Note to the reader: This post marks a departure from the customarily formal tone used in this blog over its nine-year course. It contains scurrilous language, which is a formal way of saying dirty words. When people behave monstrously and then deceive cops and judges to induce them to terrorize their victims, it leaves victims feeling that the only way to defend themselves is to counteract false impressions by being saintly. This post retorts, fuck that. Dirty words are just as protected by the First Amendment as polite or “sanitized” speech and can, besides, be much more effective. And liberating.
Freedom of speech is American citizens’ defining entitlement, and it’s one that has come under attack from the right traditionally and today is progressively being eroded from the left, which is the political pole from which restraining orders originate. Restraining orders are judicial injunctions that literally prohibit speech on pain of incarceration, often in violation of the Constitution. Some leftwing extremists actually conflate speech with violence, and even mainstream liberals have become de facto thought and speech police. NPR, a dominant voice of liberal politics, has referred to itself as a “cathedral of political correctness” and would seem to be guided in its principles by propriety and “appropriateness.” Once more I propose, fuck that.
The method of this post will be to intersperse details from my own 12-year odyssey in the bowels of the judicial system with pointers to those who’ve endured similar ordeals on how to talk back. I’ve helplessly watched loved ones die while I was embroiled in prosecutions whose bases were lies, and I know I don’t suffer alone.
I have an obvious advantage over most: My accusers’ allegations, slathered on my public record for over a decade, were dismissed by the court in their entirety in 2018 and no longer have any legal teeth. This frees me to tell others what I’ve experienced and learned.
Phil Bredfeldt, whose wife, Tiffany, hung around outside of my house and contrived reasons to hold my hand in the dark, tell me about her tits and underwear, and poke her ass in my face, conspired with her to undermine my life because I babysat her for three months while Phil was doing who knows what in the middle of the night. Their smear campaign raged for 12 years during any 15-minute period of which Phil Bredfeldt could have probed his wife for the truth. Evidently Phil Bredfeldt is the kind of guy who’s good for one thing only: stroking what’s in his lap.
The person whose conduct and whose wife’s conduct I’ve used in this post for illustration purposes is a Colorado-based geological engineer/hydrologist and cycling aficionado named Philip Bredfeldt, whom I’ve always thought of as a cat person. The son of a doctor, Phil has enjoyed the pampered life of a spoiled brat confident in his family’s existential worthiness.
Phil Bredfeldt attended a Christian academy; one of his sisters, Kim Cheezum, married a minister of something called the Presbyterian Church in America; his other sister, Sara Rojas, serves as a deputy minister of the same sect; and his dad, Ray Bredfeldt, M.D., who was poised to testify against me in 2016 to have me falsely imprisoned, has been a deacon and purports to be zealously evangelical. His wife, Ruth Bredfeldt, Phil’s mom, has hosted Bible study classes in her home.
All of them are sanctimonious phonies.
TIP #1: The First Amendment affords no person immunity from criticism. That includes the so-called “private citizen.” The only reasonable guarantee against social criticism is not being an asshole.
TIP #2: The First Amendment defends “objectionable” speech, which may include rude or derogatory epithets (e.g., “douchebag,” “venomous sleaze weasel,” “plug-ugly skunk,” or simply “fucker”). The First Amendment doesn’t recognize “bad words,” though the law identifies some speech that falls in narrowly defined categories as legally actionable, for instance, speech that threatens or is plainly intended to incite violence, or speech that is false and defamatory, and speech can only be defamatory if it is false; opinions are opinions. A friend of mine, Larry Smith, a former trial attorney, was falsely called a “disbarred lawyer” on Facebook by a kook who repeatedly prosecuted him. That is libelous. If she had called him a “prick bastard,” that would not have been.
TIP #3: If using an inflammatory word like pussy (see the title of this post) is more likely to attract readership, First Amendment law defends that, too. A judge may believe that the point of the First Amendment is to allow a citizen to politely state a case—and doing so would be just swell if it caused anyone to actually pay attention. The point is to be read, not “appropriate.” They don’t put hot babes and cute dogs in beer commercials because they have anything to do with the product.
