From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article falls within the scope of the Left Hand Path work group. If you are interested in Left Hand Path-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help.

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Michael Aquino, has edited Wikipedia as Maquino (talk · contribs)

Diana Napolis sues Michael Aquino

PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 11, 2008

Contact: Diana Napolis, cell phone: 619-873-5917 Email: wordpress@cox.net Web Page: http://diananapolis.wordpress.com Federal lawsuit: http://members.cox.net/legalfed/NapolisvAquino.pdf

DIANA NAPOLIS, FILES 10 MILLION FEDERAL LAWSUIT CLAIMING VICTIMIZATION BY NONLETHAL TECHNOLOGY

San Diego, California - On November 26, 2002, Diana Napolis, an ex-child abuse investigator, researcher, and licensed therapist in San Diego, California, was arrested for writing a "threat" to Hollywood actress Jennifer Love Hewitt after which she plea-bargained to a stalking offense. On October 19, 2002, Director Steven Spielberg obtained a restraining order against Ms. Napolis to prevent her from confronting him at a public event. Diana Napolis is now making the facts surrounding her "stalking" offense of Jennifer Hewitt, and the reasons why she took these actions public, which is the subject of a Federal District Court complaint.

On March 25, 2008 Ms. Napolis filed a Federal lawsuit in San Diego, California against satanist and Temple of Set founder, Michael Aquino, ex-San Diego Grand Juror, Carol Hopkins, memory researcher Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, reporter Mark Sauer, David Copley, publisher of the San Diego Union-Tribune, San Diego State University, Michelle Devereaux, and Tanya Lysenko, aka Tani Jantsang. Ms. Napolis is seeking damages in the amount of $10 million for negligence, defamation, conspiracy to violate her first amendment rights to free speech, invasion of privacy, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and victimization by nonlethal technology. An amended complaint was filed on May 1, 2008. A court filing is currently pending against other Temple of Set members, Michael Aquino's wife, Lilith Aquino, Robert Menschel and his wife, Janet Menschel.

In 1997 Michael Aquino had sued Ms. Napolis internet company ElectriCiti, while she was using the pseudonym "Curio" for safety and privacy reasons, in an attempt to interfere with her First amendment rights to free speech, close her account, and to obtain her identity, in efforts to stop her from disclosing details about the satanic ritual child abuse investigation at the Presidio Army Base which resulted in his process out of the military. Christopher Alan, owner of ElectriCiti, refused to release Napolis' name, publicly stating he believed Aquino was dangerous, and successfully fought off two lawsuits which were ultimately dismissed due to the Communications Decency Act precluding internet companies from liability due to their customer's messages.

After these lawsuits were dismissed, Ms. Napolis alleges that Michael Aquino then pursued Ms. Napolis' identity, along with Hopkins, Loftus, reporter Sauer, and Michelle Devereaux, who by fraudulent misrepresentation, had Ms. Napolis identified by San Diego State university campus police in the year 2000. Despite Ms. Napolis advising campus officials that dangerous individuals were seeking her identity, they proceeded to engage in reckless and outrageous conduct by negligently revealing her identity to reporter Mark Sauer. Mr. Sauer proceeded to publish an invasive and defamatory news article about Ms. Napolis titled, "A Web of Intrigue/The Search for Curio Leads Cybersleuths Down a Twisted Path" on September 24, 2000, which David Copley negligently published. After the publication of Mark Sauer's news article, Napolis was the subject of internet threats by Tanya Lysenko aka Tani Jantsang.

Ms. Napolis alleges that eight months after her identity was revealed in the San Diego Union-Tribune, and since May 2001, Michael Aquino, his wife Lilith, and others caused Ms. Napolis to be subjected to prolonged psychological and physical torture by the usage of nonlethal technology, such as "Voice to Skull Devices," "Voice Synthesis Devices," "Remote Neural Monitoring," psychotronics, electromagnetic, and other nonlethal technology, in efforts to psychologically incapacitate her so that she could no longer continue her research. Ms. Napolis has extensively documented the reality of nonlethal technology in this lawsuit and the public might be surprised at the information which has been uncovered.

Ms. Napolis claims in this lengthy Federal case that in October 2002, due to threats made by her perpetrators that they would irrevocably injure her by nonlethals, it caused Ms. Napolis to write a pseudo-threat to Jennifer Love Hewitt to ensure that she would be placed in the custody of law enforcement, for her own safety, which Napolis can prove. Ms. Napolis publicly apologizes to Ms. Hewitt for writing this "threat," but she perceived those actions as necessary at the time. These malicious actions by defendants named then caused Ms. Napolis to be misdiagnosed as "mentally ill" and placed in the criminal justice system. A recent article titled, "Report: Nonlethal Weapons Could Target Brain, Mimic Schizophrenia" describes how nonlethal technology can simulate mental illness based on a recently declassified military report, "Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons."

It is further alleged that while being monitored by San Diego Probation Department, Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, Advisory Board Member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and other Does, conspired to file false charges against Ms. Napolis in retaliation after Napolis requested an investigation occur of Dr. Loftus by the Institutional Review Board of University of California at Irvine. It took Ms. Napolis a full 18 months to correct this false report, despite forensic evidence clearing her as a suspect and having passed a lie detector test, which has resulted in multiple claims filed against Dr. Loftus, including the negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In this Federal case, researcher Diana Napolis documents disturbing information about the government's attempts to build Manchurian candidates, Michael Aquino's alleged involvement in that activity, the facts surrounding the satanic ritual abuse of children, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation's efforts to cover up this activity, and what future actions she believes therapists who treat this population, targeted by this organization should take. Ms. Napolis is arguing that due to her previous psychological incapacitation, and newly discovered information, the statute of limitations should be extended in her case.

Ms. Napolis is requesting that any other alleged victims of the Aquinos come forward at this time. This Federal claim, or public interest lawsuit, is publicly available and can be accessed via Ms. Napolis' web page where she has established a legal defense fund.

Corrections should be made at this time in any publication that falsely alleged that Diana Napolis had ever "stalked" Steven Spielberg. Ms. Napolis never made personal contact with him and she was never criminally convicted for this offense.

