Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________________
:
MARINKA PESCHMANN, : CIVIL ACTION NO.:
: 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL
Plaintiff, :
-v- : Reply to Defendants’ Opposition
: To Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court
STEPHEN QUAYLE, and DOUGLAS : Appointed Neutral
HAGMANN :
:
Defendants. :
:

Reply to Defendants Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion for a Court Appointed Neutral

Plaintiff pro se, Marinka Peschmann, respectfully submits her reply to Defendant Stephen

Quayle’s and Douglas Hagmann’s (collectively “Defendants”) Opposition (“Opp”) to her Motion

seeking a Court Appointed Neutral (“CAN”) for ADR in accordance with Dkt. No. 163.

Contrary to Counsels’ assertions in Opp, Plaintiff is not paranoid. The Court may review

Glasser’s questionnaire attached herein as Exhibit 1 to verify if she was correct when she

terminated Glasser’s services as a “neutral.” It opened, in part, reproduced verbatim below:

I cannot provide for you legal advice however given that you are a pro se litigant I feel
obliged to tell you that this document, your responses and the content of the ADR calls
are subject to a certain kind of confidentiality given to parties in mediation. You
should be aware that your sharing any of the above with a third-party may result in a
waiver of any such confidentiality. Thus, I strongly advise you to take your own counsel
in this matter. Please remember that the questions below are designed to give me the
best possible picture of the interests of everyone. [Emphasis Plaintiff]

For starters, Plaintiff does not need to consult with a lawyer regarding confidentiality given

she has worked as a ghost writer. She waived it. Glasser’s questions did not reflect that they

came from a neutral acting on his own. See for e.g., Question 8 reproduced verbatim below:

Question 8. Did you or did you not actually file the FOIA requests referred to in the
pleadings?”

1
 Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 2 of 10

Plaintiff reaffirms that Question 8 suggesting she is a liar by questioning whether or not she

actually had filed the FOIAs was not “designed to give [Glasser] the best possible picture of the

interests of everyone.” Plaintiff affirms that she still cannot fathom how a Neutral would have

come up with Question 8 on their own based on what she still does not know. What she does

know is that it is illegal to intentionally defraud United States government agencies. Hence,

Plaintiff cited 18 U.S.C. § 371 in her Termination of Services Notice.

See also for e.g., Question 9 reproduced verbatim below:

Question 9: Of the statements sued upon in this matter, can you rank them in order of
impact in your view?

Given the number of defamation per se statements in this action where damages are

presumed ranking them is futile, Plaintiff again fails to see how Question 9 was “designed to

give [Glasser] the best possible picture of the interests of everyone.”

Plaintiff does not desire to burden this Court by breaking down each question, as the Court

may read them to assess if Glasser was acting like a Neutral or more akin to defense counsel.

FBI Threat Assessment: Defendants’ “News” Has Real World Consequences.

Plaintiff had notified Defendants’ Counsel regarding the May 30, 2019, Federal Bureau

of Investigation (“FBI”) Intelligence Bulletin from the FBI Phoenix Office, they filed in Opp §

Exhibit C (Dkt. No 166, p 13-27), regarding their clients and others like them“news,”entitled:

(U//LES) Anti-Government, Identity Based, and Fringe Political Conspiracy Theories Very

Likely Motivate Some Domestic Extremists to Commit Criminal, Sometimes Violent Activity.

Based upon Defendants’ and/or their fraudulent “sources,” open source content, the

conspiracies they peddled, collectively or separately as “news,” in the FBI Intelligence Bulletin

includes: Sandy Hook, Pizzagate, Qanon, Islamberg, TSA, New World Order, HARP, weather

control, United Nations takeover, and False flags. All of them except for one.

2
 Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 3 of 10

To Plaintiff’s knowledge, Defendants’ and their “sources” do not peddle the Zionist,

Jewish world domination “news.” See also, SAC §108, 237-238, 413.

It would take Plaintiff terminating a “neutral,” who Counsel Rosen claimed would be

neutral, for Counsel to finally acknowledge the elephant in the room that has always been in the

room. There are serious and dangerous problems with their clients’ “news.” 1 “News” they failed

to co-opt the Plaintiff into. Indeed, Plaintiff had been trying to do something about it as her

2014-2015 Correction articles correcting their false allegations with disreputable sources verify.

Counsel knew what prompted this lawsuit, the NSA targeting allegation, was false, fake,

this entire time, as their court filings have essentially argued, “Who cares if Hagmann is a bad

source and his NSA targeting allegation is not true...” (For e.g., Dkt. No. 128).

Counsel knows Defendants’ “insider” sources who helped induce interstate and international

commerce based on their “news” were fraudulent. See Quayle’s precious metals buy-back program

(SAC § Exhibit 22 (Dkt No.103-2)).

