "real".

WHY?  I mean honestly - why were all these people trying to get me to go online and state Catalina was a "real victim" when in reality I'm saying to do so would endanger her life and the lives of the people I have coming to help her?

This is where Rachel Moran comes into the story.  I get a call from Rachel when this was kicking up.  She insists that this woman IS a "real victim" and that I need to post such online immediately.  Have I dropped acid?  Why would I discuss a case online in this manner?  I point this out to Rachel that this is NOT how to do a rescue and I have no idea what her training is but this is not how we do rescues.  But I tell her basically I'm not going to go online and state Catalina is "real".  I'm not going to go online and post we're "helping her escape".  Nor am I going to discuss our escape plans for her with Rachel online where again her pimp could then trace the conversation using hackers.

Rachel counters she's "quite experienced at doing rescues" and then drops on me that she's been "talking to Catalina for two years now".  Again, have I dropped acid?  I'm like "you have been doing what?"  She tells me a story of how Catalina has been meeting with her for two years now talking about a rescue and that since she's been doing rescues through her group she's of the belief that I need to go back online and state that I think Catalina is a real victim and that I'm going to help her get into a program in the states.  I repeat to Rachel "why would I do this?"  I also ask the obvious question - if Rachel is "so experienced" at rescues then why has she been "talking to Catalina for two years" and Catalina still isn't free from her pimp?

Then Rachel says "I need you to have your people you're working with contact me so we can work together on this rescue".  I don't know who Rachel is - but I know this.  If she's been talking to Catalina for "two years" now and she's still with the pimp then something's wrong somewhere.  I tell Rachel honestly that I have no idea who she is and the truth - I only work with our people we know and since I don't know who she is - no I'm not going to introduce her to my people so that she can learn who the people are that I know and spent 30 years building up the people that I know.  People who when I told them I wanted to get a woman in from Ireland into the states with no papers and no trail - they said "give me three days".  I mean honestly - why would I introduce these people, break their anonymity, and expose who they are to Rachel Moran.  I mean what's so special here?  Because all I'm seeing at the time if she wrote a book about her story.  Well great for her - but that doesn't show me she knows jack shit about organizing a rescue campaign nor does it convince me why I should have our people break their anonymity to her.

At this point Rachel then says she will drive Catalina to the airport, and that she wants me to get two plane tickets.  She says Catalina won't "travel alone" and therefore I now have to come up with two tickets.  Now I've just pulled one rabbit out of a hat and now she wants me to go and pull a second?  She wants me to go and get her a plane ticket to "tag along"?  Really?  Now why exactly would I want to come up with a second airplane ticket for Rachel to tag along here?  I mean something just wasn't adding up here.

I tell Rachel that I'm going to move forward, there will be ONE ticket for Catalina, and NO ONE but our team will know where Catalina is going but Catalina nor know who our team members are.  I mean how do I know she's not on the pimp's payroll?  A rescue taking two years?  I've never taken two years to do a rescue.  People call.  People ask me to "get me out of here" and I "get them out of there".  I mean two years?  What's wrong here?  Something about Rachel's story wasn't adding up.

As I hang up the phone I can't help but shake how much her voice sounded like Catalina's on the phone.  I commented on this to Jacqueline.  Jacqueline being the investigator she is comes back to me and says "I think you had better look at this".   She shows me screen shots that reveal Catalina and Rachel Moran are speaking from the same IP address.

The phone Catalina and Rachel are each speaking on are both registered to Rachel.  Then Jacqueline sends me a couple of youtube videos of Rachel's TV interviews where her voice sounds different on the youtube than she had on the phone.  When comparing the youtube video with the phone recordings - Rachel and Catalina sound absolutely identical - but when Rachel was talking to me on the phone she had clearly tried to change her voice not thinking I'd go and listen to her voice on a youtube video.  I mean clearly they're trying to pull a fast one here by trying to convince me SHE'S Catalina.

If I have people working on bringing Catalina into the states with no papers and this is a joke of some kind - I got a problem.  This is also explaining to me why Catalina is refusing to give me photos which can be used to put into an ID for her to get her papers to travel to the states.  So I go back to Catalina and confront her with this information.  She completely flips out and insists it's a "misunderstanding" about why she's calling me on a phone registered to Rachel Moran and why she's talking to me on an IP address that's the same as Rachel's also.  All while refusing to give me photos to put into her paperwork we need to get her into the USA.

I go to Ruth Jacobs and ask what she knows about this.   Ruth then INSISTS she has "met Catalina and Rachel and they are two separate people".  Well that really confuses things.  Rachel then steps up and says that she gave the phone to Catalina and that the IP address is the same because she's "using her account to go online".  So I now have everyone assuring me these are two separate women and the rest is just a "misunderstanding".  In the meantime, the papers come through.  I arranged to have someone meet with Catalina to pick her up, drive her to the airport, and I have everyone on standby to take her into the states into a year long program.  I relay the information to Catalina where she is to be.

I then hear nothing.

Now to make sure everything went okay - I have a member of SWA in the bus station to make sure everything and everyone was safe.  This person calls me to say "no one fitting her description showed up".  There was not one lone female anywhere in the station.  This makes no sense.  If you're trying to get away from a pimp and someone is arranging to pick you up and take you out of there - YOU SHOW UP.  In every case I've ever worked on in the past when I say "be at this corner at 3 pm" they're at that corner at that time ready to leave!

Catalina then comes online broadcasting to everyone  she "went to the meeting spot and WE STOOD HER UP". Now why would she lie like this?  I have two choices.  Either this whole thing was a farce to begin with - or her pimp found out and this is a cover story to keep her hostage.

So what do I do now?  For all I know - the pimp might be holding her hostage and she's lying at his demand.  I have her IP address and I have a physical address the phones are registered to.  So I contact the Irish police.  I explain the situation.  Now if this is a matter of corrupt cops - I let them know I'm in the states and I will publish everything that goes down so I need to know the truth about what's going on.  They were very nice and said they had an address for her and would go and check on her to see she was okay.  They also told me something very interesting.

The Ireland police come back to me saying they went to the address of where the IP activity was coming from, and where the cell phone was showing up as being at, and the "address was registered to Rachel Moran".  I'm like "what?"   They even said "the water bill is in Rachel's name".  In other words, the Ireland police are telling me they went and checked everything out and Rachel Moran answered the door at Rachel Moran's house and not only did they speak to Rachel but they are now showing me a utility bill in Rachel's name for the house and assuring me there is NO CATALINA LOPEZ.  That I've been speaking to Rachel Moran.