Relevant links:

1)   Satanism and Ritual Abuse of Children 
     http://members.cox.net/dnap/srarchive.pdf 

2)  "Report: Nonlethal Weapons Could Target Brain, Mimic 
       Schizophrenia" 
      http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/report-nonletha.html 

3)  "Bioeffects of Selected Nonlethal Weapons" 
     http://members.cox.net/dnap/declassifiedmicrowave.pdf 

4)   "Voice to Skull Devices" 
     http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dod/vts.html 

5)   "Voice Synthesis Devices" 
      http://call.army.mil/thesaurus/toc.asp?id=32228§ion=v 

6)    List of sites concerning nonlethals and surveillance 
      http://www.well.com/user/jmalloy/gunterandgwen/resources.html

Contents 1 Wikified 2 Dr. Aquino Military History 3 Info Box is confusing 4 Biography assessment rating comment 5 Sherurcij/Aquino 6 Corrections to "Sherurcij" Article 7 "Sherurcij"s Modus Operandi 8 Protected per BLP concerns 9 Appreciation to Wikipedia 10 Overview of the Presidio Affair

[edit] Wikified

It's not wikified, it reads like a codified list of names/places, needs to use proper citation, needs to use less weasel words. Needs a good over-all clean up by someone other than Aquino himself. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we revert it to the pre autobio part? -R. fiend 06:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. -Will Beback 06:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that the autobio version is worse than the other one. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have made some minor corrections and removed the paragraph on the child abuse charges. In general, we do not report allegations that do not result in charges being filed, and if we do, we specify who made the allegations, something notably missing from this paragraph. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re-added, with citations and full names, since it is largely what made Aquino notable in the first place. Check the thousands of google hits alleging he was guilty for the crime he was investigated for - even though he was only investigated, not charged - in this case it was enough to make him notable. In fact, I daresay if it weren't for the books written accussing him of abuse, the Presido abuse case, and similar allegations...it's unlikely anybody would have heard of Aquino, he would still just be "Some Satanist officer in the Army". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the new priest of the ToS, Patricia Hardy, who took over in 2004. There's currently no Wiki bio on her; there's not enough information available on the web to justify it.

[edit] Dr. Aquino Military History

Shouldn't we include more of Dr. Aquino's service record? It seems like a fair and important contribution to enumerate his MOS and department. It is not everyday that a prominent and respectable citizen, let alone a Lt. Colonel and Professor of Political Science becomes the head of a "Left Hand Magick Initiatory Organization." The only other notable examples of conservative individuals openly professing to the use of magick (in the last 50 years) is Grady McMurtry and Jack Parsons. I think more information is warranted, but I respect the fact that Dr. Aquino is still living and may have his own opinions on the matter, so I'm bringing it up here. Please let me know what you think of this. <3 Captain Barrett 23:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info Box is confusing

Just a note to say that the info box is a little weird. it makes it hard to understand who served whenLisapollison 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 19:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aquino v Stone, 957 F.2d 139 (4th Cir. 1992) (Privacy Act appeal filed by Lieutenant Colonel Michael Aquino, founder of the Temple of Set, a satanist religion, after his discharge from the U.S. Army Reserves following a criminal investigation into charges of child sexual abuse at the Child Development Center at the Presido) - discharged from USArmy Reserves after investigation, I assume that's what the (incorrect?) "child porn" talk is about? Do we have a link to source indicating that no evidence was found, or whatever? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sherurcij/Aquino

I have no issue helping to "rewrite" this article to be more accurate, but you have to understand that unfortunately being the subject of the article yourself...your "word" will much less inherent power. Wikipedia is not a court room, we don't ask every side to throw their biased rhetoric and let the "jury" decide, we present only what is "reasonable" to present...so for example, claims that Blood was sexually obsessed with you, unless they can be verified, will not be included in the article, obviously. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but we can't just "take your word" just because you're the only party present. So, in the interests of improving this article, let's start with some areas I think we agree need some focus and citations.

1. Every reference I've seen indicates you were "discharged" from the Army Reserves, and did not "choose to retire" - are you able to provide a neutral reference indicating otherwise? And assuming you were discharged, would you have a reference indicating that it was an honourable/dishonourable discharge?
2. As per your eMail to me, would you happen to have a reference handy that suggests Blood was indeed treated for psychiatric issues, which would be an important addition to the sentence dealing with her?
3. Was Thompson ever penalized or convicted of fraudulent representation? Have a reference?
4. Able to scan the FBI reports detailing their search of your house, confirming what you eMailed to me, about Almond's statements, and the state of your house at the time?

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I disavow inclusion in Wikipedia because this "encyclopedia" has demonstrated to me that its articles can easily be used for malicious distortion and falsification of the truth without any Editorial concern or responsibility. The page under my name has been abused in this fashion by anonymous character assassins, most recently "Sherurcij". While I accordingly cannot prevent this personal disavowal of mine from being thus overwritten by such persons, I will occasionally re-enter it so that at least those glancing at the "history" and "discussion" of this page may be aware of it. My request to Wikipedia to have the entire page permanently removed has been ignored. I have neither the time nor interest to "play the Wikipedia game" of open-page argument with equally anonymous and whimsical biographical-content "editors". Finally, questions posted to me here will not be answered here, nor should people emailing me under non-verifiable names/eaddresses expect answers. Maquino 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Maquino

I'm not a "character assassin", I don't even allege whether or not you committed the crimes. To be honest, I don't care whether you did or not. I've spoken to prostitutes, terrorists and murderers...what you have or haven't done really isn't of interest to me. All I have done, you will notice, is collect statements by various other media sources, collating them and sourcing them to their respective authors - you may be interested to study the legalities of journalism, since I can assure you that I have - I am fully and absolutely within every right, to do what I've done. You have created public personae for yourself, putting yourself in the public spotlight through willful actions, and as such, it is inconsequential whether or not you "approve" of the fact there is a Wikipedia article about you. If you truly believe this article is incorrect, then I would encourage you to make use of open discussion and help us improve it, by answering questions as they are put to you. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections to "Sherurcij" Article

The following is a commented version of the anonymous "Sherurcij"s constantly-reinserted entry here, to indicate the extent of its bias and character assassination agenda. I have little doubt that it will be instantly overwritten by him, but it will at least remain in "history" for the curious. [I am impressed - it was overwritten seconds after being posted. The truth really hurts here, it would seem.]

>>> "the Temple of Set, a splinter group from Anton Szandor LaVey's Church of Satan ..." <<<

As the Temple of Set was founded by the majority of the 1975 Priesthood of the Church, all of whom had resigned due to LaVey's decision to sell its degrees [and Priesthood] for personal profit, it cannot accurately be minimized as a "splinter group". See my _Church of Satan_ and _Temple of Set_ for details.

The Branch Davidians are a splinter-group of the Seventh-day Adventists, this is how it works. This is an almost identical case study, a group of approximately 100 people decided that the hierarchy of their already far-from-mainstream religious denomination was corrupt, or improperly representing their beliefs, and decided to form their own group instead. You can call it an offshoot, a splinter group, a child group, all of the terms are "minimizing" in the sense that they all represent the fact that from all I've seen, the Temple of Set is born out of the Church of Satan. You also have to understand, as I've explained, that your histories of the church are not going to be given as much credence, as say...Newsweek, the New York Times, or another source. Unfortuantely, that's just the way the world works. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "His alleged roles in military intelligence and psychological operations, and investigation for sexual abuse of children have propelled him to the forefront of a number of conspiracy theories ..." <<<

"Sherurcij"s obvious effort to further such slander by publicizing it. Of course he does not reference exposes of the "SRA" scams of the 1980s, or my own detailed expose of the Presidio of San Francisco scam, easily found on the Internet or available by email request to me.

