Is Laura Knight Jadczyk a Psychopath?

Or how LKJ told a woman to lie to the French Police in order to falsely incarcerate an innocent man.

Jay Weidner here:

Apparently the French authorities are investigating Laura Knight Jadczyk. Below is her recent description of what is happening to the cult and how the French authorities are handling Ms. Jadczyk. I will be coming in from time to time to comment on her remarks. But I must tell you from the beginning that Laura Knight Jadczyk’s remarks below are proof positive that she is a full-blown psychopath. My comments will be in bold. Laura is writing this just in case you don’t know.

“UPDATE: This ridiculous situation of being investigated by the French Police Judiciare searching for some "infractions" continues so we decided to bump the story back to the top with the updates. It is beyond all imagining that such a big to-do is being made about such a pathetically cooked-up allegation. But I guess that if you live your life cleanly and make sure you cross all your "t's" and dot your "i's," legally speaking, the people that want you to shut up and go away get desperate and try to find any accusation, no matter how weak and unfounded, to harass and wear you out.

Here we discover that Laura lives a clean life and she does everything perfect when it comes to legal matters.

Another member of the SOTT household was interrogated by the French police on Sept 14, and still another, Dr. Gabriela Segura, will be interrogated on the 15th (today). We have been advised that I, LKJ, will be interrogated soon. And, believe it or not, they are finally going to get around to interrogating the woman who is at the center of the situation next week.

After reviewing the questions that have been asked and the way they were asked (along with the fact that the Police Judiciare got a court order to access our bank records and probably have been tapping our phones and internet service), we have been able to get a vague idea of what they are trying to find out. Among those questions is one about sex. That is, do we demand celibacy from our "followers" and in our house?! Apparently, someone told them that we do which is totally ridiculous but you see where a question like that leads? You end up having to explain your SEX LIFE to the police! Can anybody really believe this is happening?

Seems perfectly fine if they want to ask about someone’s sex life, especially if it is in a group living situation that reeks of a cult. How many cults have we discovered that use sex ­ or lack of sex ­ to control its members? It would be the first area of inquiry if one were trying to find out if they were dealing with a cult.

It really is incredible that the French government is so naive that they buy into the lies of an internet psychopath and are continuing to waste tax money, time and energy on this ridiculous "investigation". And that is why we don't, for a minute, believe that there is nothing sinister behind this.

Laura is telling us that a dangerous psychopath is after her and is steering the police towards the investigation. Apparently this psychopath has no motive for what he is doing. All we really learn about him is that Laura calls him a psychopath. So he is the 50 millionth person she has called a psychopath. With her high school education and zilch experience in the fields of psychology or psychiatry I think we can presume that the person in question has not been properly and legally defined as a psychopath. Laura is just name calling here. Something she really likes to do.

Now, keep in mind, people, that the whole thing started because of an online conversation among about a dozen women. One woman was in a horrible relationship of abuse and was asking her online women friends (many of whom she had met in real life, so these weren't just perfect strangers) for help in figuring out how to get the abuser to leave.

Nothing new here, women frequently get together and bitch about their men. The only thing here to understand is that Laura is telling us that some of the women have never met the woman in question and really don’t know her motivations in all of this.

This discussion went on for a couple of years. We discussed the book Women Who Run With the Wolves by Jungian psychologist, Clarissa Pinkola-Estes and the fact that she was in a Bluebeard type relationship. She told the guy over and over again that she wanted to end the relationship, that she wanted him to go.

Of course this kind of thing happens in almost every relationship and I am sure, in fact I know that Laura has been in a few relationships where things were falling apart and one side was trying to hold it together. The real question is: if the relationship was that bad why didn’t she just leave? Answer: Because she was just a woman bitching about her boyfriend to other women. She wasn’t going to leave. Because if she was going to leave, she would have!!!

She revealed many incidents of abuse and suggested sexual abuse of her children.

A … er …suggesting sexual abuse is a far different thing than accusing someone of sexual abuse. If he abused her she should have gone to the police. If he abused her children she should have had him arrested. But there is one other important factor here. Why didn’t Laura, once she saw that the woman in question was not reporting any of this to the police, report it herself? In fact it is illegal to knowingly cover up criminal activity.