Okay this is interesting now.  The police went out to check on whoever was in that house.  They told me they sent three officers (yes I have all of this documentation by the way on file here like the phone calls and emails from the police) out to that address.  They said a "man and woman were residing there and the woman is fine".  They supposedly asked the woman for ID.  They further say they questioned her separately from the male and in their opinion she was not being held against her will.  When I asked them to let me know the name of the woman they said "because there was no arrest we can't tell you this - but we can tell you the woman is not being held hostage there and every one is safe".

The minute this is happening Ruth comes at me screaming "how could you?"  I"m like "how could I what?"  She says "you outted me".  I'm like "no I didn't".  She says "but someone I trusted completely says you did".  I tell her I don't know what to say other than I didn't.  I asked her to go online and look for the proof herself.  To Ruth's credit she did.  She comes back shell shocked saying "no you didn't".  I ask why she's sounding so upset.  She says "because I really trusted this person and this means they lied to me".

Was this a concern?  Sure it was.  Ruth was getting a lot of press then.  She was going on TV, radio, public speaking, etc.  People were interviewing her.  She was the "golden girl" of the hour".  She had just launched her book she had been preparing to launch and it was appearing to sell well - but then again everyone thinks she's "one of them" not someone in recovery.  I told her I knew how this would all go away the minute people knew her past and I'd never do that to her.  She told me she "didn't know what to think" now at this point and pretty much stopped calling me after that.  But she did at least know I hadn't "outted" her and whoever this person was lied to her.  It doesn't take a genius to see what happened here was Rachel Moran had lied to Ruth and told her I had "outted" her past as a sex worker online to get her rattled up at me.  Only I hadn't outted her and proved it and Ruth now had to see the truth - which was Rachel Moran was lying to everyone - even her.

In the meantime - I've got a big problem.  Here is a woman claiming to be Catalina Lopez saying I stood her up for a rescue ALL OVER THE INTERNET.  I have a member of SWA telling me "no one showed up" at the meeting point.  I have the police saying the woman at the house was Rachel Moran, the tapes sound like Rachel, the phone and internet are the same as Rachel, but I have Ruth saying she's "met this person" and they are separate women.  So who is telling me the truth here and what's going on?

I make a post asking if anyone else has had any dealings with "Catalina".  I get a response almost immediately.  A woman contacts me from Texas and shows me a YEAR of text messages, phone calls, emails, etc. of this whole story about Catalina wanting to escape and telling me SHE'S been talking to Catalina also.  I asked if she had ever tried to get her out of there and this woman says "yes and every time we tried to make the rescue - she bailed".

Two other people contact me with the same story.  They say they had tried to help Catalina to "escape" but when it came time to pull the trigger - that she had disappeared and then stopped speaking to them.  Now why would this woman be going online trying to be a victim, ask for help, but then not take it?  Some were saying she was asking for money and others were telling me no.  But I did add up the money I had heard she had raised and I got to about $3,000.  Most were telling me she got them for about $20 to $30 at a shot.  I asked these people to send me the receipts and they did.

Okay now you know why my blog entries are long - these stories are very complex and weird!   But if you want to get to the truth about something - it takes time and research.  Because in response to my request to find out if anyone else knows Catalina - I met Gaye Dalton.  Gaye comes to me with an affidavit of her story.  She tells me she doesn't know Catalina - but she does know Rachel.  The story unfolds that supposedly Gaye went to a publisher to print her memoirs.  The publisher asked her if she would speak about being a trafficking survivor.

Now Gaye insists "there is no trafficking in Ireland - we're just a bunch of women without jobs trying to make ends meet".  She tells me the "men don't have enough money to make it worth the traffickers while" and "besides they can just go across the bridge into England if they want something special".

So she said she told them she "would not lie".  They blew her off and she says that Rachel's book appeared as "her story word for word except the trafficking thrown in".  So now I have Gaye saying that Rachel ripped off her story.  That is her word against Rachel's.  Gaye says "no it's not" and shows me affidavits from other working girls, cops, madams and johns from the area insisting that Rachel was never a working girl - but they do know Gaye.  I asked Gaye if she was still working as a prostitute - she wouldn't tell me what she did for money.  But after five minutes of talking to Gaye - I can tell she's a real prostitute anyway.  That I can tell is real.

Now the affidavits from Gaye's end could be forged.  So I asked to see them.  I then went in and checked on them and they were all checking out.  These were madam and motel owners and ex-cops all verifying they had been in the area during that time and never saw Rachel Moran hooking back then.  So I believe no one saw her hooking anyway.

At the same time this is going down - I get a call from a woman identifying as a photojournalist from Finland.  She shows me a portfolio of her work and tells me she's going to do a project where she's going to "photograph survivors and put them into an international magazine and social media".

As the founder of the movement of course she says she wants to photograph me and also five members of SWA.  She also tells me she's going to be photographing Rachel Moran, Beth Jacobs, Theresa Flores, etc.  I check their social media and they're talking about this woman.   But essentially she's saying she's going to do this magazine project with all our photographs in a "Life" magazine style project.

Now I started our hotline and work in 1987.  In all those years, up until 2013 I have NEVER EVER EVER had someone impersonate anyone.  I've never had someone impersonate a victim needing help.  I have never had someone pretend to be a survivor.  I have never had someone pretend to be a "photojournalist" either.   I say that because this woman shows up from Finland supposedly.  She keeps asking me for phone numbers of members of SWA.

I insist she's not getting any until her and I meet and I like her.  She comes into the coffee shop telling me she's staying at the hostel.  Now - who flies in from Finland to stay at a hostel?  Then I notice she's not got a camera on her.  Every photojournalist I've met lives with cameras.  Suspecting something fishy I hand her my camera.  I ask her if she can show me how to use it.  She picks it up like a side of beef.   This woman is not photojournalist.

She's also not taking my picture.  When I ask where her camera is she says "it got stolen at the hostel".  I said "you left it in your room?" To which she said yes.  That also makes no sense.  Some of these cameras are like $1000.  Why would you leave one out in  hostel?  Really smelling a fish I suggest we go out into the red light districts in Vegas that night to take some shots - and she refuses.  I say we should go to Judge Voy's courtroom in the morning - she refuses.