I'm not furthering any slander, (first of all, fixed in a tangible form, it would be libel, not slander...but I've already mentioned that I'm well-versed in the legalities of everything I'm doing, so trust me, this is neither slander nor libel), I'm collecting all the information that is known about you, and trying to present it in a neutral light. A neutral point of view is to say "Aquino was investigated several times for child abuse, but no charges were laid. There have also been books written alleging his abuse, but again, no proof is available", not simply deleting all references to the facts. We are here to present the facts in a neutral light, not to remove all mention of them and pretend you're somehow notable other than because of the scandals. That would be like saying we should have an article on Monica Lewinksy that doesn't mention anything about her sex life...if it weren't for your being "controversially investigated", you're not notable. There are other Satanists in the armed forces, it's hardly a "remarkable" feat. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "Aquino's house was raided by the FBI on August 14, 1984 in connection with a criminal investigation indicating he may have been involved in the sexual abuse of the daughter of Presidio Army Base's chaplain Larry Adams-Thompson ..." <<<

The San Francisco Police Department, not the FBI, served a search warrant on our home on 8/14/87, not /84 on the basis of a falsified allegation by Army Chaplain Lawrence Adams-Thompson. Its falsification was later established by comparison with the actual notes of the "play therapist" to whom he and his wife Michele had sent their daughter in order to produce an excuse for "abuse" despite the Presidio Hospital's examining her and finding her a virgin with no signs of any abuse. A-T's allegations were simply an excuse for a get-rich-quick $3 million claim based on them.

The question is, who established that it was falsified? You? The courts? If the former, it's biased and can't be considered evidence. If the latter, then it's relevant and will be included in the article.

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 

In 4/88 I filed a complaint with the San Francisco Police Commission that, among other things, the search warrant was improperly executed in that all of the property taken had nothing to do with any crime. The SFPC upheld my complaint in 11/89 and took administrative action against the officers involved accordingly. All of the property was returned by 1/90.

Having property returned is not indicative that a search warrant was improper, most search warrants end in property being returned. Do you have a verifiable source, such as an internal case number, that this "administrative action" could be verified with the SFPD? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "Aquino was discharged from the Army Reserves in 1987 ..." <<<

I was never discharged from the USAR at any time. I continued on fulltime active duty until 1990, at which time I returned to the parttime USAR. I requested retirement in 1994, at which time I was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal covering the period 1984-94. I remain today a card-carrying Lt. Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Again, all sources indicate you were discharged. This isn't necessarily true, but it's all that I've seen citations for, so can you again provide a valid reference for your 1994 retirement? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "due to the follow-up investigation by the SFPD which ultimately saw teacher Gary Hambright convicted." <<<

Hambright was never convicted of anything. All the publicly-available documentation I have seen indicates that he was an innocent man used as an excuse for the $74.5 million claims filed by parents.

I'll fix the statement to read "arrested", since you're right - I don't see anything indicating conviction of Hambright. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "At the time, Newsweek published a sensationalist story announcing that Aquino's mother, a priestess in his Temple, worked for a service that helped place children in local daycare centres." <<<

My mother never worked for any such service. Indeed during her life she never worked for anyone else at any time. "Sherurcij" cannot hide behind such errors in media articles, because he made no attempt whatever to ask me about them.

I'm not required to ask you about them, and your answers to them are inconsequential. Neither I, nor the Wikipedia article, claims your mother worked for any such sevice. We relate that Newsweek magazine sensationalised the case by publishing "sensationalist" material related to it. If anything, I believe that sentence would be seen as more damning of Newsweek, than of your mother. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "Five years later, Aquino filed the unsuccessful suit Aquino v Stone, 957 F.2d 139 attempting to sue the Army for his discharge and for having been "titled" (a military accusation) of indecent acts with a child. The lawsuit, however, was dismissed. [Sourced to Curio Jones]" <<<

The lawsuit was in fact a Motion for Summary Judgment by a civil judge just to have the unsubstantiated "titling" removed and the Army fined for damages it had caused. I requested the court's _de novo_ review, which would have compared the "titling" to any actual evidence supporting it. Unsurprisingly the Army CID strenuously insisted that it was exempt and shielded from _de novo_, and the judge decided to allow them that immunity to save their ass. That ended that.

You wanted to "fine" the Army for personal damages? I believe that's called a lawsuit, if I am incorrect, feel free to englighten me, but the term "sue" certainly seems accurate given what you've said, and what I've seen in other sources. You also acknowledge that the judge ruled against you, and you couldn't proceed against the CID...as the article says. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

As for "Curio Jones", she was another notorious Internet stalker and character assassin whose real name was Diana Napolis. She was eventually arrested and confined for stalking and threatening other people such as Steven Spielberg. The inaccuracy and distortions of her attacks on me were easily discoverable by "Sherurcij" had he bothered to make the effort.

Considering you call me a "character assassin", you'll understand why I'm somewhat dubious to accept your claims that everybody who has ever spoken anything less-than-flattering about your past is just a "character assassin". Hi, I'm Sherurcij, I'm a wikipedia editor whose role is to collect referenced material about you...not to be an investigative journalist and delve into the "truth" of whether or not Curio Jones was insane or not, that's not my judgment to make. If you can again, provide evidence that Napolis and Jones are the same person, and that she was arrested for stalking Spielberg, then again, that will be included in the article, but not without proper evidence. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "In 1989, claims of sexual abuse again arose, when several Californian children claimed to recognise Aquino as the man who had abused them. Again, he was investigated, but not charged. [Sourcing Goldston]" <<<

In fact it was again just parents, not children, inventing allegations. Even the Army CID, which at the time was trying everything possible to build a case for its "titling" agenda, admitted in its report that not a single such “identification” was corroborated in the least: “During the course of this investigation the following children who were reported victims of ritualistic sexual abuse, at various locations in CA, were interviewed and provided the opportunity to view photographic line-ups. None were able to provide any information of value to this investigation.”

For the millionth time, if you have a PDF of the CID findings, make them available, and they will be cited as proper resources - but your interpretation of matters is not sufficient, we require actual sources. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

Again the Goldston article selected by "Sherurcij" for its slant was later established to be inaccurate in numerous details, and Goldston later sent me a letter of regret for the ordeal Lilith and I had been through.

I'm not picking and choosing articles, I'm using any and all information I can find that seems less-than-complete-tabloid-material (for example, I've found a couple sources linking you to Franklin and the White House...I've discarded those as rubbish with no basis in fact. Claims about Presido however, do have a "basis in fact", since you were indeed investigated, so they deserve some actual scrutiny. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "In 1994, Aquino launched an unsuccessful lawsuit against former Temple of Set member Linda Blood, and Time-Warner, after Blood wrote a book that claimed to detail sexual abuse within the group, entitled The New Satanists - though the matter was settled out of court the following year." <<<

"Unsuccessful"? It was completely successful, as Warner agreed to the out-of-court settlement we demanded. My extensive expose of the book is easily findable on the Internet, as again "Sherurcij" did not wish to do nor alert others to.

