Harris & Company
Attention: Keith E. W. Mitchell
Via Email: email@example.com
June 29, 2017
Re: Sex at Lunch/Your threats of Legal Action
Your emailed correspondence of June 27, 2017 amounts to a bad attempt at extortion and/or capitalizing on the legal ignorance of those within the Vancouver School Board who have retained you. I appreciate that justifying billable hours appeases your law firm, but will certainly anger Vancouver School District parents and other taxpayers.
I can say that it most certainly makes for a great story.
Be advised that your account of the events of June 14, 2017 are based on misinformation. I am not known for mincing my words or being deceitful. Any informant who states that I, or Cecilia von Dehn—the woman who accompanied me—claimed to have checked into the office is lying. As for claiming to be a “parent”; when I was asked if I was I parent, I answered in the affirmative. No deception there. I am a parent, I have personally delivered four children into this world and I parented them—thus I am a “parent”. Your contrary claim is wrong.
Regarding your client, Trustee Dianne Turner; it is regrettable that she is unwilling to meet with me. I am certain that this matter could have been resolved in a manner that would have resulted in VSD parents having some trust and confidence in the VSD leadership—that is if she and the VSD senior administrative staff had taken the position that the sexual exploitation of minors at school by teachers, and deliberately deceiving parents, is a bad thing.
Instead you have chosen to engage in legal bully tactics in an attempt to shut me down and restrict accurate information being reported. This rather bizarre strategy leaves parents with no other option but to conclude that it is the intention of the VSD to cover-up what has transpired.
I see from your bio that you clerked for Mr. Justice La Forest. It’s interesting to note that I very recently used a passage from the decision he wrote for the Supreme Court majority in BR v Children’s Aid Society in which he brilliantly asserts the rights of parents to make decisions about their children—that is, when they are allowed to know about them. You might recall these words:
The common law has long recognized that parents are in the best position to take care of their children and make all the decisions necessary to ensure their well-being.
While parents bear responsibilities toward their children, they must enjoy correlative rights to exercise them, given the fundamental importance of choice and personal autonomy in our society. Although this liberty interest is not a parental right tantamount to a right of property in children, our society is far from having repudiated the privileged role parents exercise in the upbringing of their children. This role translates into a protected sphere of parental decision-making which is rooted in the presumption that parents should make important decisions affecting their children, both because parents are more likely to appreciate the best interests of their children, and because the state is ill-equipped to make such decisions itself.
To date, I have not seen any notification whatsoever to Lord Byng parents that their children were sexually exploited and subjected to an obscene theatre performance under the auspices of “sex ed”. Does your client intend to inform the parents, or will the deception continue?
As you are well aware, this was a deliberate exercise in the sexual exploitation of minors, designed to facilitate the perverted fantasies of teachers who enjoy grooming children— “soft targets”—while believing, mistakenly, they are somehow benefitting students via mind-poison, porn and smut and labeling them “sex-addicts”. This form of delusional thinking reminds me of the pedophile organization NAMBLA (North America Man/Boy Love Association) who assert that men who sexually abuse and exploit young boys, are really just loving/helping them. NAMBLA members, seemingly like those adults involved in “Sex at Lunch”, would applaud the results the teachers and administrators conspired to achieve.
Of course, this is just my opinion as an unsuspecting “Sex at Lunch” audience member and former Board member of the Child and Family Review Board, a quasi-judicial provincial government appointment for overseeing the rights of children in BC. In my professional work as a child and family rights advocate, I am well informed about the sex abuse of children, including how children are groomed to be engaged, compliant and keeping “special secrets”. I am also versed in the lasting ramifications suffered by children from being victimized by sexual predators. I appreciate the issues of liability your clients must be concerned about—minimizing exposure would reduce the potential for lawsuits; but I cannot help you in that regard.
In response to your assertions concerning my activities at the school and since; you are correct, I admit that I recorded this abusive, sexually exploitive event— “Sex at Lunch”—that was promoted and took place in a publicly-funded school.
You are semi-correct in that I have posted an image (not “images”) on social media.
You are incorrect to think I will remove them, will refrain from adding more or will limit distribution. You will note that, unlike the teachers and administrators, I have protected the identity of the children; I will not exploit them. But the so-called “teachers” and other facilitators to this obscene production will be exposed. Parents have a right to know whether they can trust their children’s’ teachers, vice principals, superintendents, and trustees…
I should also correct your use of the word “aggressive” in depicting the fervor in which I distributed helpful information to students. A more accurate description would be “enthusiastically”. And yes, the majority of students happily received the information. It was a positive exchange. It’s a shame that Vice Principal King, and a few squawky teachers, prohibited students from exercising their right to information and free speech.
I suggest that you caution your informants from making false claims about me. They will be sued. And as such, I request that you provide me the name of the individual, or individuals, that informed you (or anyone else) that we claimed to have “checked in at the office”, or that I am not a parent.
As you have identified yourself as acting on behalf of the VSD, I request that you provide me with the information I requested from Mr. King, specifically the names of all attending teachers, and any other sanctioned adults that attended.
If your instructions are an attempt to bully me into silence through threat of legal action, I should inform you that I don’t like bullies, and I can’t remember ever caving in to such tactics. As such, be advised that If you intend to serve me with any form of legal notice, please email in advance so I can convenience the service of any such documents. I’m very busy these days: traveling, informing parents about the sex activists’ agenda within BC schools and elsewhere; but will certainly attempt to save Vancouver District parents some money by accommodating any such service.
I hope you are equally conscientious about squandering their money with frivolous attempts at legal maneuverings, however creative.
Yours very sincerely,
Kari D. Simpson
Executive Director, Culture Guard