He resisted and countered every effort like the perfect parasite he is, even telling her at one point that if she didn't like him, she could just leave and he would keep the house and children!!! Not sure what she means by resisted but telling someone to leave because they don’t like you anymore is a perfectly reasonable response. It would seem from Laura’s telling that he is actually trying to salvage the relationship and the woman, encouraged by Laura and her attack gang, wanted to end it. So why not walk out? The real question, which remains unanswered, is: did she ever walk out on the guy?

Finally, I (LKJ) just told her to threaten him with reporting him to the police to get him to leave. My exact words were: Then make it simple for him: Be a Wolf woman and make him so miserable that he does not want to be there. Or put his clothes out and change the locks and tell him if he comes near you, you will cut yourself, call the police and tell them he did it. Tell him you will report him for abusing the children. Tell him that you will deny on the Bible that you ever said anything like that and it won't matter anyway because he will be in jail with one phone call.

You gotta play hardball here.

And here my friends we present the evidence that Laura Knight Jadczyk is a full blown psychopath. In the above quote she is tells the woman in question to cut herself and tell the police that her boyfriend did it. She then tells her to lie and even take an oath that he cut her. She then tells her that this phone call to the police - where she lies to them - will be just fine because he will be in jail because of what she just did.

Laura Knight Jadcyzk encouraged one of her cult followers to make up a lie, repeat the lie to the police, all in an effort to put an innocent person in prison for a long time. Some of you might find this shocking but a close examination of Laura’s past reveals that she has been at this for quite awhile, But back to Laura’s ramblings because it just gets better.

Notice that I never advised her to actually make any such accusations to the police, it was all about finding the right words to get him to leave, and if that included threatening him with exposure, do it!

Now this sentence seals the deal and we can now see the entire scene coming into focus. After telling the woman to call the police and lie to them. After telling the woman to cut herself and blame the guy, after telling the woman that this single phone call will land him in prison, Laura does an about face and tells the reader that she never told the woman to lie to the police. So let’s look at her words again to make sure that I am not making a false accusation.

“My exact words were:

Then make it simple for him: Be a Wolf woman and make him so miserable that he does not want to be there. Or put his clothes out and change the locks and tell him if he comes near you, you will cut yourself, call the police and tell them he did it. Tell him you will report him for abusing the children. Tell him that you will deny on the Bible that you ever said anything like that and it won't matter anyway because he will be in jail with one phone call.

You gotta play hardball here.”

Pretty sure I’m reading this right. She, that is Laura, is telling the woman to cut herself. Call the police and tell them he did it.

Seems pretty clear that she was telling the woman to make up false testimony against an innocent man. He is innocent until proven guilty. No matter what the woman in question says.

Well, he was obviously worried that this would really happen, so HE went to the police to preempt the possibility that she would accuse him of abuse (claiming Oh, my ex is going to accuse me of abuse, but I'm innocent!),

Laura, he is innocent until PROVEN guilty

produced the email badly translated so it read as though I was actually telling her to go to the police, not just threaten him to get him out, and repeated a whole raft of ridiculous lies created by a total psychopath, that we run a cult, that I hypnotize people to turn them into mind-controlled slave/zombies, etc.

No Laura all he had to do is produce the email where you told his girlfriend to lie to the police. And why is he a psychopath? I am not a psychologist but I would say that the person who is advising someone over the internet to lie to the police is not only a full blown psychopath but actually kind of stupid.

Now, any district attorney or police force with two firing neurons in contact with one another would have contacted me, asked about the email in question, asked to see an original to determine what was really said, asked about the context, and the whole thing would have been sorted in an afternoon.

You told some one to lie to the authorities. Any reasonable person would assume that you would encourage others to lie again and that you would also lie. That would be the take that a person with more than two neurons firing would make.

But that isn't what has happened. Thus far, for going on 7 months now, the French Police Judiciare has been spending an enormous amount of time searching for "infractions" and combing through our bank records (they now know how poor we are), calling anybody whose name appears on a check we have ever written or deposited to ask details about our business, interviewing people (4 and 5 hour interviews), and basically acting like it is a case of national importance. Can you grok that? Only this is so pathetic and stupid one can hardly wrap their head around it! Geeze! All I did was tell a female friend to say whatever she had to say to get the parasite in her life off his rear end and out the door!

Go please Laura’s words again. She told her female friend to cut herself and tell the police that he did it. That she should tell the police that he was abusing their children. Just think what Laura is doing to those poor children?

Now, get this, the police captain in charge has been told these things. But she has managed to twist it around to: "Well, if she thought he was abusing her children, she should have made a police report!" That is: blaming the victim.