I suggest we go to the jail to ask to interview the prostitutes - and she refuses.  Okay this isn't right.  She then asks me for a # for a SWA member.  I gave her a friend's number - not a SWA member.  I asked her to report back to me what happens - especially when I learn she's now called the friend asking her to meet for coffee.  But she doesn't want to go to the whore stroll, the prostitute court, nor the jail?  What's going on here?

The next day the friend calls me to tell me this woman had told her a whole line of rap about how "crazy" I was, and how "dangerous" I was, and then accusations that I was "threatening" this woman and she was "scared" of me.  I mean what?  I just had coffee with this woman who says she's working on this project and now she's making up stories to tell a woman she thinks is a SWA member about me?

But she had a portfolio.  I go back into that portfolio and there's an app you can scan the internet for graphics.  I run her photos through this app and guess what?  Every photo in her portfolio was bought from a stock photo site.  Not her selling them on a stock site.  She's bought them from different male photographers.  Her portfolio is fake.

Now mind you Rachel Moran, Beth Jacobs, Theresa Flores, and many others are talking about how this woman is coming out to photograph them on their social media.  I think they should be warned the woman is a fake.  I thought they'd be happy to hear the news.

Nope. I basically got batted off.  Now I'm really wondering what's going on here.  I mean if I called to tell you this "photojournalist" had a faked portfolio and didn't know how to operate a camera asking to meet with you wouldn't you be happy someone called to warn you something was wrong?   Only instead these people are acting like it's no big deal.

But the one person who had given us black and white evidence that Rachel Moran was Catalina Lopez was who?  Jacqueline Homan.  Jacqueline is doing a book launch of her own.  Only I notice that Ruth isn't helping her.  We're supposed to be supporting each other right?  So I go to Ruth and say "can't you help Jacqueline?"  I mean she's all over TV, she's being interviewed, and she's the golden girl of the hour - why not bring Jacqueline into the light to help her launch her book? That suggestion didn't go over well.

In fact, the day of Jacqueline's book launch - Ruth GAVE AWAY HER BOOK FREE for the next 24 hours .Which is a great way to totally undercut Jacqueline's book sales.  I don't know about you - but that sure looked like sabotage to me.  I went to Ruth and said it was a shitty thing to do.  Ruth insisted she knew "nothing about it - the publisher did that on their own".  So no "let me make it up to you" there to help a sister in recovery.

It gets better.  I had started making friends with a Lynn Robertson then who said she ran Traffick Jam in the USA.  The day I met Jacqueline she was saying she had "no food in the house".  In response to that - Lynn blocked her from her group and then told me "don't trust her - she's a con artist" when she learned I'd wired her some food money.  I thought that was a shitty way to support survivors and told Lynn that.  You don't turn your back on a survivor, block them and tell people not to help them.  I asked her what kind of "advocate" was she that would do this to Jacqueline?  I mean that is why Lynn was in the group's right?  To help other survivors right?  So why was she giving me this attitude about how "fucked up" Jacqueline was when THAT'S WHY WE WERE THERE FOR RIGHT?  I mean why was Lynn in a group to help trafficking survivors and then when she had one in there needing help she BLOCKS HER?

Lynn's response to my saying we needed to help Jacqueline (as that's what the group was set up for we were in) was to team up with Ruth Jacobs and between them and Lynn's husband and brother - they completely jammed up Jacqueline's book launch.  She didn't sell one book because of (1) Ruth's book being given away on the same day as (2) Lynn, Ruth and family were completely blasting Jacqueline in the middle of her book launch.  Yes in the middle of Jacqueline's book launch - Lynn, her husband and her son came into the room and started just jamming on Jacqueline.  Then anyone coming into the room was seeing nothing but fighting and would then leave without buying a book.  Why should they when Ruth's was giving hers away free.  Ruth who was in there with Lynn and her gang attacking Jacqueline.

With friends like this - who needs enemies?  So I called out Lynn about this and also about this time was when "Turbo" was coming out right after Snoop Dogg had confessed to his "pimping tour".  So I went into Lynn's group at 2:00 a.m. and I posted a call out to boycott the movie until Snoop apologized to the victims of this tour.  At 2:02 a.m. Lynn blocked me from the group and removed my post.  Wondering who does this - I went to the head of Traffic Jam in Canada.  He tells me, in writing, that he "has no idea who she is and he's not associated with her in any way".

So who is she?

From that minute on - Lynn launched into a campaign where I would clock her spending AT LEAST EIGHT HOURS A DAY coming after me.  She started going to group admin's and threatening to "take 1/2 of the group's members with her" if I was not removed.  The admin's told me 'just for  while until she calms down" and removed me saying "come back in a month and we'll put you back".  Like I'd want to belong to such a group!

While this is going on - I now have everything lined up to get Catalina into a plane and into the states. She's just told everyone we STOOD HER UP.  Thank God I record calls!  I go back to Catalina and say "okay maybe you're stressed and misunderstood everything - let's try this again".  I told her I was going to arrange to have a SWA member pick her up at her house, and get her to the airport and voila!  She'll be out.

Then began a series of strange phone calls.  She would say "why are you hanging up on me?" and then hang up the phone on me.  I would call back.  She would hang up on me and then went onto social media claiming I had hung up on her.  Why would I call her just to hang up on her?  This isn't making any sense.  But essentially she started just hanging up the phone on me - and claiming I was hanging up on her.

So I published the calls.  Was I violating the confidence of a victim?  Nope.  I was exposing a con.  She wasn't a member and whoever she was - she was falsely saying we were not showing up to a rescue and we hung up on her.  So I published the recordings of the calls so people could see the truth - she was hanging up on us and lying about us.  Why?  I had no idea.  But I won't be lied about and ruin the name of a group that from what I can see - is the only group who could and did arrange to get this woman out of Ireland and into the states to go into a year long program.

