“Those damn twitter messages will get you every time Katie, every time.” – Chrisley Confessions (Todd Chrisley)
Even though I said I didn’t want to write a part III about the continual saga of Katie Joy Paulson, Aka Without A Crystal Ball (WOACB), as I would much rather write a blog about philosophy, I feel morally obligated to write a part three…which I guess is, of course, technically philosophical. A self-imposed obligation, that I put on myself to try to help others recognize patterns of behaviors which are both problematic and dishonest, as well as help them see how dishonest agents attempt to manipulate people via social media. Same tactics that are often used to manipulate the legal system, for dishonest people to get what they want, regardless if what they are saying happens to be demonstrably untrue.
So apparently, me wanting to distance myself, once again, from her drama and onslaught of continual misinformation, poor reporting, false allegations, and what I consider to be full on delusional behavior, wasn’t sitting well with her…so she, once again, decided to come up with a whole new batch of crazy tweets. Shockingly, once again, not only did she fail to provide a single solitary shred of evidence for her accusations, and I, once again, have evidence to show that she outright lied in regards to the things she was claiming. Are you all beginning to see a pattern here yet?
The other night I had a “summit” of sorts of various content creators to discuss how to detect problematic behaviors and address claims made by perfidious individuals who consistently seem to make bold statements asserted as fact, with no supported evidence to substantiate those “facts” . During that stream we were making a point that when you see people making outlandish claims, you should wonder why they are not ever providing evidence for that claim, or worse, why they are blocking anyone who does ask for evidence for their claim. No one has an onus, nor is it incumbent upon anyone, to provide exculpatory evidence against an unsupported or unsubstantiated allegation. That doesn’t mean though you can’t…
Claim #1 – “The lawyers were like shaking their heads- none of them had ever worked with a narcissist like him – one said “he’s the worst malignant narcissist I’ve ever seen in my career””
You can go to look on Twitter and see that this comment was under a post about me, so I think it is a quite fair assumption to assume she was talking about me. Going back to the “summit” stream I had the other night, another thing we discussed was the term “projection”. According to Psychology Today projection is understood as “the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object”…and according to Katie Joy, I have tried to convince people she is a narcissist. Convincing someone she is a narcissist isn’t all that difficult when she has herself admitted that she does not like being a narcissist:
“I don’t like being a narcissist.”- Katie Joy Paulson 
Her claim, in my opinion, is a classic example of projection. She of course, did not provide any evidence that any lawyer at any time told her such a thing, which is her standard modus operandi not to provide evidence. We can also look at the facts of the matter and apply some logical process of elimination in regards to her claim. In Katie’s HRO lawsuit against me there were only two lawyers on record. Mine and hers. I had never spoken with her attorney directly, as that just isn’t how it works. I hired a lawyer to speak for me. But let’s assume you don’t believe me on my claim that I never spoke to her attorney directly, I think it is reasonable to say I did, in fact, speak to my own lawyer. All lawyers are required to represent their client to the best of their ability. It is further established as fact, that Katie Joy, in the dismissal of the HRO, alluded to her intent of filing a defamation suit against me, which never came to fruition as put out as a prior statement by both myself and Mrs. Paulson (see NDA agreement below).
So, one has to ask themselves. Would it therefore be reasonable to think my lawyer, who is there to represent my best interests, make such a negative comment about me…especially when there is possible further litigation dealing with claims of defamation? Especially when the main reason the TRO was dropped was because Katie Joy wanted further litigation, and my lawyer made it very clear to me that I had a defamation case against her? Unlike Katie Joy, I am more than happy to show people evidence of my lawyer telling me this to those who want to see my communications with my attorney in private. I doubt Mrs. Paulson affords her subscribers, Patrons or fans that same opportunity. Perhaps, I will one day make those communications public at some point…but I would like to see who comes to me directly wanting to have the facts from the primary source, rather than her subscribers who blindly accept her statements as fact, even when clearly asserted ipse dixit.
Email from my attorney, dated Monday, Jun 22, 2020, 12:04 PM
“If we can still get this HRO dismissed and put you into a defamation action against a public official, that is absolutely the right move.”