Excuse me Laura. That is the 64 million dollar question. The REAL question Laura, is why didn’t you ask her this question? You are really coming off as pretty naïve and dumb here. I expected more from you.

Keep in mind that she was just suspecting things, not certain of them, and was just trying to get him to leave, go away, hit the road, Jack, and don't come back.

Whoa!! So now Laura admits that there is no proof of any of her accusations, we already know that she never reported anything to the police. Without any evidence why would she call him a psychopath? Why would she accuse him of anything without evidence?

Because that is how Laura deals with everything ­ as you will soon find out!

It was a tense and unpleasant situation that needed to be dealt with before she could begin to look for any hard evidence of abuse. And geeze, considering the federal case that is being made about an email I wrote, what would they have done to her if she had no proof of abuse? How do you prove that stuff anyway?

Now we are descending into literary hell. A familiar place for Laura’s readers.

Further, the victim HAS made complaints to the police about "Jean" but was told that it wasn't worthy of a real investigation or charge!

So, this man, "Jean", can physically attack a woman, steal his ex-partner's hard drive AND use a private email badly translated as the basis of false accusations that get the Police involved in a 7 month investigation, but nothing he has done is worthy of investigating? Say what?

Please note that Laura’s writing ability is beginning to deteriorate. If he physically attacked the woman why then didn’t she report it? Furthermore, Laura, why didn’t you pick up the phone and call the police the minute that you heard the woman’s story?

Either that, or the French authorities have been tasked with putting SOTT out of business. If that is the case, they are really desperate and, since we live clean lives and obey the laws of the land, manage our activities with care, there isn't anything they can accuse us of... so they have had to create it almost literally out of nothing.

Out of nothing? Really? Advising a person to cut herself and tell the police that someone else did it so that he goes to prison is nothing? Advising a person to tell the police that this person molested her children is nothing?

What is really crazy about it is that the whole money-wasting, time-wasting, energy wasting, farce is because I advised a woman involved with an abuser, a pedophile, who had physically, sexually, psychologically abused other women and children in the past, to threaten him with exposure if he didn't leave. We do, indeed, live in bizarro world.

Yes indeed we do Laura. A long glance in the mirror will prove that one for sure. Personally I hope that this dude ‘Jean’ sues your ass over the last set of statements. What we are really seeing here folks is that Laura Knight Jadczyk has very little social graces. She really does not know what is appropriate behavior. If she was positive that the woman was being abused, both physically and sexually, by a psychopath, then Laura had no other duty then to inform the local authorities about the person in question, Jean. But Laura doies not do this. Why? Because Laura probably wasn’t 100% sure that the woman was telling the truth. It is either that or Laura is an idiot. Okay okay that is a valid argument. Because who other than an idiot would advise someone to lie to the police and do it on the internet?

The real point though is this: Laura Knight Jadczyk has gone out of her way to attack people saying the most outlandish things. Many have wondered why she does this. Many have asked why she goes out of her way to make so many needless enemies, like Jean. Laura will try to dress the situation up in the fancy clothes of her championing some cause or that she is a victim, both of these classical psychopathic traits by the way. My conclusion is that Laura is a seriously disturbed individual who can read the paragraph quoted above and see nothing wrong in it. She can actually read the words, her words, saying that she should go to the police and lie and then say that we should notice that I never told her to tell the police. This is seriously warped shit here folks.

Sott.net is a popular news and news analysis web site, but how many of our readers know what goes on behind the scenes here? For those who don't, we think it's time you were brought up to speed, for a very specific reason.

First, a little history.

Sott.net (aka Signs of the Times) began as a small internet project of Laura Knight-Jadczyk back in 2002. Particularly since the 9/11 attacks, Laura had been keeping a close eye on current events and noticing the increasing levels of propaganda and lies that were being passed off as 'news'. She had also begun to notice that many very interesting stories were receiving very little coverage by the major media outlets, not to mention the items that were being scrubbed from the net. Her natural response (natural for her, but perhaps not everyone), was to create a web site to remedy this. In the 9 years since then, Signs of the Times has grown into the Sott.net you know and appreciate today and holds true to the initial remit of its founder - to bring some truth and sanity to an increasingly mendacious and insane world.

Actually sott was and is a cut and paste operation using stories gleaned from various websites around the world, mostly she just ripped off Jeff Rense’s great site. She occasionally throws in a badly written story by Joe Quinn to make it look good. Also and firstly sott is a magnet site to suck you and your money into her cassiopean cult.