More biographically apropos to the topic at hand than the foregoing is that Phil Bredfeldt, a cringing little man but an anus of galactic proportion, sued me repeatedly in cooperation with his demented wife for over a dozen years, besides joining her in making reports to the police: multiple restraining orders, allegations to municipal police, to county police, to state police, and even to the feds (i.e., the FBI). And that’s not even in a single state. They’ve sought to have me locked up by multiple courts.
I’ve never met or seen Phil Bredfeldt outside of a courthouse. Not ever. His wife, Tiffany Bredfeldt, the principal plaintiff in lawsuits that spanned over 12 years, was someone who hung around outside of my house in 2005 with her wedding ring stashed wherever it was she dumped her dignity. Aside from my own home, I’ve never met or seen Phil Bredfeldt’s wife outside of a courthouse, either. I knew her for three months.
TIP #4: If you’re writing about a case of false accusation and/or malicious prosecution, anticipate that anything you publish may fall under judicial scrutiny, because your accuser has demonstrated a fondness for the attention of people in uniforms and robes. If you use unvarnished language to characterize your feelings about your accuser, be sure to show the court something the subject of your criticism has called you or said about you. See below. A judge is much cooler with tit-for-tat than s/he would be if s/he perceived you as a bad guy trashtalking a “victim.” Paradoxically, a plaintiff may falsely accuse you of sexual assault (as Phil Bredfeldt’s wife did me), but a false allegation made in court, however heinous, may sit easier with a judge than your calling the accuser a shit stick on the Internet.
Here’s something Phil Bredfeldt said about me, a total stranger who babysat his wife at midnight while he was amusing himself elsewhere:
Christian academy grad Phil Bredfeldt emailed this remark to me and thought it would be cute to email it to the police at the same time and put it in the public record. That was in 2006. I was last in court with this parasite in 2018.
After his and his wife’s case was dismissed in 2018, Phil Bredfeldt apparently abandoned his wife and moved to Colorado to get some fresh air.
For the next 12 months, after extricating myself from four simultaneous legal actions, I dedicated myself almost exclusively, every single day, to trying to restore the grounds where I live, which is my family’s sole remaining source of livelihood. My father withered and starved to death while I was defending myself in multiple courts in 2016, and I was too preoccupied to help him. His life insurance policies lapsed, and the bank claimed everything he possessed. This is what happens when lives are fucked with for shits and giggles for over a decade.
I’ve since composed a score of posts about the case, one of which is about my accuser’s father, Tim Hargis, who was an Arkansas bank vice president in charge of lending and who probably counts more than a few foreclosures on his career score card. (The “mort-“ in “mortgage,” incidentally, comes from the Latin for “death.” See also “murder.”)
TIP #5: Repeat exposures are what make people notice what you’re trying to communicate, not a single pour-it-all-out-and-call-it-a-day that will recede into search engine returns and be easily ignored. Again, a judge might consider repetitions “excessive,” but the First Amendment doesn’t recognize “excessive.” See, for example, the case of Matthew Chan detailed on Defiantly.net, which involved hundreds of complaints about a predatory poet. The First Amendment is there to defend your right to be excessive if that’s what it takes to reward the time you invest. Or even if it isn’t. My accuser devotes a portion of every day of her life to suppressing posts on this site from search engine returns. Of this I’m certain. Only by broadening accessibility can this sort of pathological mischief be thwarted.
The point of court process itself is accountability, and when court process fails—as it must do when it becomes as money-corrupted, politically steered, and elsewise paunchy and flatulent as it has today—the burden falls to the wronged to wield the flashlight. Social justice doesn’t have to be the dogma-dimmed mindscape of PC-leftist Twitterers who have themselves never had the police at their doors or had the value of their lives dismissed in triplicate. They’re the proponents of the police state they purport to oppose.
Fuck them, too.
Copyright © 2020 ProtectiveOrderVictims.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
buncylaw
December 28, 2020
Maybe she ran the effeminate little twat off.
LikeLike