Clearly whatever was going on with Catalina was a con.  That very evening - Catalina posted on her facebook page she was "going into an alcohol treatment program" and that was the last post she wrote.  I checked on her a few weeks ago - and she hasn't posted a word nor changed a photo since.  You'll notice I haven't posted anything about Catalina before now.  A few weeks ago I went to check on her profile.  It had not changed.  I sent an email asking "so how's sobriety?" since her last post was 2013 saying she was "entering treatment".  Her profile has now been entirely removed.  On some weird off chance I was wrong and she was "real" - I gave it two years.  Her profile was removed after I asked "how is sobriety" with no updated posts.  I think I can talk safely about this now.

During this time, the one thing that's been making everything "work" is Ruth Jacobs.  She's been backing up Lynn and Rachel.  They were like the "three mousekateers" in the trafficking groups.  One would say one thing and the other two would back the others up.    When Lynn would ask for me to be removed from a group - Rachel and Ruth would then follow and ask the same.  It was definitely an organized pack attacking in unison or "group bullying".

When Beth Jacobs soon started joining in the mix it became four people attacking in unison.  How does Beth factor into this?  First, Beth was going around telling people that I was back "pimping".  Wondering where she's getting that idea from - I go online to keep finding one fake site after another with the name "Prostitutes Anonymous" on it.  A porn site.  An escort site.  Weekly I'm  having to google our names and have these sites removed under copyright infringement.  Now does anyone ask me?  Nope.  They hear Beth, go look at a site - and I'm branded.

To try and counter this with the truth - I posted my checking statement and tax returns to prove I live on $720 a month in disability.  There's no "pimping" or sex work going on over here.

But I'm wondering what's up with the photojournalist.  While I'm meeting her for coffee in person - I've got these other women working together to attack us online.   I had suspected she wasn't a photojournalist after seeing she couldn't operate a camera.  So why was she asking me to meet and photograph our members then?  To feel her out I introduced her to a woman who I knew was not a member of SWA but I told her this woman was.   She promptly invited her out to coffee WITHOUT ME.  I further gave her a phone number I said belonged to Aubrey but did not.  Aubrey had just testified against the legal brothel's expansion into Las Vegas and won so I knew they were pretty upset.

What happened was strange.  The photojournalist spent the evening with a woman she thought was a member of SWA and told her I was "demonically possessed".  Then threatened her that "unless you want a curse on you then you need to stop speaking to Jody".  As for Aubrey's phone number - she called the woman on the other end.  Then told her I was "threatening her" and "blackmailing her" and I had been "driving her to think about suicide" with my threats.  Threats to do or for what she wouldn't say.  But we recorded the smear call.

Then I got a copy of her cell phone records from a private investigator friend.  I found this woman was calling both Beth Jacobs, Melissa Farley and Dennis Hof.  What an odd combination.  I then confronted her with the phone records, and with the phone recording told her I'd file criminal charges unless she came clean and told me what was going on.

I told her I'd found her portfolio was fake.  Her facebook says "Finland" even though every photo has been bought from different stock sites and different photographers.  I contacted one magazine who told me "oh she's just an unpaid intern here".  So why do this?  Why fly all the way out here, talk about this non-existent magazine article (the magazine publisher said they don't even publish anything like that nor would they), get all these people talking about being in this magazine project, try and pump me for phone numbers - what just to bash me to members?

She claims Melissa bought her ticket, and paid her to go after Beth and the SWA members the way she'd just tried, with the intent being to smear me and chase people out of SWA.  That she had been paid to get to these members and then bash me the way our "ringer" had told us she did.  But why?  She tells me that's "all she knows" and she wanted the "all expenses paid trip to Vegas" so she agreed to do this job.

How does Melissa factor into this?  Melissa Farley who tricked me into helping her prepare a report for the state department - which was then repackaged minus our name - and redistributed as supposedly a report Shared Hope did.  Now how do I know it was the same report?  The quotes.  There were quotes from both Karen Hughes and Lois Lee in the report I had helped prepare and write with Melissa.

I went to both of them when I saw the exact quotes in the Shared Hope version released two months later back-dated six months (thought I wouldn't see that huh?) and both Lois and Karen said "no we did not give another interview to Shared Hope".  Meaning it was the same report, repackaged, backdated and made to appear to be published by Shared Hope.  Essentially meaning I got "tricked" into helping give them credibility off my work.  We had released the report in September of 2007.  Shared Hope didn't give press on it until March of 2008 - but the report they released had been dated August of 2007 to make it appear to pre-date ours.

So it appears that Melissa Farley had flown out this woman because Beth didn't have that kind of money.  Now why?  I went online digging to find out that Melissa's research was the foundation for "Put Out the Red Light" of which Rachel Moran was the main public figurehead with her book that Gaye says was her story - and then I see Ruth Jacobs name on the board.  I also find that most of the money to fund this group came from Ms. Hunt of Hunt Alternatives.   Now things are beginning to make more sense.

I put out a report following the money and the names and such here and letting people know Ruth was on this group's board saying one thing in interviews but part of the group "Turn Off The Red Light" saying another.  Ruth calls me up screaming "how could you say such a thing?" when we released this report tracing the people and the money involved with this whole Catalina Lopez, Rachel Moran, Ireland sex trafficking scam back to her and Swanee Hunt.  

I'm like "what you don't know?"  Turns out  - no she didn't know.  When she had been lending her support to this group and Rachel - no she didn't know it was Hunt money nor Melissa Farley was involved.  That sent her into a tail spin.  I apologized to Ruth because I didn't know she didn't know.

I then published that fact - that when I published that report I didn't know Ruth didn't know the whole story either.  I am a bit of a bull in a China shop - but it does get to the truth!  It also seems to have got the truth out to Ruth also.

So what were Melissa and Beth cooking up?  This was when Project Rose had been starting.  Melissa had come into Nevada in 2006 asking me to be on the board of NCAST and giving me this whole rap to get my cooperation and support by telling me "Gloria Steinem was going to be giving me a large enough donation to open up an office in Nevada" and "Prince was going to make an appearance at the press conference" and anything else she could think of to say to get me up onto that podium at that press conference in 2007.

Yes seriously - Melissa had asked me to "go out and find an office for NCAST" and told me that "Gloria is going to be giving you a check" and even "Prince has said he'll try and come to the press conference to meet you (yes I'm a Prince fan).

The press conference where she hits me with the question right after I got "mike'd" where she says "will you call out to outlaw the whole sex industry" and "will you say sex work is rape" to try and line up for money post-TVRA of 2003.  The conference where when I said "hell no I"m not saying that nonsense" - where she then took the reporters out into the hallway and told them the exact opposite of why I was there that they printed.

