Laura Wamelink Haggarty & KatyDidsCards & Etsy.com Etsy.com And Laura Wamelink Haggarty Market Images Of My Child Abuse. W Berry Kentucky

This proves fraud since the image of the boy standing is a digitally fabricated and modified image, look at the leg of the chicken and the body overall.  The chicken is added later as an overlay to the photo with the boy standing at the pedestal.  This is aggregated with the first photo on the Libraries and Archives Canada website.

Since Laura is not willing to defend her slurs I thought I'd cite her reply again and speak to it point by point:

"None of what this person is posting about me is true."

Seems all of it is true since you admit the address is right, your store fronts are right on Etsy and Facebook etc, and that you are marketing this image as you claim you have the right to do since you purchased that from some place in Canada. That is akin to Paying a Chinese book dealer for the right to market the Apple Operating System. That is a fraud on the face of it.

"He tried posting this insane nonsense on his own website and when I complained his ISP had the page taken down."

Not only did I try but I have succeeded in doing just that. This seems to indicate that Laura can now claim I don't know how to do that. I do. I can do FAR more than that. Again Laura drives into the ditch again with the want to use and attempt to prove the word "Insane". A fraud and coward's offer to begin with. Slurs related to skills and incompetence and offers that her's are far superior to mine. I doubt that. Appeal to authority and ad hominem again. Proves her at fault overall now.

She claims she complained, that matters not and she has to pay and speak to me directly and an ISP can't do a darn thing for her. Why would they? And why does Laura defend this error that was NOT HERS to begin with so hard? If you are NOT willing to see what is likely someone else's mistake then you will never fix or admit yours Laura. I'd not be around you let alone do biz with you ever.

"I did nothing wrong."

Yes you have and you proved that here with your word. Your statements here are impossible logically for you to know let alone prove and are on the face false bald face lies. My offers to cite your work which you admit here and to cite this document which you admit to selling are ALL TRUE FACTS I offered about you and you admit them. Then you say all I said is false and then make slurs about me personally. Insane? Yes YOU are.

"I did not do any of the things he accuses me of."

You did that and more now here.

"I purchased the rights to use the image in question from the Library and Archives Canada, who own the original image, which is from a Parisian photographer and which was taken in 1920."

They don't own the image, and you all disagree on where it was made and who the person is and neither of you can prove that. Canada had no right to market it to you. Even if they did I revoke it. Since the image is of me and you can't prove otherwise. Canada has no jurisdiction in the matter in USA. Mostly now since they and you broke the law.

And with that you prove you wrong since this is what I also said which you now admit is true. It gets back to : ["None of what this person is posting about me is true."]

"The image has nothing to do with this person."

That is a position you can not offer as being true. Maybe you are partly right but I took the photo? For instance. You won't know since you have no witness. Your logic is wrong.

"It is not of him."

You won't know that, see your next statement below. And you can never prove or know that.

"I do not know him."

Correct and you don't know the boy in the photo or who took it. You admit you have no witness and no proof and can NOT make any claim otherwise as you are doing now. Your task is impossible.

"He refuses to use his real name because he knows I will sue him for character defamation."

That is also false related to use of my name. You won't know that or my real name either since you don't know me. I don't need to divulge that to you ever. And you won't sue anyone, you are going to jail. There will be no legal action against me possible and certainly not from you Laura. These people can contact me and since you are a computer expert and I am a fool you know how to serve papers on me. It won't happen.

"He uses a false name on his ISP registration"

Also false. My real name is all over these proceedings and I file complaints and use networks (WWW means what?) all over the globe. Now what?

Continues... "..., a mail drop mailing address, and the ISP is in Cyprus (despite his mailing info being in Texas.)"

So what? The school in my home town uses a PO box and you likely do also. Means nothing. I use a mail drop? Do I? What is a mail drop? Prove that. More slurs akin to "insane", you are full of crap lady. Prove a point related to defending your position and stop making slurs about my personal life that you can't know or prove.

"This person is doxxing me, posting my address and phone number. Totally wrong and potentially illegal."

So you admit you lied here also and that the information about your business and location are correct and that you market this image online as you have done for some time. OK great. Now we know how to arrest you.

So "doxxing" is a word proving you an expert? At what? Is that like "Meds"?

You are a quack lady.

"This is totally false. Please remove this immediately."

Too late. You proved me right and you wrong.

Laura Wamelink Haggarty makes this statement and claim :

"The image has nothing to do with this person. It is not of him."

She can not know that or make that claim or prove it.

She is wrong.

The image is of me.

She goes for too much again and then hopes to prove that by making other specious claims not associated with the proof of that overall or foundational issue.  Who is that boy?

Then she claims she is proven right by the fact she claims she made a complaint and someone acted on it.  I have no knowledge of that and that is also false.  Either way she is wrong  And her statements here do not prove her right or support that end.  They in fact prove her wrong.

Logical fallacies so far are:

Ad Hominem  - Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

Appeal To Authority - Using the opinion or position of an authority figure, or institution of authority, in place of an actual argument. 

Composition / Division - Assuming that what's true about one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it.