So, if it is reasonable to assume my attorney did not say this to her, and if you are willing to accept I never spoke to her attorney as all communications generally take place through our respective lawyers…then who are these “lawyers” who were “shaking their heads”, and which lawyer supposedly made such a comment to her? While, perhaps not a breach of any code of conduct…it does seem like some rather oddly specific phrasing from a lawyer: “malignant narcissist”? Worst in their career? As noted before, to me, this seems like pretty obvious case of projection.
Claim #2, #3, and #4: The NDA wasn’t to protect her image, she didn’t dismiss it because a judge wouldn’t extend it, and that my lawyer fired me.
Three claims in one tweet, she sure packs them in doesn’t she? As to claim #1, that the NDA wasn’t to protect her image. I grant there is no objective fact of the matter to be had there, however I do strongly think that there is a more than reasonable inference to be made while looking at the objective facts.
The first draft of the NDA, drafted by both attorneys, did not include any clause about “defaming” or “disparaging” the other party.
As I have explicitly have stated on the record here, I will show my subscribers, Patrons, or fans who honestly ask to see the original emails. They just need to contact me directly (Sea Lions and trolls need not bother to ask) to set up a time to go about showing them directly from my Gmail. An email from my attorney, dated Jun 19th, 2020 9:31 AM:
There is no reference to the VAWA in the Judge’s ex parte order. In my opinion, Mrs. Paulson does not want to go through with the TRO hearing, but she will if we don’t give her a little more in the confidentiality agreement.
Here is what they have requested:
- mutual agreement not to contact the other party or comment on their online profiles/pages/channels
- mutual agreement not to speak about the other party
- mutual agreement not to disparage the other party
- mutual agreement not to defame the other party
Do you agree to any of these? Please advise ASAP.”
*THEY REQUESTED*. Let me repeat that again *THEY REQUESTED*. I think that my belief that the TRO was to protect her image is more than well justified opinion. Also note, that one of her prior claims that the judge had supposedly reviewed all of her “evidence” and it was so egregious (my word that seems to fit) that the judge filed the case under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)…that was a demonstrable lie which can be objectively verified by just go reading under what the conditions the VAWA would apply, none of which would apply to me. My lawyer explicitly notes that “There is no reference to the VAWA in the Judge’s ex parte order. “, as I have said all along that what she claimed was an outright lie. Some may additionally recall that I also said that I believe that Mrs. Paulson did not want to go through with the TRO, and I based that not just on the unbelievable lack of evidence she to provided to the court, but also given my lawyers opinion that “Mrs. Paulson does not want to go through with the TRO hearing”.
My response, dated Fri, Jun 19th 2020, 9:34 AM:
2 Not agreed
And again there has to be a termination time of 1 year or end of civil case.
I have no desire to speak about Mrs. Paulson, except she makes factual errors in her reporting and I will not give up my right to point them out to people.
What do you suggest?”
Some additional things to note here. I only suggested a 1 year termination date, or end of civil case (which was which ever came first), but my initial request was to be only 3 months. Her side rejected that offer, which is why I agreed to 1 year due to the pending further deformational litigation. Email dated Fri, Jun 19th, 2020, 7:14 AM:
“I reject the privately completely. I am fine with no public comments, but will not limit myself to silence privately to people I trust especially those with legal backgrounds.
I also request a termination date of gag order not to exceed 3 months.”
I do have a bit of a mea culpa here. On Twitter someone a while back said there was a “gag order”, and I said there wasn’t, as I was thinking a gag order was that we could not speak about each other at all as ordered from the judge, but my lawyer was able to convince them not to have that part of their request in the NDA, and it was not in the final NDA, which did allow for commentary by me as I have always said, if Mrs. Paulson had incorrect facts or put out misinformation. Upon review of my emails, I realized that the term “gag order” could be applied with a limited scope of merely not discussing why the TRO was dismissed, which I can say I *strongly* believe was because both Mrs. Pauslon, and her lawyer did not want her going in front of a judge with her complete lack of evidence, false assertion that the judge had filed it under the VAWA, and it that was indeed all to just try to protect her image, not to protect her safety as she claims. I did apologize to that person on Twitter, and want the record to be straight.