So silly me thinks maybe she's pulling the same deception on Beth after I'd wised up  - so I tried to warn her that Melissa was funding this woman and her fake photojournalism con.  It was appearing to be the same thing there in Arizona - they were all making all this noise and trying to get a grant to open a project in Phoenix at the time in connection with Project Rose.

All while lying to me to my face and saying there were NOT holding Prostitutes Anonymous meetings there in connection with that project. For all I know - she's blowing the same smoke up Beth she was blowing up my nose back in 2007.   It looked like she was running the same con on Beth in Arizona as she'd run on me in Nevada - so yes I tried to warn her.  Especially upon finding out this photojournalist had been hired by Melissa.

Why smear me?  Seem Dominique Roe-Sepowitz was also using this gossip to make sure no one called us while she was setting up Project Rose with pesky little questions like why wasn't the founder of the program that had been running in Phoenix for over 20 years up to that point being included.  Well all she had to do was point to the smear campaigns and people not wanting to get involved in the drama would stop asking questions.

Beth's response to me coming to her with this information about how she might be being used for an agenda down there in Phoenix like they'd try to do to me in Nevada - was to stop taking my calls at that point.  Oh she kept up telling anyone who speaks to her I'm a pimp - but she can't say I didn't tell her the information when I found out in an attempt to warn her in case she was being deceived.

It was shortly after this news comes out that Ruth did a 180.  She released to the public she was in fact an ex-sex worker.  That kind of plummeted her from the press as happens.  She was woman enough to come to me and apologize.  Ruth told me she had NEVER met Catalina Lopez and did not have any idea if she was even real or not, let alone she was separate from Rachel.  When I asked why she lied and sided with Rachel over the truth and to bash me - she admitted "because Rachel had played the friend card".   She told me all of this in writing by the way I've saved on disk.  I say that now because about a month ago (March of 2016) Ruth then turned around and claimed she "never apologized for me for lying about Catalina and Rachel".    I reminded her I had this in writing and she blocked me from her page in response.

At which I said "what she's not a friend now?"  Ruth said Rachel was a friend as long as Ruth went along with the agenda.  But when she started having her own opinions that differed - that Rachel dumped her basically.

That's not friendship - that's someone on an agenda and an agenda involving deception.  I did see Ruth's name come down off the board and it appears Ruth's getting involved with animal rescue now to try and let things be forgotten.  I say that because after her apology - she stopped speaking to me pretty much.  Meaning that out of all of these women I'm talking about here - not one of them is a member of SWA nor someone who has asked me for confidentiality.  So I'm not "violating" anything here by talking about this stuff.

Well after getting on their attack list - Jacqueline then went to find out why Lynn was attacking both of us so hard.  Someone sitting down to attack you 10 hours a day isn't a "troll".  That's a "job".   But why all of this?  Why the organized smearing and attacks?  Why fly someone in from Finland to try and find out how to reach our members and threaten them?  Why is someone pretending Catalina Lopez is a real person?

Being a good detective - Jacqueline comes back to me with a screen shot of Lynn speaking to a man who works for Dynocorp in a room she thought we weren't in.  If you don't know who that is - watch the movie "Whistle Blower" on Netflix about Kathryn Bolkovac.    

Kathryn worked for Dynocorp overseas and witnessed their involvement in sex trafficking.  She tried to stop it and didn't have much luck because of their connection to Dick Cheney.  A name in Jeane Palfrey's "Black Book".  A madam claiming she was being forced to be a madam by men in our own government.  When she refused to sell them a woman to be sold overseas - she says they arrested her and then she was also found hung before she could testify also.  With bruises found on her lower legs by the way which weren't mentioned after her body was found.

Now it's making more sense why Lynn seems to have so much time to focus on attacking me, going after Jacqueline, and why the founder of Traffick Jam is saying he "has no idea who she is".  It also makes sense now why Lynn saw a man issuing me death threats online - and she goes and publishes photos of me online for the guy to have!

I mean who does this?  By then seeing she's talking to Dynocorp at 4:00  am in a private room when no one is around - well then it makes more sense why she's chasing me out of trafficking groups, smearing my name, and basically doing everything she can to make me want to just bail.  It also makes sense now why Lynn would come after Jacqueline so hard.  Because her cover as an anti-trafficking advocate was just that - a cover.

Especially when I did a little more digging and the only "activism" I saw with Lynn was her cutting a lot of checks, sending a lot of presents and holding up a sign in a mall.  Someone would have a fund raiser and she'd kick over a $25 donation.  She's writing checks right and left - and everyone she writes a check to is going to side with her.  But what's her job?  She's on the computer all day and says her husband and son are sick and out of work also.  So where's the money coming from for all these checks she's writing?

Because that's what she did with Jacqueline after she told me about Dynocorp.  Before Jacqueline knew about Dynocorp - she was on Lynn's shit list.  But the minute she does know - then Lynn does a complete 180.  She supposedly sent a present to Jacqueline, a check and the next thing I know her and I aren't talking anymore. I heard from Jacqueline "Oh Lynn sent me a present and a check" and that was the last I heard from her.   Good thing I got screen shots, printouts, recordings, etc. to back up every single statement I'm making here because of what happened next.  Because once Jacqueline had the dirt on Lynn and got her writing her out checks - she's now off our radar.

I get a call from the Nevada Secretary of State about a month after I'd last heard from Jacqueline.  He's threatening to lock me up in jail for six months.  I"m like "for what?"  He said "operating a business without a license".  I'm like "what are you talking about?"   He shows me a fundraiser blog that appears I designed it.  However, the paypal button goes to Jacqueline's email.  Okay that's the site - but who made the complaint?

He shows me a letter from Lynn saying she "donated to the site".  The letter than complains that I was soliciting money, I"m not a 501c3, etc.  I tell the guy the truth "that's not my site".  He says "doesn't matter".  He goes on to say "you're operating a business without a license".  I'm like "How?"  He says that "Sex Workers Anonymous is a business and without a license you can go to jail for six months and the Attorney General is willing to prosecute."