My role is not to publicise your writings, nor take a side in the matter. As I've repeatedly said, I don't give a damn whether you abused the kids or not - and I've got no interests in trying to make you look either guilty or innocent. I can cede "unsuccesful" in this case, but OOC settlements are not the same as judgments in your favour, I suggest "In 1994, Aquino launched a lawsuit against former Temple of Set member Linda Blood, and Time-Warner, after Blood wrote a book that claimed to detail sexual abuse within the group, entitled The New Satanists - though the matter was settled out of court under undisclosed terms the following year.", is that better? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "In 1995, Cathy O'Brien and Mark Phillips also published a book, entitled Trance Formation of America, which claimed that they had been brainwashed, and sexually abused as children, by Aquino." <<<

A bell-ringing crank book even by lunatic fringe standards. As I recall, a whole parade of notable names - Presidents, First Ladies, Senators, rock stars, et al. were also accused. Absurd of "Sherurcij" to source such a ragbook, unless he's hoping that readers won't be familiar with its actual idiocy.

I've never read it, have no idea what it's about. But again, neither I, nor this article, claim the book is true. We only mention that it was written, and that it accused you. Both of those facts are true and relevant. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)}

>>> "In 1997, Aquino launched another unsuccessful lawsuit against the ElectriCiti ISP for "failing to block" messages from one of their customers, that he believed constituted libel." <<<

No, for refusing to identify the anonymous stalker "Curio" (Napolis, see above) who was using their ISP for her hate campaign. The suit failed because the Communications Decency Act was found to immunize ISPs against the conduct of their subscribers.

Well first of all, you've painted me with the same brush as Blood and everybody else you've sued, from what I've seen - so you can understand why I'm a bit skeptical about taking your word about these "character assassins". So that we're clear, you were trying to sue ElectriCiti for failing to give you the personal details of one of its subscribers? Did it actually even reach court, or was the lawsuit aborted on the advice of legal counsel before entering the court system?

I think the bias, agenda, and selective disinformation of "Sherurcij" are now reasonably clear. Michael A. Aquino Maquino 19:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)MAquino

I have no bias, I'm not affiliated with anybody involved - and other than thinking it's kinda cute that you're such a Star Wars geek, I have no opinions of you. I can tell you're fond of launching lawsuits though, so you might want to consult with John Moore, the last person who unsuccessfully tried to sue me...in that case, because he believed that his Wikipedia article should credit him as the sole shooter of Charles Whitman and not make mention of Ramiro Martinez, the other police officer who also claimed credit. (The two officers apparently each believe the other is lying, and don't want to share credit...how charming). Of course, the fact you keep asking me for my full name and contact details probably implies you're drawing up a similar lawsuit right now to try and stop me from "being a character assassin" by providing links to newspaper stories about you...but c'est la vie. Life's boring without an angry subject of a Wikipedia article threatening to either have me murdered, locked away or sued...I'm thinking of painting little irate stickmen on my fuselage. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Sherurcij"s Modus Operandi

All of "Sherurcij"s verbal dances above simply demonstrate again that if a fact gets in the way of his mud-throwing agenda, it is "biased" or "unsourced" [I am automatically not to be respected as a source, my professional credentials and distinguished vitæ notwithstanding], hence ignored. Detailed/related analyses of mine on the web are not to be "publicized". Of course defamatory statements in his mud-article that have been identified to him as false are not held to this same standard, as long as he can cite some/any source for them (which he is perfectly happy to "publicize"). He certainly will not remove them and then take any personal trouble to look into the truths/corrections behind them I have identified/sourced.

It would be a waste of my time to respond further to such a character assassin as this. The record already shows that any documents sent to him would, like the facts/citations already provided here and by email to him, merely be searched for anything to distort as "ammunition" and otherwise ignored. The scenario here is now entirely clear: An accurate, fair, and factual article about "Michael Aquino" will never appear on Wikipedia as long as "Sherurcij" dictates it.

In passing I have learned some interesting things about the Wikipedia system. Whoever "Sherurcij" really is, he evidently has arbitrary editorial-level control over any material he posts. Any revisions or corrections to his article are instantly, apparently automatically reversed/"reverted". Intriguingly when he instantly overwrote my detailed expose of his lies in that article, he originally did so under the Wikipedia editor's name of "Grosscha" (which, if one looks into it, is just another blind-alley pseudonym). A short time later "Grosscha's" name was quietly edited out of the "history" and replaced with "Sherurcij"s name for the overwrite. Surprise, surprise.

The famous aphorism about mudwrestling with a pig comes to mind, so I think I shall disengage and go take a shower at this point.

Michael A. Aquino Maquino 23:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Maquino

User:Grosscha has 1000 edits on Wikipedia, his userpage states he is "an College student currently attending Michigan State University" and recently begun fighting Wikipedia vandals. I'm slightly disconcerted that you apparently think we're the same person, just because two people agree that your copy/pasted "a defence against accusations against me" isn't fit for an encyclopaedia - and claim that he is "just another blind-alley pseudonym"...rhetoric will get you far with the masses, but unfortunately it doesn't work very well when you're actually speaking to others who can see through it. If you're really convinced that we're the same person, you're welcome to request confirmation from the administration - I've never had any name other than "Sherurcij" on WP I'm afraid.

I'm also rather upset to realise you consider this article to be "mud slinging", when it in facts makes absolutely no allegations against you, it simply mentions allegations other have made against you, while pointing to the article on Day care sexual abuse hysteria - assuming your version of events is true, you're the textbook-example of such a case...so the details certainly belong here...your real problem is that we refuse to take your word, and insist that you provide references. If you can provide a reference saying that a judge said you unfairly targeted because of your religion, I would be happy to include it in the article...to be honest, I suspect your religion is "quite likely" to have increased people's likelihood to accuse you...but without any evidence supporting that, I can't allow either you or I to put our personal speculation on the article.