Point is that Laura can't claim or prove who is in the image nor can Canada.

And they disagree and prove they don't know who the photographer is, where it was taken, and who the boy is.  One says Quebec the other France and other sources disagree in same ways.

Outside sources and Laura say done in Paris.  Canada says Quebec and they need that to pretend to offer proof and witness.  They don't have it. You are done.

But overall you could pay someone to murder me. Their wrongful act won't prove anyone else right related to me either, nor will it vindicate you.

So much for your ISP claims Laura. As in: Wrong again.

You start to look like Mary Queen of Scots.

Who died and made you a despot owning all the truth in the world Laura?

Get over yourself. You can't speak to what this is or make a claim about my life or witness, EVER.

Ever make an error in life? Here is one even assuming it is your first.

Be an adult Laura and stop acting like a Facebook shill. Ad hominem won't save you. And this is not Facebook. This is real.

A hint, you are in over your head with me. You are not ready for the big leagues.

Seems I struck a nerve. Good.

You claim you have a result based on your acts to prove you wrong by doing what? I have no knowledge of that. You complained before this to who? So what?

All I need is this now.

I really don't need to respond or justify my actions to Laura or to anyone else, but her abortions of logic and justice prove her offers as being paranoid and weird at this point.

As to where I live, I might live in New York State (Who is complicit) where this photo is taken but then use web hosting or other resources outside of NY. Why not?

I shop on price, features, design, and other criteria. This provider has issues with outages, blank areas in coverage related to locations outside of Greece, etc and with that I had to move. Since their product is not working. I don't respond to accommodate people who are guilty just since they tell me to shut up about their guilt. Makes sense so far, no?

Facebook and Etsy are not in the same town that Laura Wamelink Haggarty lives in, so I can say same of her. Why use them and they also might claim to be incorporated in Delaware. How rash!

Why offer all that to defend her errant position and acts?

I also am a Stateless person and a victim of horrid crime. I might act a bit more vigorously to defend my privacy than others. And when doing anything, using a secure mail service with complete chain of custody might be in my best interest. Hence another problem for Laura and her histrionic retorts.  

Her offers are specious and not a rebut of my offers nor do they prove her right.  Finding fault with me does not defend Laura or prove me wrong. I can prove her wrong by her word here and now.

Laura proves overall what is wrong with the people who made and enabled this kind of atrocity ongoing since the 1960's in the small town that I lived in.

For Laura why rely on Canada to do this? Why not just do as my father and mother and their pedophile friends in the law did, and use local children for your perverse photos and drama?

Why use a French (tickler) boy? Joke is on you now.

And her want is to invent all this fraud and then with her mighty word and fist have it all casually dismissed on the wave of her mighty hand. Not so fast. Make it so!

And since you have the breed of the bird and gender of the bird wrong this would indicate you don't know what you are talking about related to raising these kind of animals, and your technical botches prove you incompetent overall in any computing or electronic domain.

As does your offers which are misguided slurs at best with foundations not in fact, and overall whose features won't vindicate or support you and NONE of Laura's offers prove ME wrong.

They prove me right now with additional character aspects that Laura makes the mistake of soiling, hers that is.

A rational adult would at least postulate "Since I have no witness the man might be right".

And how would Canada have any knowledge or authority related to a work ostensibly made in France in 1920?

And for ISP and Canada etc, you need to understand the world is not perfect and more are to blame and not less, and blaming me won't work towards the end of vindicating them. My hosting provider is wrong, so is Canada, so are my parents, so is Laura.

Make sense?

You went out on a limb here for reasons I do not know, you gambled, and you lost Laura. Others will find out WHY you acted to do this along with Canada and any others who are to blame. I can only assume this is done to protect those who did this and that money are motives.

Problem for Laura and others, is that there are many harms made to me in Canada as a child, and she and others seem to pander on this problem at this point, and then blame me for their tactic to proxy the problem in another nation hoping to leave me with no recourse against them.

Those harms are prosecutable today and this is an effort to botch out on a statute of limitations problem with date/age and jurisdication by location.

I can easily prosecute more of them and not less of them. The more you involve the more that are guilty.

Their inversions of vanity and "Doth Protest Too Much" tactics prove them wrong.

She is too quick to blame someone and to invert vanity.

Then she and others hope to not really barter or deal but to COMPEL a dismissal of the problems and a want to see them informally quashed and the voices of those harmed silenced.

Where is the dialog and discovery for her and others?

None of what this person is posting about me is true. He tried posting this insane nonsense on his own website and when I complained his ISP had the page taken down.

I did nothing wrong. I did not do any of the things he accuses me of. 

I purchased the rights to use the image in question from the Library and Archives Canada, who own the original image, which is from a Parisian photographer and which was taken in 1920.

The image has nothing to do with this person. It is not of him. I do not know him. He refuses to use his real name because he knows I will sue him for character defamation. He uses a false name on his ISP registration, a mail drop mailing address, and the ISP is in Cyprus (despite his mailing info being in Texas.)

This person is doxxing me, posting my address and phone number. Totally wrong and potentially illegal.

This is totally false. Please remove this immediately.