Again I feel like I'm dropping acid.   I'm the only program I'm aware of in Nevada since 1996 that is answering a phone 24/7 for Nevada victims.  I've been fighting back to the brothels since the 1980's by myself.  I have managed to help get five brothels shut down and even was a part of getting "Cathouse" and "Gigolo's" off the air from being labeled "reality" and put back on-air more realistically labeled. I'm the one who got the report issued and the press conference in Nevada that is why the ATLAS program was founded and why there's a Southern Nevada Human Trafficking Task Force.  I've been helping women escape pimps in Nevada since 1996 without one dime of state or donated money and in return Nevada want to throw me in jail?

I send over the law to the guy an point out to "be a business I have to be charging".  For which I"m not charging.  He says it's "operating a business".  I send over definition of  a "business" and it says if I'm not making any money then it's a HOBBY.  So I asked him "you going to throw me in jail for a hobby?"  To which he says "The Attorney General is willing to prosecute".  He's serious!  My daughter has got her MRI at this point showing the brain tumor.  So I tell this guy "you do that and I'm going to publish on social media that after all the work I've done for Nevada you're going to come after me while my daughter has a brain tumor."   He goes "you can't publish this.".  I showed him Nevada's consent law and say "oh yes I can".

So essentially I've just been threatened with jail by the state of Nevada for what I do and I threatened him with social media exposure.  Believe it or not - it impressed him.  He says "well you should be incorporated".  I'm like "why?"  He says that Jacqueline could not have easily set up this fake fund raiser if people could look up who owns the group easier which would be done if I incorporated.  I asked him "where am I going to get that kind of money?"

To which he actually said to me "if you incorporate right now - I'll see you get in for the minimum."   Now to me - that's the power of God.  David and Goliath.  I mean this guy at first was coming after me and then he gets so impressed with how I fought him back that now he respects us.  God touched his heart and turned it around!

So I filled out the incorporation papers and thought about filing criminal charges against Jacqueline for the fund raiser.  I mean she had set up this phony fund raiser that almost got me locked up in jail.  I also don't know who else she ripped off.  But for all Jacqueline's faults - I do believe she's a real survivor.  Do I want to come after a damaged survivor?  Thankfully not my decision.  I put it out to the board for a vote.  They said "don't charge her".  She had given us the intel on Rachel and she'd told us about Lynn and Dynocorp.  So we decided to call it even and let it go.

But I'm still left with "what is going on?"

Clearly someone was wanting to bring attention to the fact that (1) trafficking existed in Ireland, and (2) there was no local group that could help someone like Catalina.   It's very clear behind all this catfishing is the fact someone wants people to think there's trafficking victims in Ireland who are not getting the help they need.  I step up to offer the help and suddenly Catalina is saying falsely "oh no one showed up" and then smearing me so people will believe we flaked and not look at our recordings we have showing we did show up ready to get her out of there.

Now could she just have been a con artist going around to people hitting them up for bus fare every day and that's what the scam was?  That doesn't explain why Rachel would go to all this trouble to try and pretend to be her as to get Ruth to vouch that she was a real person.  Someone was also wanting Ruth to think I broke her confidence also when I had not.  So there was something "bigger" at work here.

Could she have been a real person needing help?  Well again we go back to the fact the Irish police were telling me the house was in Rachel's name and pretty much confirmed it was Rachel they spoke to at the house.  So why would Rachel then be asking me to "connect her to my people" who were able to get Catalina out of the country?

I couldn't help but think that 10 years before if anyone asked who to call for help - people used to say "call Jody".  Now it was "Call Polaris" so clearly their PR was working.  Could this be a test to see if their marketing worked?  If that was the case why would she actually have me go to all the trouble to arrange getting her to the states for a year - and then just blow me off?  Maybe it was a test to see who could help a woman like that.  Now if that was the case someone would be pretty happy to see we do and be embracing he - not trying to get everyone to shun and bash me.

Because the whole time I am getting help for her - I'm also having Lynn, Ruth and Rachel going around from group to group getting me locked out.  Lynn is using her checkbook to get people to turn on me.  Rachel is talking about her upcoming book release, and this photojournalism piece and basically making people believe if they want a lot of press - she's the ticket. So why bash me for doing the work we do?  What I do see is that on my Google alerts - I never read anything about trafficking in Ireland before.  I'd never got one call from Ireland before.  So looking around it appears to me that someone is trying to make it appear that trafficking exists in Ireland.

I see this come out in September of 2013-

So yeah - stepping back it appears that these people just wanted to make it appear trafficking exists there.  Maybe it does and the real victims can't step forward.  Maybe they "catfished" a victim because real victims' can't come forward.  If that was the case - I just screwed up their plans by saying "okay well here's your plane tickets and we got you into a program in the states for a year.  Then again I would think that would make them want to know more about what we do.

But the more I was beginning to understand the TVRA of 2003 - because I'm not bashing the industry well then I can't be embraced.  Because that's a huge difference between what we did prior to this "hijacking".  We didn't exclude men, the LGBT, Jewish people (Jacqueline was proof of that), etc.  I think that's why Ruth had gone online putting out the alert about Catalina rather than contacting me.  The plan didn't include anyone actually helping her.  I saw what people's response was "Call Polaris" and then they'd run!

Now before this whole thing - Polaris had not been answering their hotline in Ireland.  Gaye said there "was no trafficking in Ireland".  I went onto Google news and I couldn't find anything about trafficking existing in Ireland.  I did talk to Ruth and she told me that yes basically Ireland is so poor that there's really not the market for traffickers over there.  Not considering the financial state of the men over there.  She also pointed out it was easy to find prostitutes by "just going over the bridge" if they needed one and couldn't find it in Ireland.  I had now spoken to the people who gave the Affidavits about not knowing Rachel and they were saying 'no trafficking exists in Ireland".

So while Catalina is running all over the internet saying she's a "trafficking victim in Ireland" it got people to wondering.  Of course the timing of the hotline and Google expanding into Ireland I'm sure was coincidental with this whole cockamamie plan.   But I know what I saw in my "Google Alerts".  I'm not seeing one word about Ireland before this.

Then suddenly at the same time as this I start seeing article after article.  I start seeing news about "trafficking busts".  But even they were weird.  I was reading that a trafficking ring goes into Ireland in some pub somewhere.  Then a task force shows up at the pub at the same tie and arrests them.  I mean I can't help but think it all looks staged.