When I asked you to provide sources to back up your allegations, you told me to submit FOIA requests, and you still refuse to offer any documentation, evidence or sources that back up your claims. You can see how that might not appear to be helpful, if you want the article to state that you were unfairly targeted because of your religion, that's honestly fine, I would be happy to include it...just find me a reference (preferably a judge, less preferably a journalist, certainly not yourself) supporting that version of events, and we will immediately add in "In June 2001, Judge Harold Whaptuk, of the 3rd District Court, ruled that the continued harrassment of Michael Aquino by the FBI was the result of an extensive "smear campaign" and "religious bigotry"...but we can't add that without a citation...so yes, it would certainly be in your best interests if you were able to be helpful in improving this article, rather than just calling for all references to your (noteworthy) scandal to be removed. This article is the first page that appears for anybody who googles your name, and "Aquino is a Satanist minister" isn't going to tell them what they're looking for, because assuming they're not Satanists interested in joining your sect (and 99.99% of people aren't...), they're looking for some backstory, some facts, about why your name is always connected to allegations of abuse. So let's actually make this a useful resource, let's provide readers with a neutral presentation of all verifiable facts. It's verifiable that Linda Blood accused you of abuse, for example...but hopefully you're right, it's also verifiable that she was ruled to be psychiatrically insane...and as soon as you can provide a reference for that, we can inform people who google your name, of the truth of the matter. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 11:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected per BLP concerns

I have stripped all contentious material from this article and protected it, per concerns raised by its subject via OTRS. Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet about marginally notable people nor is it a repository for 20-year-old uncorroborated accusations often sourced to patently unreliable and admitted "conspiracy theory" Web sites. We do not report fringe theories when they make despicably negative assertions about living people. Scurrilous gossip is not permitted here. I can find no evidence from any reliable source to suggest that the article subject was ever arrested, charged, indicted or convicted for any offence, and until such is presented, no mention of the alleged events will be allowed into this article. Guilt by association (I'm thinking of the Newsweek article here) does not count. FCYTravis 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither David Koresh nor Jim Jones were ever arrested, charged, indicted or convicted for the allegations of sexual abuse, but they are still considered noteworthy enough to merit (cited, referenced) evidence that they were accused, and without giving any indication that the reader should believe the accusations were true, that they nevertheless coloured the public opinion of the character. This article, similarly, should not imply that these accusations are true - but it should make mention of them since they largely colour public opinion of Aquino. Since Lotfi Raissi was found not guilty, should we omit all mention of the fact he was very publically accused of helping train al-Qaeda pilots for 9/11? Since charges against the Young offenders in 2006 Toronto terrorism case were dismissed, perhaps we shouldn't have an article at all, who cares if they were thrust into the public spotlight and gained notoriety...why should a Wikipedia article exist that neutrally presents the facts, without any speculation, to educate people who want to learn the truth?

It is curious that Aquino has chosen to get so riled about this article, which seems to be the only source on the internet that he hasn't penned himself, that doesn't say he's guilty. Anybody googling his name will find 5000 references to people claiming he's "guilty"...and this article which actually just gives the neutral details. We don't say "Police raided his house because he's a pervert" like the conspiracy websites say, and we don't say "Police raided his house because they hate his religion" like he claims...we walk a middle, neutral, ground and simply provide the facts.

We are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopaedia, and as such, it makes no difference whether Richard Jewell gained notoriety for (untrue) accusations that he planted a bomb, even though he was never "arrested, charged or convicted", the fact that he was publically alleged to have done it, and became the subject of scrutiny and condemnation of passersby, is enough reason for Wiki to have an article that "sets the record straight" and presents the facts in a neutral way.

So I'm having difficulty understanding why the "neutral" way to present a scandal, is to pretend it never happened. Perhaps someone can explain to me why Aquino is any less notable than Richard Jewell, or should have any different of an article lay-out? As far as I can see, both are mundane people, one who was in the wrong/right place at the wrong/right time, one who founded a Satanist religion which was "condemned" or "strange" - both were very publically accused of having been in concert with a major media-spectacle of the time (Jewell with the bombing, Aquino with Day care sexual abuse hysteria), both maintained their innocence...perhaps another parallel could be drawn to Rachelle Waterman, an "innocent" accused of murdering her own mother, and gathering media sensationalism, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether they're guilty or not...what matters is that they were/are the centre of sensationalist public attention because of accusations against them. Wikipedia should not further that sensationalism, but we should still mention the fact that they are sensationalised in the media, and provide the neutral facts without any speculation.

I must admit I very confused why the fact the scandal is 20-years old makes it any less worthy of inclusion - we still have articles on Watergate right? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 10:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. Yes, we are an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. That is why we do not repeat accusations made only by conspiracy-theory Web sites. Please do not confuse the issue by mixing this person up with such incidences as Richard Jewell and Watergate. Find reliable sources for the accusations (not patently unreliable conspiracy-theory sites such as the ones you cited previously. If this person was truly the center of such a major media firestorm as those two, then you should easily be able to find them. The fact of the matter is, these accusations are only being repeated today by fringe conspiracy-theorist groups which also link Mr. Aquino with supposed mind-control and "Satanic subversion" of the military. Ludicrous in the extreme, and unacceptable on Wikipedia, especially in the biography of a living person. Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet where 25-year-old unsubstantiated accusations of criminal activity can simply be repeated and spread as if there was any truth to them at all. Find reliable sources, or it stays out. All of it. FCYTravis 16:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I really shouldn't have to explain why a major national scandal involving the near-impeachment of the president, verifiably sourced a million ways from Sunday, is treated differently than 25-year-old unsubstantiated accusations which resulted in no verifiable criminal charges, arrests or convictions - only "guilt-by-association" hysteria. FCYTravis 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment Please do not confuse the issue by mixing this person up with such incidences as Richard Jewell would work better if you explained why they are different, they were both investigated, but never arrested, for ludicrous claims that got spread across the blogosphere, newsgroups, conspiracy websites and such. Is it unfortunate that Jewell was unfairly tied to terrorists, and Aquino was tied to child abusers? Yes, of course...but Wikipedia isn't furthering those ties, it's trying to create an encyclopaedic reference point of the facts, without any speculation. I believe there was one, out of six sources, that was a "conspiracy website", and it was used only to cite the claim that "Aquino has become a target of conspiracy theorists[1]" - the other sources were two books, the case code for a civil lawsuit, the San Jose Mercury News and Newsweek magazine...so it is somewhat untrue to say "omg, this article cited conspiracy websites!" None of the facts that used a "conspiracy site" for substantiation, were the facts disputed by Aquino. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mercury News article contains absolutely nothing to link Mr. Aquino to any substantive allegations of any crime - only speculation and innuendo based on the vague responses of a 3-year-old girl. Unless you have evidence to cite that Mr. Aquino was formally arrested, charged with, indicted for or convicted of any offense, it has no place in this biography. Once again, Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet where 25-year-old unsubstantiated allegations can be freely splattered across the Internet. The only current sources you can cite for this issue are patently unencyclopedic conspiracy-theory sites which are clearly designed to smear Mr. Aquino and taint his name with salacious, unsubstantiated allegations of sensational crimes. Wikipedia will not serve as a sounding board for nutjob accusations about a living person. I consider this matter closed. FCYTravis 20:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you completely fail to even try to explain why this case is different from Richard Jewell. You also fail to point out any part of the article that was "designed to smear Mr. Aquino and taint his name with salacious, unsubstantiated allegations of sensational crimes" - all this article does was point out that others have attempted to "smear Mr. Aquino and taint his name with salacious, unsubstantiated allegations of sensational crimes" - and that is notable...and identical to the case of Richard Jewell. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, no. What makes Mr. Jewell encyclopedic is that he was repeatedly pilloried in the mainstream media for alleged involvement in a bombing which nobody disputes happened. Mr. Aquino's accusers are random Internet conspiracy theorists who are attempting to connect him (through the thinnest of threads) to an alleged crime whose existence has never been proven in a court of law. They are not notable or encyclopedic and I am not going to allow Wikipedia to be used as an amplifier for them to spread their salacious smears. We are an encyclopedia, not a scandal sheet. Period, end of sentence. If you wish to further dispute this matter, I invite you to take it to ArbCom. FCYTravis 20:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not studied the particulars of the case, but I want to give my full support to the principles being articulated here. Negative information from conspiracy theorist websites must be excluded (vigorously) from Wikipedia. Unless and until someone comes up with a proper source, this material must stay out of the article. This is quite simple, quite ordinary, and nothing new.--Jimbo Wales 01:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the sentiment - but I think if you look at the prior version of the article, you will notice that it was very deliberate in making sure it made no allegations, and named only literal facts - and included Aquino's rebuttals of them. It was, in my opinion, a neutral piece, and as you'll notice on the talk page here, I tried to encourage Aquino to help clear up any issues he had with the article. So far as I know, there was absolutely zero "negative information from conspiracy theorists", and as mentioned, the only conspiracy website mentioned was used as a citation of the sentence "...which has led to Aquino becoming the subject of conpiracy theories[1]". I would invite your more specific comments on the actual content of the article as it was written. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Then surely it will be trivial for you to find sources for these allegations which do not come from conspiracy-theorist Web sites. FCYTravis 07:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For a fourth time I ask you, what "allegations" were sourced to conspiracy websites? So far as I know, none were. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, virtually everything of substance? Have you even looked at "Newsmakingnews.com"? It's full of nutjobbery. The other source for the "dismissal" allegation is a self-published research paper on an AOL.com member site which fails WP:RS spectacularly. Delete those mentions, and what we have is a newspaper article that says "some kids said Mr. Aquino was a bad man, so the police talked to him, but never arrested him, charged him, indicted him or convicted him of any crime." That's not worthy of mention unless we mention every other time any person was ever even talked to by the police about a crime. The article as originally written was tantamount to an indictment, and that is absolutely unacceptable.