Laura's penchant for digging into stories to find the truth of the matter did not begin in 2002 however. For many years previous (all of her adult life in fact), Laura had been driven by a need to figure out the nature of the world in which she lived. Her long years of studies and research spanned a breathtaking array of subjects, from ancient history, to psychology to the paranormal and back again. It should be said that her studies and research never strayed too far from the standard academic views on these topics. In the early 1990's however, a number of (at the time) inexplicable experiences (detailed in her autobiography Amazing Grace) prompted Laura to delve into research on - horror of horrors - the hysterical world of UFOs and alleged alien abductions. As she is wont to say, of all the people who never wanted to know anything about UFOs, she deserves a place at the head of the line. But there it was, things had happened that were inexplicable and Laura wasn't going to shove them under the rug.

Now Laura introduces us to her other half of her broken personality. She starts writing about herself in the third person. Bragging about herself using the first person would seem a bit awkward. Laura sent her books out to all of the major publishers in the USA and she was summarily rejected by all of them. The comments from publishers are almost always in unison. They said that Laura can’t tell a story. Her text goes nowhere just vectoring and vectoring like a wounded butterfly. I tried reading her stuff and find her entire body of work to just be one long rip off project. There is not a shred of originality to be found anywhere.

To cut a long story short, recognizing the paranormal essence of the UFO phenomenon and including this as part of her research into the branch of the paranormal known as 'psychical research' (wildly popular in late 19th and early 20th century England and America - seances, table-tipping, contacting dead relatives etc), she decided to try her own little experiment using what is traditionally called a ouija or spirit board, but which is really just a square piece of cardboard with the letters of the alphabet on it. Again, the reasons for this experiment and the research that went into selecting the tool for exploring the paranormal are detailed in Amazing Grace.

She is purposefully rearranging her own chronology here. I don’t know why. Perhaps her memory is slipping. But SOTT was created long after the ouija board experiments and the cassiopaeans etc. I think what she is doing is she is trying to show something that is sort of legitimate like sott and placing it first and then back tracking into the more embarrassing aspects of her limited world experience. 

Enter the 'Cassiopaeans'

After about two years of weekly 'sessions' where she and a friend or two or three would sit down on a Saturday evening and ask the stereotypical questions like "is anybody there" and receive back mostly garbled nonsense, a shockingly coherent series of 'messages' began to be relayed, spelled out, letter by letter via the board. Thus began what has become known as the 'Cassiopaean transmissions', or to be more precise, a rather interesting experiment in 'superluminal communication' (based on the suggestion from the 'Cassiopaeans' that they are "us in the future").

With the crucial input of her mathematical physicist husband Arkadiusz Jadczyk (whom she married in 1998 as a result of matchmaking by the Cassiopaeans), Laura used the often cryptic messages received from the 'Cassiopaeans' as clues to new directions for her ongoing research. As Laura has often said publicly herself, the Cassiopaean information has always been the 10% inspiration to the 90% 'perspiration' that she and her fellow researchers have put into their work over the past 15 years. Nothing has been, or ever will be, taken on blind faith. After all, any purported Truth, by definition, must be able to stand rigorous testing.

Basically she channels aliens through an ouija board. ‘Nuff said

During this time, in addition to her other work, Laura began to post the information obtained via the board sessions on her newly created web site Cassiopaea.org (which also hosted the original Signs of the Times page). These 'transcripts' were received with much public interest (not to mention commentary!) and within a year Laura decided to start a Yahoo discussion group as a venue for those interested in her work to discuss the details among themselves. Prior to this her inbox had been flooded daily with questions and comments, so this was a necessary move.

In early 2003 Wow a seven year time leap suddenly has occurred!!!

Laura and Ark moved to France with their family. The main reasons for this trans-Atlantic relocation were Laura's increasing revulsion at the path on which the Bush government had set the formerly democratic USA, and Ark's desire to pursue his work and collaborate with other scientists free from the strictures he had experienced within the American scientific establishment.

Actually it was to escape with the cash generated from the false house raffle and the subsequent sale of the house. The ‘scientific establishment’ that Ark was getting away from was the pentagon and more specifically the agency in the pentagon known as DARPA. Interestingly enough Jim Jones went to a DARPA controlled hospital and when he came out he became the psychopathic leader of a doomsday cult, taking his followers away from the USA for the same and exact reasons that Laura is stating. YIKES!!!