To see if my theory is right - I start calling the people in the articles to check it out.  Like there was one at a pub.  I call.  On this one the owner says that these people showed up and the cops showed up and there was a bust.  He said it looked staged to him too.  On others, I'm calling the cops to ask about an arrest I'm reading about and asked them about these arrests and they told me they "had no idea what I was talking about".  Now I've been getting a lot of that in this movement lately - whenever I call to check on stories anymore I"m finding they're fake.

Now with some reporters - you let them know something they wrote isn't true and some will correct it.  I read about "the first boys' home in the country" opening in Florida a few days ago.  I went to the ABC reporter with links to other homes and said "this isn't true".  The reporter corrected it immediately.

However, I also find that some reporters won't change it - not a word - when you tell them the story is false.  They won't print an update nor a retraction either.  Even though with digital news now it's a piece of cake.  ABC just did it a few days ago about this house in Florida.  But I start finding these news stories about "trafficking rings in Ireland" only when I'm double checking on them - I'm not able to do so.  But a lot of it is a lot of press and hype.

Here's an example -  Read this here carefully.  You'll see a big brass band, a lot of noise, a lot of lights, and a lot of talk - but when it comes to real life Irish victims - I'm not seeing it.  Like I'm reading about a Grinder campaign.  I'm reading about a billboard campaign.  I'm reading about human trafficking victims.  I'm reading about victims in other countries.  But when you really scan through here looking for an actual trafficking victims other then Rachel - it's really slim pickings.

Gaye Dalton never became a member of SWA - but she was someone I thought was a "friend" for a while.  When Rachel would have a book signing - Gaye would come tell me about it and together we would blast her over the story being ripped off.  I honestly didn't suspect a thing until this whole "8 Minutes" thing came up in April of this year.

Here's a woman I thought was a personal friend for about two years now who is being approached by Norma Jean Almodovar, Domina Elle and Maxine Doogan.  They're asking her to join in the bashing they created at  Now keep in mind I've now done "joint attacks" on Rachel about five times now with Gaye about her story being ripped off so honestly I'm thinking there's "no way" Gaye is going to join in this attack.

I say that because they had made  post online asking for anyone with anything "bad to say" to come forward.  NO ONE DID.  So they were getting desperate and knew Gaye and I were friends.  So they started pressuring her to attack me since they couldn't find anyone else.

What happens?  Gaye bows to the social pressure these women put on her and she turns on me like a plastic bag in the wind.   As I'm standing back and looking at all of this trying to figure this out - I see them doing to me now the EXACT same thing they'd done to Rachel Moran.  The attacking in "three's", the teamwork, etc.

I then realize that I actually never made a point of going to Rachel and asking her side of the story.  Maybe everyone in those affidavits was lying - because I'm sure seeing them lying now about me.  Maybe the people who made the affidavits were "catfish" because the people I'm seeing attack me sure were.  When the shoes on the other foot - I can't help but see that these people had gone after Rachel Moran in the same identical manner as I just had them come after me.  Right down to the bogus "testimonials".

Rachel had "affidavits" from people saying they "never saw her in the field then".  I'm now looking at a website that has completely false "reviews" that are absolutely untrue.  Every one of them is either a fake person or a fake statement.  I then realize no one creates a system like this for just me.  I'm not that important.  This has to be a system that exists.  I then sit down and look and every single tactic that had been used on Rachel Moran to claim her story was false had been identical to what is now being launched at me to attack me.  I mean the accusations against me are so wildly false it's downright laughable!

What's worse is I was seeing how Gaye had wound me up to help in the attack against Rachel which had been done in the same exact manner.  As the whole "8 Minutes" unfolded - I saw the same thing.  I saw these people go to other people who didn't know me very well, on the fringes, and they whipped them up into the attack also.  No - I can see clearly that this is a system.  It's the system that was used to attack Rachel and it was the same system used to attack me.

Now does that mean that Rachel didn't rip off Gaye's story?  I realized I hadn't read Rachel's book.  I had read bits - but not the book.  Now as people are attacking me - I'm saying the same thing to them - I'm saying "if you'd read our book you'd know that's not true".  For example, these people were claiming we're a "religious" program.  We're not.  They're saying that there are no "trusted servants" in SWA - only there are.  I just answer the phone.  In our meetings - we have lots of members with service positions.  These people wouldn't know that because they couldn't get past our security into meetings to find that out.  Now why would I have "trusted servants" around to answer the phone?  As I'm batting people off who are being totally ignorant - I find myself saying 'you know if you read our website, or read our book - you'd know that none of this is true".

As I'm doing this - I realize I haven't read Rachel's book.  I sat down and wrote Rachel an amends.  Now I don't know what's up with the whole Catalina thing - but I do know this.  I did attack Rachel's book as "fake" after only reading excepts and after taking Gaye's word and reading some affidavits.  After what I'd just witnessed - those affidavits could be entirely faked because they went to just as much trouble to slam me.

So I went out and got Rachel's book and read it.  Now Gaye says that its' "her story" twisted up to appear to be about trafficking.  But that it's "her story word for word".  Now I got to tell you - I've never in 54 years of living seen a real "friend" turn on someone as fast as Gaye turned on me.  Not after the way I defended her story and attacked Rachel on her behalf.  I then asked myself had I "skyped" with Gaye to speak to her in person, met her in person - or did I just rely upon a photograph to build a friendship with Gaye?

I'm not liking it but I'm checking off tic after tic that it appears what I just had done on me to smear me seems identical to what's going on with Rachel.  Like I am telling people "read my book and you'll know that's not true" I realized I hadn't read Rachel's book all the way through.  So I went out and read Rachel's book.  I also wrote Rachel an "amends" for attacking her without doing more extensive research first.  I acknowledged I went off on her and attacked her without having read the book first.  Nor really digging DEEP into these affidavits.  Whatever the Catalina thing was - it's separate from the book.

Because here's what I saw.  I just had a smear campaign led by Domina Elle that took WEEKS and hours and hours and money and trolls just don't do this.  Not even crazy people.  Same with Lynn.  These people are PAID to do this.  There wouldn't be time in the day for them otherwise.   Here's a company who even advertises they have "influencers"    If a marketing company would do this to sell chicken - then I imagine when there's millions involved in grant money and politics also involved - then there's influencers.