The motivation behind the Defendants’ per se defamatory conduct against Plaintiff could

have exposed her to potential criminal liability had she been complicit in their “news.” See for

e.g., FTC v Kevin Trudeau et al (2016) No. 15-3472; FTC v Clickbooth.com et al,

No.1:2012cv09087. See also: “Former Fox News commentator sentenced to prison for faking CIA

ties,” Reuters, July 15, 2016.

Thus, Plaintiff is relieved that law enforcement finally noticed their “news.” She does not

want to see anyone hurt by their “news.” Defendants’ tortious conduct needs to be deterred.

Plaintiff correctly pled punitive damages.

1
Plaintiff notified Counsel and the Court about Defendants, the Russia probes and other
investigation in 2017 (Dkt. No. 67), See also, Dkt No. 88, §SAC §166, 265-276, Dkt. No. 111.
3
 Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 4 of 10

In Opp, Counsel complains that Plaintiff is insulting. She disagrees. The truth is not

pretty having had to deal with Counsel for over four years, who knows their clients “news” was

false, has caught the attention of the authorities, and Defendants’ Satanic, twisted scripture and

Illuminati “news” (§SAC 161-166), their Christian Conservative audiences, who believe in the Bible

literally, literally believe, was exploited by the Russians during the 2016 U.S. Presidential

Elections.

Instead of Counsels’ clients cleaning up their act and their “news,” which Plaintiff submits is

not just in her best interests (and the public-at large), but in their best interests, they decided to file

motion after motion, after motion, year after year, after year, with fake narratives, falsehoods, and

spoiled exhibits with open pop up ads in two Federal District Courts2 for over four years.

Still, now, Defendants’ Opp stating they want to waive mediation is not surprising given

what Plaintiff wrote in her termination notice to Glasser is true. Counsel seemingly charging

towards discovery reveal themselves by complaining that Plaintiff properly raised 42 Pa. C.S.

§8343 (b) in her Second Amended Complaint (ECF Dkt. No. 103 §387-388). Plaintiff’s

Correction articles and pleadings are substantiated. Plaintiff submits substantiating facts is a

burden for individuals who cannot substantiate any of their false statements they made against

the Plaintiff with actual malice, who have dragged on this case burdening the Court. 3

To wit, in light of Glasser’s improper (and insulting) questions to the Plaintiff, she

respectfully requests a Court Appointed Neutral to serve in a good faith and productive mediation.

Counsel Rosen would not agree to use a Court Appointed Neutral in Pennsylvania specializing in

2
See, Counsels’ open pop-up ads exhibit (Dkt. No. 49-3, and Dkt. No. 82, 82-4, 84). See also, in
SAC, Plaintiff submitted a legible copy of the Feb 10, 2015 Broadcast transcript with a notation
addressing minor corrections (§SAC §119, §SAC §Exhibit 18 (Dkt No. 103-2)). In Defendants’
[third] motion to dismiss, Counsel re-submitted it altered, partially illegible by lightening the text
obsensibly so the Court could not read it (Dkt No. 106-3).
3
Contrary to Counsel that includes their provably false Satanic, devil talk against the Plaintiff.
Quayle cited a national news editor as his source. Sources can be deposed (SAC 159-163).
4
 Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 5 of 10

personal jury cases which Plaintiff originally sought pursuant to the Court’s rules since he said

Quayle’s insurance company would not pay for it.

After over four years of bludgeoning litigation, and eager to move forward with her life,

Plaintiff agreed to Glasser, who out of the three choices Quayle’s Counsel provided appeared to be

the best choice (factoring in costs and potential travel). Acting in good faith, as Counsel Rosen

insisted Glasser would be neutral to the Plaintiff, (and to this honorable Court), Plaintiff gave

Glasser the benefit of the doubt. It was a mistake.

Plaintiff has been in mediation before that ultimately led to a settlement. She knows the

difference between a neutral and defense counsel.

Plaintiff thanks this Court for reviewing Glasser’s Questionaire, and for signing off on

the discovery confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff provided Counsel with her disclosures this

morning. Counsel Rosen responded that he is dealing with a family emergency and should have

his disclosures to Plaintiff by tomorrow morning the latest. As of this filing, there is no word

from Counsel Agresti representing Defendant Hagmann.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to appoint a Court

approved neutral, where the Parties pay an equal amount, who serves the interests of all the

Parties, and looks forward to our December 4, 2019 conference call.