Furthermore, to even say in the lead that he's the subject of conspiracy theories gives those conspiracy theories far too much credence - they have absolutely ZERO place in a biography of a living person unless they are clearly newsworthy or notable, especially when those "theories" relate to such abjectly despicable assertions. There is no external coverage of this matter, and to allow the rantings of nutjobs to dominate this man's life is a travesty. FCYTravis 07:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sherurcij, you really, REALLY need to read the "sources" you cite. "Trance Formation of America," the "book" you cite as a source for the accusations against Mr. Aquino, also accuses the entire American political establishment of raising people as sex slaves for Satanists, Catholics and Freemasons - according to the book, "In 1968, (US Congressman) VanderJagt introduced Cathy to the Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who then abused her and used her for porn involving a French poodle which he had given her as a pet." If you think that is the kind of source we will accept in the biography of a living person, you need to find another Wiki to edit, posthaste. FCYTravis 07:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation to Wikipedia

I have just been informed by Wikipedia's editorial staff that they have removed "Sherurcij"s defamatory and malicious article and replaced it with a simple, basic, and truthful one (the way it was for a long time previously). My wife and I are very grateful to Wikipedia for this positive and compassionate action, and my faith in the encyclopedia - which had given way to frustration and bitterness over this anonymous character assassin's seemingly exclusive control over the article - is now greatly restored.

While as explained previously I will not provide "Sherurcij" with any further information, documents, or citations now that his agenda is clear, I have told the Wikipedia editors that I am willing to provide them whatever they wish to evidence Lilith's and my innocence of the vicious attacks against us in the 1980s.

Michael A. Aquino Maquino 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Maquino

Awesome, any claims you make (Blood was psychotic, you were targeted because of your religion, the CID performed illegal operations against you, the Secretary of the Army wanted to force you out of the armed forces, etc) that you can provide evidence for, will be happily included in the article. I honestly don't doubt that at least some of them are true, but unless you have a judge, journalist or somebody similar to cite as claiming you were targeted because of your religion, WP can't simply insert that it is true because you believe it. But if you have references, that would be very helpful in improving

[edit] Overview of the Presidio Affair

What follows here is the essential, and believe me *brief* summary of the Presidio affair that I send to inquirers. The amount of documentation behind this is staggering, because I had to FOIA/PA, dig, and sue (Discovery) the facts out of many parts of the SFPD, Pentagon, CID, and FBI over four years and definitely against their expectations and comfort. I have never been the least bit reluctant to stand publicly behind *everything* stated here. Apologies if even in this condensed form it is a bit long for a discussion page like this, but it seems to be called for:

Nevertheless this is not a continuing "hobby" of mine. It was a disgusting, dangerous, and infuriating ordeal for us, not to mention that it drained four years of our lives and creative time. I would accordingly prefer to flush it down the toilet of useless history and focus on the Great Mysteries of the Universe. I try to respect honest curiosity, but I have very little patience for cranks, character assassins, and the like.

THE 1986-7 PRESIDIO "SATANIC RITUAL ABUSE" EVENTS

Following the publication of the "recovered memories of Satanic ritual abuse" book _Michelle Remembers_ in 1980, the United States and other Anglo-American countries went through a decade of "SRA" scares and witch-hunts. After the 1984 McMartin Preschool became internationally publicized in one such scare, day-care facilities generally became targets of "SRA" witch-hunt instigators.

The epidemic extended to U.S. military services as well, including 15 U.S. Army day-care centers and elementary schools by 1987. In late 1986 it was the turn of the Presidio of San Francisco.

On 9/28/86 the _San Francisco Examiner_ began a series of 8 front-page stories sensationalizing the witch-hunts. Approximately a month later one set of Presidio parents claimed that their son might have been anally raped by one of the day-care teachers, Gary Hambright, and the scare was off and running, with scores of children being "abuse-diagnosed" by a "play-therapist" despite not a single published confirmation of actual physical harm to any child. Hambright denied any "abusing" whatever, and all of the other teachers and staff supported him.

As in other witch-hunts it made no difference: Over the next year Hambright was suspended, indicted, charges dropped, reindicted, charges redropped amidst a massive media frenzy. Parents rushed to file over $84 million in claims, as was also routine in such witch-hunts. [The previous year a similar, highly-publicized witch-hunt at West Point had resulted in $110 million claims.]

Left out of the Presidio claims bonanza were Christian chaplain Larry Adams-Thompson and his wife Michele, who had never reported their daughter Kinsey Almond for any physical or psychological symptoms during the entire time she had been under Hambright's supervision at the day-care center (9/1-10/31/86). In their original 1/87 FBI interviews both A-Ts were specific about that date-window, because Almond turned 3 on 9/1/86 and, as confirmed by the Presidio Director of Personnel & Community Affairs, Hambright supervised only children age 3 and older.