I will be at some point comparing her affidavit to her “evidence” to show the huge incongruity between the two…but if you can’t wait for that, and even if you can, I highly recommend watching ECKPeopleSuck’s video who does a very fair job at comparing the her allegations in her initial affidavit, as compared to what she actually submitted to the court. .
To claim #2, that they didn’t dismiss it because a judge wouldn’t extend it…correspondence with my attorney seems to me at least imply otherwise. Jun 17, 2020, 6:23 AM:
“Good morning Steve,
No affidavit here. It will be live testimony.
Also, late yesterday the judge denied the continuance request. So we are proceeding as-scheduled.
My plan is to finalize your defense this afternoon. Are you around/available if I have questions?”
Again, I think a fairly reasonable inference can be made that the judge, who according to my lawyer denied their continuation request, at least played some part in dismissing the TRO, as we were more than prepared to go to trial. I still have half a dozen or so Google documents of evidence that I have not released publically yet, but I assume I will at some point. As I said in a prior blog entry, I wanted a hearing. I wanted my day in court. It was Mrs. Paulson’s side who asked for a continuence, not ours. Email from attorney dated Jun 16th, 2020, 9:44 AM:
“Good morning Steve,
Below please find a link to a letter sent by Ms. Paulson’s attorney to our assigned judge. Opposing counsel asked me for a continuance and I objected, citing the hindrance on your free speech.
I’ll let you know when I hear what the judge decided to do with this request.”
In regards to Claim #3- “Tell them how your lawyer fired you for being such a jack wagon & narcissistic <sic>”
This is an example of Katie Joy taking someone else’s story, and making it part of her own life…something I have seen her do often. In my court case with Kyle Curtis (with whom Katie formerly co-hosted on my channel), and it was *his* lawyer that “fired” him (she withdrew from case) citing rule 1.16b (1)(4)(7)(10), which essentially means a lawyer has a conflict between their obligation to their client to maintain privilege, and their duty to the court to present factual information. It has been effectually established, by subpoena, that Kyle had submitted altered documents to the court, as well had numerous instances of lying under oath in both his depositions and in his affidavits.
If my lawyer had withdrawn, there would legally be on record such a request to the court for him to withdraw as my counsel…and I assure you no such request was made, and, once again, Katie Joy failed to provide any evidence to this claim. He is still my legal counsel on that case on record, however, for whatever reason I am unable to even find this case anywhere online. Perhaps Wright County doesn’t provide such a service, but if you are able to find it, the case number is 86-CV-20-2519.
I am still in communication with my attorney to this day, which is odd for someone who supposedly “fired” me. I recently asked him if I could disclose Mrs. Paulson’s “evidence” which was filed under “confidential” with the court, dated Jul 1st, 2021, 12:00 PM:
“Generally, with the NDA expired (it was valid for one year from June 22, 2020), then the terms of the NDA are satisfied and any restrictions on disclosure are lifted. So as a general rule, any information that you possess, that was legally obtained, may be disclosed.”
Katie Joy provides, what I believe, to be textbook examples of many of the things I discuss online as far as problematic behaviors, so I am not even at this point going try to convince myself that there won’t be a part IV to all of this, as it is in her nature to lie as a self-admitted gossip or “tea channel”…but I still much rather be writing blogs about philosophy. Much rather.
 FBI + Katie Joy Paulson + on the Lam(b) = OPEN CREATOR SUMMIT
 4 Ways Mommy Blogging Disrupted and Harmed My Life- Oct 9th, 2018
 I Got More Records & You Won’t Believe How She Lied to the Court Last Year!
 In Mrs. Paulson’s “evidence” that she submitted to the court, there was not a single submitted piece of evidence that I doxed her, threatened her, sent any death threats, sexually harassed her, “made any harassing phone calls”, “sent harassing text messages”, or “took pictures of the victim without permission”…all of which she claimed in her initial petition for her TRO.