Be Scofield’s World of Wonders

Be Scofield’s World of Wonders

J. Baxter

When I received an email from a former mole in Be Scofield’s inner circle, notifying me that she was able to net a Pro Bono lawyer from a high-powered law firm, I nearly dropped my morning latte in my lap. Why would any respectable attorney even consider defending such an obvious offender for free, donating his or her work to wrangle an unmistakably innocent couple that filed a defensive lawsuit against her for defamation? My interaction with a number of attorneys in the past has led me to realize, most attend tactically to their image. If even a semi-aware attorney would invest but a few minutes into viewing the unsophisticated nonsense presented in Be Scofield’s writings, they’d easily spot the contrived prate she regularly peddles to her online devotees. In genuine disbelief, I decided to find out more. 

After enquiring around and perusing a number of Tim Cunningham’s profiled cases, I couldn’t perceive anything that indicated he is in any way as obtuse as he appears in taking on that Scofield lawsuit. I was at a loss. When that happens, the common approach for most investigative journalists like myself is to refine an unobvious query through elimination. After jettisoning possibility after possibility, what still remains is likely the answer. Per se, the axiomatic last man standing is Cunningham appears to lack a moral compass. He seems to have a general disregard for the obvious damage Scofield exacts on innocent lives, and the resulting ordeals of the blameless. He seems more interested in displaying his argument for freedom of speech than he is concerned for civil or moral justice. I say this with some confidence as he had a choice. Offering Pro Bono, he was not pre-indebted to be neutral. The only remaining incentive that appears to make any sense is that Scofield promised Cunningham media coverage, clearly coming at the cost of the public figures she’s defaming. This makes most sense because this kind of tactic is right up Scofield’s alley. As a crude unethical blogger, she has a relatively small audience. To effectively sponge up the recognition she craves Scofield strategically draws her sought after attention from the followers belonging to the persons she defames. Sadly, Google analytics unwittingly supports that. My sense is that she was successful in tempting Cunningham into taking that bait.

I nearly halted my interests there. After my initial research commotion, I began asking myself the question, why do I care? Why concern myself with the insignificant drivel coming from an irrelevant tabloid blogger? I have plenty of other paid writing engagements that are calling. I was about to close my laptop, when I found myself unexpectedly paralyzed with the realization, this is exactly how true journalism dies. When those who care stop caring and allow the noble voice of genuine journalism to be soiled with the angry neurosis driven efforts of the broken, the entire world sufferers. True journalism is meant to be the voice of truth in our global communities. Scofield is not that voice. She is the offshoot of a festering hatred; apparently born of a pain she is unable to face and deal with internally. When that happens, the beast comes forward to do the damage. We are then willed the voice of more hatred in an ailing medium that urgently requires more love and insight. Change doesn’t come from indifference, it comes through caring.

Viewing her Facebook pages, I found her to be fully engrossed in feeding her followers needs for more of her antagonistic form of entertainment, while making herself appear as if she is the victim of an attempted injustice in being litigated for defamation. This is for any intelligent reader nonsensical. The plaintiffs who are suing her are clearly not addressing her right to free speech. I am myself a staunch defender of that. Defamation is not protected by freedom of speech. Defamation refers to false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation. Defamatory comments often include false comments that a person committed a particular crime or engaged in certain sexual activities. That is precisely what Scofield has done.

I haven’t been successful in contacting the lawsuit plaintiffs to ask them for their perspective in this Pro Bono issue. I’ve only been able to examine Scofield’s present and absurd world of wonders. This doesn’t offer much of a balanced view. Fair perspective doesn’t live there. She unquestionably deletes all comments that might come in to threaten her authority or dares to challenge her control over her audience. There’s only a carefully managed one-way view of things. What comes through there is her intentions to do the plaintiff’s further harm through writing more defaming material. And it appears her audience may be willing to pay for the show. She began a new go-fund-me effort, hoping to get some more cash for her prowling efforts.

I don’t believe her motivation here is anger at being challenged. I believe it is now pure fear that drives her actions. This will undoubtedly backfire. It doesn’t require much insight to see that kind of offensive action speaks more of terror than confidence. A confident journalist could just sit back, and let the lawyers have all the room they need to find an amenable outcome. Or, she could just let the defaming article drop away. It wouldn’t really be questioned if it quietly disappeared. Her renewed aggressions speak more of her crumbling world that is about to come tumbling down. Her efforts to do more damage reveal fear clearly has her by the throat.  I have seen this a number of times before. When that happens, judgement wanes. More aggression effectually equates to losing your cool. It won’t take her audience of sharks long to see that as well. Once they smell the fear and sense her blood in the water, they’ll begin to turn on her and she’ll become the fodder.