Despite Almond's untouched state [on 3/12/87 Presidio doctors examined her and pronounced her a virgin free from any physical signs of abuse], the A-Ts placed her in an intensive 8-month program of "play-therapy". The same "therapist" who pronounced the scores of other children "abused" soon pronounced Almond "abused" as well.

The A-Ts, however, were not content with just accusing Hambright. In 6/87 Michele introduced "SRA" themes and insinuations about me - who had been a topic of curiosity and gossip as a famous Satanist officer throughout my 1981-86 assignment to the Presidio Headquarters - to the "therapist". Then on 8/13/87 the A-Ts saw my wife Lilith and myself at the Presidio post exchange and went running to the witch-hunt investigators alleging that Almond had accused us of kidnapping and raping her while she was under Hambright's supervision. [They then climbed on board the financial bandwagon with a $3 million claim of their own based on their faked story.] This quickly resulted in an even more sensationalistic international media storm.

The San Francisco Police investigated, verified that Lilith and I had been 3,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. - where I was on duty every single day Almond was at the daycare center 9/1-10/31/86 - and closed the case with no charges accordingly.

In October 1988, however, I appeared as a panelist on a Geraldo Rivera Halloween special. Rivera was trying to aggravate and escalate the "SRA" witchhunt mania, and I was speaking out against it. The broadcast came to the attention of Senator Jesse Helms, who became enraged that a Lt.Colonel in the Army should dare to hold a "Satanic" religion. As Freedom of Information Act filings later revealed, Helms then secretly contacted his close personal friend, Secretary of the Army John Marsh, and insisted that Marsh devise some way to destroy my career.

As my 20-year military record was without blemish [In 1987 I was the sole USAR officer in the nation selected to attend the prestigious National Defense University/ICAF], the only way to act on Helms' demand was to try to revive the chaplain's scheme to threaten Lilith and myself, apparently expecting that with sufficient intimidation by the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) I would resign and "disappear". [It didn't work.]

The CID first (Jan 89) illegally forced a fulltime active duty board to deny me a new fulltime contract on expiration of my current one in 9/90. Six months later, after a sham "reinvestigation", it issued a report "titling" Lilith and myself for the chaplain's allegations. ["Titling" is a statement by the CID that it thinks a crime occurred.] Nevertheless the report itself contained not a single item of "evidence" other than the A-Ts' allegations that any crime whatever had occurred - and either suppressed or ignored abundant evidence of our innocence and the A-Ts' violations.

[For example, the CID tried to get around our 3,000-miles-away proof of innocence by finding out when we *had* previously been in San Francisco - several months before the 9-10/86 "window" - and then (in 1989) simply revising the allegation to *that* date! When the CID then learned that that this manufactured redate made the A-Ts' alleged location physically impossible, it then (in 1991) proceeded to invent a *new* location, once again on no grounds except its 1991 predicament. Both the manufactured "redating" and "relocating" necessarily made numerous additional elements of the chaplain's original fabrication impossible as well - inconvenient complications that the CID addressed by simply ignoring them.]

What this bizarre exercise in "manufactured evidence" *did* demonstrate was the strength of the political agenda predetermining the CID's "reinvestigation" from the outset. [For instance, the CID's illegal fixing of the fulltime-duty board took place at the *beginning* of its "reinvestigation" - half a year before it was supposedly able to perform the evaluation of that investigation.] Clearly an expose' that we had in fact been the innocent victims of a cold-blooded, calculated scheme to defraud the government - by a *Christian chaplain* - was politically out of the question from the beginning.

My repeated demands that those responsible for the CID action, as well as the chaplain, be court-martialed for false official statements, manufacture of evidence, obstruction of justice, misprision of serious offense, attempted $3 million defrauding of the government, and several other UCMJ and federal law violations, were similarly - and equally illegally - suppressed. The CID's response was to say that I was "swearing falsely" to these facts. Nevertheless it could not - and did not - produce even a single example of *any* such "factual falsehood" in the documents I filed and swore to under penalty of perjury. [Nor, of course, was I ever charged with making even a single "false statement".]

By administrative complaint process in 1990 we were able to have the "SRA titling" of Lilith removed. The CID refused to remove mine - although the A-Ts had always alleged we "did the SRA together" - because to do so would have exploded the entire CID operation and opened a trail of serious law violations leading to Helms and Secretary of the Army Marsh.

I next filed suit in federal court in 1990 to have the rest of the CID report exposed and retracted. The U.S. Privacy Act would have forced a comparison of every CID statement in the report with the actual facts (a _de novo_ judicial review). For this reason the CID argued intensely that its reports should be immune from _de novo_ review.

The case was filed as a Motion for Summary Judgment. There was no jury or in-court testimony. We assumed that the CID's legal violations were so flagrant, obvious, and numerous that a simple ruling by the judge would suffice.

To our surprise the judge ruled that all CID reports were indeed exempt from _de novo_ judicial review, and that the CID could conclude whatever it wished from its report *as written*.

We appealed, and the appeals court upheld the district judge's decision to exempt CID reports from the Privacy Act. Again in its decision, the appeals court recited as "facts" excerpts from the very CID document whose falsehoods were the *issue* of the entire lawsuit.

Following the lawsuit I detailed and documented the CID lawyer's extensive lies in briefs & oral argument to the Army Inspector General, Judge Advocate General, and finally the Army Chief of Staff.

None of my facts or documents was disputed or refuted, but neither was any action taken to courtmartial those responsible. This effectively exhausted my options.

The bottom line was that on one hand the politically-driven "black bag job" to intimidate me out of the Army had failed, and indeed could not withstand many other decent and honorable offices and officials in the same Army who, as they learned about the scheme, refused to aid, abet, or tolerate it. [This included every single superior officer in my own chain of command throughout all the years of the initial attack against us and the subsequent investigations.]

On the other hand we came to realize that it was politically out of the question that a Christian chaplain be courtmartialed for crimes committed against a "Satanist" and his wife, or that trails of illegal actions leading to powerful national political figures would be followed. And we also learned that the courts were also not about to force exposure of such a widespread and potentially politically-explosive cover-up as this one.

On the expiration of my fulltime active duty contract in 1990, I continued as a parttime active USAR officer for the next four years, assigned to Headquarters US Space Command with an above-Top Secret clearance. I decided to retire in 1994, and at that time received the Meritorious Service Medal from the [new] Secretary of the Army, covering 1984-1994. I remain today in the Army as a Lt.Colonel (Ret.).

Most people will find it sufficient, I think, that Lilith and I were never charged with anything after two long investigations (SFPD/FBI, CID), that I retained my TS+ clearance, and that I retired honorably in 1994. My Officer Efficiency Reports from the time of the attack on us to my 1994 retirement also continued to give me the highest possible evaluations in all categories.

My military service and present Army-Retired status are public record and can be independently verified by anyone wishing to take the trouble.