Dated: December 3, 2019 Respectfully submitted by:

/s/ Marinka Peschmann

Marinka Peschmann, Plaintiff pro se
P.O. Box 45094 Port Credit, Mississauga
Ontario, L5G 4S7, Canada,
Tele: 646-929-4132, Email: [email protected]

5
Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 6 of 10

EXHIBIT 1

6
 Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 7 of 10

Charles J. Glasser, Jr., Esq., LLC 53 Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07052 +1(973) 666-6270

A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION [email protected] www.charlesglasser.net

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT MATERIAL

To: Marinka Peschmann

From: Charles Glasser, Esq.
Date: November 22, 2019
Re: Mediation Procedures and Questionnaire

PROCEDURES
I’ve arranged the mediation process as follows: you’ve been added to a Skype group called Peschmann
ADR 12-12. As part of that group you have been invited to three separate calls. The first call is a group
call where each of the parties will have an opportunity to express their concerns or goals for 10 minutes.
Then you have been invited to an individual “caucus” call between only you and me. Finally, all group
members are invited to a final call (called “negotiation”) where we can discuss the potentially common
interests and potential resolution in greater detail.

QUESTIONNAIRE
I cannot provide for you legal advice however given that you are a pro se litigant I feel obliged to tell you
that this document, your responses and the content of the ADR calls are subject to a certain kind of
confidentiality given to parties in mediation. You should be aware that your sharing any of the above
with a third-party may result in a waiver of any such confidentiality. Thus, I strongly advise you to take
your own counsel in this matter. Please remember that the questions below are designed to give me the
best possible picture of the interests of everyone.

Please answer the questions below in a short, declarative manner. Try to avoid overloading any
response with legal or personal arguments that do not directly answer the question. I do not anticipate
any of the answers to be particularly lengthy and if you feel obligated to go into detailed explanations, I
would prefer that you limit such responses to 250 words.

Question 1:
Please provide to me a copy of your CV and any copies of publicity sheets, advertisements featuring
your name or likeness, and a brief description of your accomplishments as a writer.

Question 2:
Please detail any television, radio, multimedia or published articles and/or interviews about you or your
work, including any reviews of your work if available.

Question 3:
Are you receiving assistance of any kind with this litigation (paid or otherwise) and if so, please detail
that and any associated expenses you have incurred regarding costs of litigation.

1 CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT MATERIAL

 Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 8 of 10

Charles J. Glasser, Jr., Esq., LLC 53 Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07052 +1(973) 666-6270

A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION [email protected] www.charlesglasser.net

Question 4:
Please indicate your annual gross income from the year 2013 to your most recent tax filing. If you have
sources of revenue other than writing, please estimate the percentage for each year of such non-
writing work.

Question 5:
Please detail any specific contracts you had with 3rd parties that were canceled or otherwise breached or
revoked wherein the counterparty specifically cited the defendant’s statements as a reason for such
cancellation or breach. This applies only to signed agreements. Please include a copy of any such
communications from the above referenced counterparties.

Question 6:
Please detail concrete, out-of-pocket, non-speculative financial losses that you attribute to the
defendant’s statements. This does not include potential losses but is instead directed at “actual
damages.” To the extent that you have any such losses please also provide a provable good-faith
estimate of those losses in the aggregate.

Question 7:
Have you incurred any medical expenses including but not limited to mental health care as a result of
the defendants’ statements? If so, please briefly detail such expenses.

Question 8:
Did you or did you not actually file the FOIA requests referred to in the pleadings?

Question 9:
Of the statements sued upon in this matter, can you rank them in order of impact in your view?

Question 10:
Do you use social media, and if so, what platforms and how many followers do you have?

Question 11:
Prior to filing this lawsuit, did you make a demand for correction or retraction? If you have a copy,
please provide it.

2 CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT MATERIAL

 Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 9 of 10

Charles J. Glasser, Jr., Esq., LLC 53 Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07052 +1(973) 666-6270

A LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION [email protected] www.charlesglasser.net

Thank you for your time in addressing the questions above. It would be most helpful if you could
respond by December 6.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

Regards,

Charles J. Glasser, Jr., Esq.

3 CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT MATERIAL

 Case 1:17-cv-00259-SPB-RAL Document 168 Filed 12/03/19 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 3, 2019 copies of the foregoing Reply to Defendants’

Opposition with Mr. Glasser’s Questionaire to Plaintiff’s Motion seeking a Court Appointed

Neutral were filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania and served via ECF to the following

counsel parties of record:

Representing Defendant Stephen Quayle

Bruce Steven Rosen

McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen, Carvelli, P.C.
805 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 308-0070
Email: [email protected]

Representing Defendant Douglas Hagmann

Michael A. Agresti
Marsh Spaeder Baur Spaeder & Schaaf, LLP
300 State Street, Suite 300
Erie, PA 16507
Telephone: 814-456-5301
Email: [email protected]

/s/ Marinka Peschmann

Marinka Peschmann, Plaintiff pro se,
P.O. Box 45094 Port Credit
Mississauga, Ontario, L5G 4S7, Canada
Telephone: 646-929-4132
Email: [email protected]