I go back and look at these affidavits and ask myself "who would go and spend this much time?"  Then frankly I could see Gaye doing this to build a lawsuit.  Okay where's the lawsuit?  Certainly I would sue the hell out of her if it was me.  That was what I thought the affidavits were at first.  But no one is suing her.  Why not?   Again I realize I need to read the book.

Gaye - you claim you weren't trafficked and that Rachel "ripped it off" with throwing in the trafficking spin.  Here's my opinion of Rachel's book.  It's a complete work of fiction.  Entirely.  I have been a working girl and I don't buy one word of Rachel's story.  So if that's Gaye's story - then Gaye's full of shit.

Boy this rabbit hole gets deeper all the time doesn't it?

The moral of the story?  We live in a "catfish age".  Unless you physically meet someone - you don't know who they are.  And if someone is coming around building a campaign against someone - it's for a reason.  We can't rely on the media anymore . I grew up with Walter Cronkite.  I've had to get through my head the media LIES.  They now have the legal right to do so since 1995 and since Fox won that lawsuit for the right to lie to us.  To be able to fire a reporter for not knowingly saying a lie.

I do believe Rachel is the victim of "gang stalking".  I don't believe her story in her book.  I do believe her and "Catalina Lopez" was the same person.  What goes around comes around.  She "catfished" to deceive and attack and I also jumped to conclusions without proper investigation - and then it got done to me also.

But in defense to myself - again I have never ever had people lying about any of this stuff prior to 2013.  I've never had people lying about being victims, survivors, photojournalists, etc.  We've never seen a Samoly Mam or Bill Hilliar before - but then again there wasn't money in this work until a few years ago.  Now money is on the table - people are going to lie.

Take a good look at the Tobacco industry.  They lied for years!  They testified at Congress - no we're not addictive and no we don't cause cancer.  Anyone who sued them - got smeared.  Anyone coming out with research against them - got smeared.  Watch the movie with Al Pacino about the "Insider".  I watched that unfold and I remembered wondering if the major media would report the truth or not.

Because guess what?  The tobacco industry spends a lot of money on advertising!   Take a real good look at what they did to that Russell Crowe played just for trying to reveal the truth.  Now realize big Tobacco is LEGAL.  It has NONE of the taboos sex does . But now we got federal recognition and now there's money in this field - people are GOING TO LIE.

I feel sometimes like I created a Frankenstein.  Look my goal when I started this movement was two major goals in mind.  The first is I wanted sex workers and victims to be able to call the police without fear of being arrested and to be taken seriously.  When I'd call the police in the early 1980's - they would laugh or get angry and hang up on me!  So I wanted us to be able to call the police for help was one goal.

The second goal was I wanted us to be able to get proper mental health, and even physical health, treatment, by an educational system that actually taught about us.  The only thing I was seeing in psychology and social work text books was maybe one paragraph about junkie prostitutes.  That was it.  I had started having anxiety attacks after I kept seeing women being sold.  We had a team of guys storm the warehouse with AK47's.  I mean the stress was insane .I started having fainting spells from anxiety.

So I started to go see a counselor - and I got all kinds of crazy reactions.  I had the one who wanted to lock me up for "observation".  When I asked why he said "because nothing like this is real".  Well check him off the list.  Then I had the one who got excited and offered to "take out the session in trade".  I had one give me Librium.  Well pills weren't going to address that I was involved in Iran Contra for God's sake and driving a truck full of cartons of cocaine was stressful!  I made this one delivery to a house in Glendale of these boxes.  Then they told me to "wait for my money".  I got antsy and left.  They said "you'll miss the money guy". I said "I gotta go" and ran off.  I get home and I turn on the news "9 people massacred in drug deal".  I mean where do you go with that?  Therapists who don't believe that's real?  So I wanted that to change.

I was told by people like Tom Bradley, Sheriff Block, California's governor, etc. "once we get federal funding" then "everything will change".  I was told that all the funding these programs needed to cover would happen.  I was talking to Attorney General's telling me they could pay for housing, counseling, etc. of survivors if there was a "federal recognition".  That's all I focused on the whole time until the Trafficking Act of 2000 was passed.

So now all these lobbyists, and these agendas, and these media campaigns, etc. are just beyond me.  I had no idea this would come after.  But I do know this - when this team of cyber-bullies came after us and when I was gang bullied and stalked by these same women as Rachel  - our defenses held.

They couldn't get past me to get to any actual members.  Everything they wrote is a complete fabrication or distortion.  The truth always comes out.  That said -  I don't think Rachel stole Gaye's story any longer like I used to.

If Gaye stole Rachel's story - why hasn't she sued?  Gaye hasn't sued because Gaye is an "influencer" they hired to bring some controversy to Rachel knowing it makes more people read more books.  But it's a funny world we live in where Rachel's book has sold more than our "Recovery Guide" which was written by survivors for survivors on how to recover in 1992.

I will say one thing - I've seen now how the propaganda machine works.  It works when people don't talk to each other and they don't do research for themselves.   Me too. I didn't know Rachel well and Gaye comes in talking to me and gets me wound up at her to join in the attack.  That's how it works and they played me well.   Well another lesson learned.  

I'm publishing this not to bash anyone - but so that those working in this field get to see what's going on behind the scenes.  I mean who am I going to alienate?  The members of our program say what attracts them to SWA - is my honesty.  Even when I've been a dumb ass!

So moral - when someone is coming at you with "proof" of something to turn against someone else - you check it out very carefully.  Who is behind it?  Actually, it just taught me more the wisdom of the 12 steps. I should have stuck to my side of the road and stayed out of all of it!  I stepped out of the 12 and 12 guidelines - and wham!

So I'm going back to "carrying the message" and sticking to our side of the road!  I made my "amends" as best as possible to Rachel because I don't really know if she did or did not write the book for a fact and the truth was it was none of my concern.

I mean what a learning experience right?

As for trafficking in Ireland - I found this article dated 2013 when all this was going on.

Not before 2013.

Not after.

Not until five days ago talking about the same story and "Turn Off the Red Light" in connection with it.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the "call for compensation" for the "victims".

Polaris has opened a hotline there.  I called asking if they wanted to talk about the call we get and was rebuffed.

So a hotline not interested in calls from victims.  Hmmm.  But hey it appears to be making a lot of money for people - so none of my business.  As long as they stop bashing me to do their work - it's not my business.  My business is helping those who call for help.  Not exposing fraud.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.