Nor is the 1990 lawsuit in any sense a "skeleton in my closet". A review of my attorney's district & appeals briefs & orals will glaringly expose what was actually taking place: a court coverup of blatant Senatorial/SecArmy/CID misconduct - and simultaneous brushing-aside of numerous illegal actions against an Army officer and his wife of a "politically incorrect" religion.

Michael A. Aquino, Lieutenant Colonel, Military Intelligence, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Maquino 06:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Maquino

What about including a paragraph that goes something along these lines:

Following the media frenzy that was whipped up by the book Michelle Remembers and subsequent public fixation on the idea of Satanic ritual abuse, Aquino and his wife Lilith were accused by an Army chaplain of having been involved in such activities. Aquino was investigated in depth by both the SFPD and FBI, as well as the CID, but was never charged with any crimes [can you provide citations to this effect?]; this follows the general pattern of SRA allegations, which have overwhelmingly been found to be falsifications, in most cases due to suggestive action on the part of therapists involved [cite the FBI report on SRA, [1] for support].

Unfortunately, the Wiki biography is probably going to have to mention the event (because if it doesn't, there will always be people wanting to add it), but it is in all likelihood better to pre-empt it with a short, factual account of the happenings, which don't go into unnecessary detail but put the allegations into the greater context. Then the rest of the biography can focus on more interesting things, such as the Temple, army career etc. There is no need to include sordid details of the saga, and mentioning that it was a chaplain who brought the accusations up leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions about possible motivations, while still being neutral and factual, not indulging in 'original research'.

The issue of Aquino's retirement from the army can be covered in another section entirely, since it is unrelated to the SRA fiasco. It can then mention the Meritorious Service Medal (is there a source for that?). Sherurcij claims to have sources saying Aquino was 'discharged', but is this not just a civilian misuse of the term? ('If I leave work, I quit, but if I leave the army, I am discharged, honorably if I behaved well').

Maquino, remember that you can cite sources that are not available online (although online records are better), so if there is some register or something that the Army keeps of retirements (at the MPRC perhaps), and your name is on that register, then you can cite that. Maybe just cite the code on your DD Form 214 (if officers get such a thing)? The onus is then on the 'investigative journalists' to go and dig that up to verify for themselves that the claim is substantiated. If you provide the citations here, it's a lot easier to include them, because you'll know the particular format.

Finally, regarding lawsuits. I think it is a principle on Wikipedia that in a biography of a living person, lawsuits are not included unless they are the reason the person is notable (because they are a famous litigant or something). The policy cites the example of a messy divorce. I think Aquino's legal wrangles fall into that category: he is notable for his religion, particularly in the context of a distinguished army career coinciding with it (and his religion is the cause of the SRA allegations, as well). He is not well-known because he filed lawsuits, and therefore his bio need not include information on the lawsuits. Richard1968 10:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is necessary to add that paragraph [though I appreciate the care you took in wording it]. Really, out there in the "real world" no one brings up or cares about that episode anymore. It was 20 years ago, it fizzled out [as did the whole "SRA" scam-scene generally], and the only people who occasionally try to drag it up are cranks and character assassins, as in this instance. I am not "ashamed" of it in the least; I just don't think it deserves the dignity of attention, particularly, if I may be allowed a moment of immodesty, against my lifelong record of positive accomplishment.

But just as frankly I am a retired senior citizen now and would prefer to "just fade away". Younger, brighter, fresher intellects now inspire the Temple of Set, which gives me great pleasure. In the memoirs/histories on my webpage I will continue to make freely available whatever worthwhile things I have learned during my own Grail Quest, and that, I really think, should be enough. Wikipedia should really just eliminate the article and other references to me entirely, and drop me down the proverbial Memory Hole.

Michael Aquino

Maquino 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Maquino

> "Five years later, Aquino filed the unsuccessful suit Aquino v .Stone, 957 F.2d 139 attempting to sue the Army for his discharge and for having been "titled" (a military accusation) of indecent acts with a child. The lawsuit, however, was dismissed. [Sourced to Curio Jones]"

>:Finally, regarding lawsuits. I think it is a principle on Wikipedia that in a biography of a living person, lawsuits are not included unless they are the reason the person is notable (because they are a famous litigant or something). The policy cites the example of a messy divorce. I think Aquino's legal wrangles fall into that category: he is notable for his religion, particularly in the context of a distinguished army career coinciding with it (and his religion is the cause of the SRA allegations, as well). He is not well-known because he filed lawsuits, and therefore his bio need not include information on the lawsuits. Richard1968 10:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Diana Napolis. You may have heard of me because I plea-bargained to "stalking" Jennifer Hewitt in 2003. I was recently allowed internet privileges and this web page came to my attention. I was appalled due to a number of factors:

1) The editors allowed Michael Aquino to make claims that were incorrect and were unsupported by the record.

2) The editor made the comparison between a pivotol lawsuit against the Army - after a high-profile satanist was titled under an investigatory report and processed out of the army - to a "messy divorce," therefore you did not feel that this information was relevant. This information is quite relevant because it described what the consequence was for a military officer after a ritual abuse investigation.

3) Michael Aquino claimed that I had been guilty of cyberstalking him while on the internet before the year 2000 and these are libelous comments which continue to cause me emotional distress.

I have never cyberstalked Michael Aquino, nor threatened him, which is another misrepresentation he likes to make. In 2001, I was targeted with nonlethal technology, specifically “voice to skull” technology, after debating with Mr. Aquino which was intended to psychologically incapacitate me and to keep me from exercising my First Amendment Rights to free speech on a public forum. This technology is defined on the Center for Army Lessons Learned. http://call.army.mil/products/thesaur/00016275.htm A lawsuit is pending due these issues which will fully explain how I was victimized.

It has been proven that Mr. Aquino was processed out of the Army in 1990 which is clearly referenced in the appellate documentation that is referred to on this web site. Because I wanted to make absolutely sure that this was the case, I wrote to the National Personnel Records Center on December 1, 2007 and submitted a Freedom of Information Request. The National Personnel Records Center sent me Michael Aquino’s “Record of Assignment,” plus a cover letter.

Both the cover letter and the attached “Record of Assignment” had the same information. The Records Center wrote that Aquino’s dates of service was from June 14, 1968 – August 31, 1990 which also matched Aquino’s Record of Assignment which had the same dates. Obviously, this proves that Aquino’s career ended in 1990 unless he went to another branch of service after 1990. I also requested and received a list of the awards that had been given to then Lt. Col. Aquino and a Meritorious Certificate was not among them.

I refer you to the updated edition of my Satanism and Ritual Abuse Archive, posted at http://www.endritualabuse.org/ritualabusearchive.htm for further details.

If any of the parties attempt to cause trouble for me because of the fact that I am correcting public misrepresentations about myself and attempting to set the record straight, then I would like to remind them again, a lawsuit is pending about the ongoing efforts to deprive me of my first amendment rights, and the tricks that have normally been played in the past are not going to work anymore

Thank you,

D. Napolis