Rather than pursue the (potentially) long process of putting their house up for sale (George Bush was banging the war drums), Laura had the somewhat eccentric idea of holding a raffle. Tickets were issued to 1) anyone who made a $50 donation; 2) anyone who sent in a written request via snail-mail, a condition required by law. Approximately 300 tickets were issued in return for donations made and approximately 2000 tickets were issued to those who requested one by mail and made no donation whatsoever. This was not surprising given the limited marketing potential of announcing a house raffle on a relatively unknown web site.

Fraud can be called ‘eccentric’. Personally I like how George Bush is somehow responsible for all of this.

Now, this sum of approximately $15,000 was not exactly a good deal for a house that was valued at over $100,000, but Ark and Laura made arrangements for a loan to be taken out to cover the difference, picked a winner, and left the matter in the hands of a trusted neighbor and an attorney he had recommended. Their moving expenses were supplemented by a generous gift from a friend. As it turned out (after Laura and Ark had moved to France), the winner of the house raffle was apparently stymied by the neighbor and attorney who seemingly wanted the house to go into foreclosure so they could pick it up at auction. Laura was notified about this situation by both her U.S. bank and another neighbor who stepped in to purchase the house - with Laura's agreement - and stop the foreclosure.

It’s funny but when I put Laura’s article into MS Word to write my comments the editor in MS Word finds the above paragraph unreadable. None of Laura’s other paragraphs are deemed unreadable by the software but this one is riddled with grammatical errors. The reason is that Laura is completely lying and she can’t say it clearly. Therefore her entire writing style collapses and she resorts to fragmented sentences and unclear passages. The truth is that she is lying here. There was no winner named, if so who was it? How can a neighbor stop someone from selling HER house? All of the sudden Laura’s clarity descends into hell. She is not even sure why the winner could not get the house because she says that the winner was ‘apparently stymied’. The neighbor and the attorney (who?) ‘seemingly’ wanted the house. Seemingly? They either wanted it or not. Did they pay someone for it? Who? What happened to the winner?

The main outstanding feature of this debacle was that the only real winners were the attorneys.

That’s nice to hear because we can’t understand a single thing she is saying here. It is like listening to the head of the CIA at a press conference. It is pure 100% bullshit. She knows it and we know it.

The take-home fact from this incident is this: if Laura and Ark had decided to INTENTIONALLY run a 'Raffle Scam' it would not have turned into such a lawyer feeding frenzy because the ending would have been a pre-planned part of the con. Raffle scams are one of the simplest cons to pull off ... any moron can do it. The scammers have a faithful follower (or even a sock puppet on the Net) gleefully posting "I won, I won" all over the web. The grand prize (car, house, etc) changes title to an anonymous corporation in Delaware ... and that's that. But none of this happened, which spells out clearly that there was no intent to defraud anyone. There was no raffle 'scam' and there were no 'victims' ... just a fouled up fundraiser that didn't turn out the way anyone planned, especially Laura.

Laura is on such thin ice here that it hurts. Why doesn’t she name the person who won, tell us why this person decided to not take the house, provide an email contact so that this winner can give their side? Because there was no winner. We have already seen how easily lying comes to the lips of Laura Knight Jadczyk. Why not tell some more lies.?

The people who actually made donations for raffle tickets to the "seemed like a good idea at the time" fundraiser know and accept honest mistakes as a fact of life, and they don't hold Laura and Ark to some unreasonable standard of perfection. Members bought their tickets to support their group, it was their money, and not a single one of them has brought a verifiable public complaint against Laura and Ark. Not one! The raffle was held honestly and fairly. The names of all those who responded were put into a 'hat' and one name was randomly selected, and that person was notified that they had won and given information about how to contact the lawyer handling the transfer of ownership. What happened after that was completely out of Laura and Ark's hands because they had moved to France.

Here Laura in the third person is skirting with disaster. She still has not named the winner or told us why the winner has refused the house. But somehow she knows how each and every person who purchased a ticket thinks and feels inside.

If anyone who actually took part in the raffle had a beef with Laura, Ark, the group, school, etc, they could easily have written a letter asking for a refund on their ticket, posted it on the many slander sites and forum threads....and SIGNED THEIR NAME TO IT. A legitimate dissatisfied raffle ticket holder could have filed an action in small claims court and posted that paperwork too.

Laura, you were living in France. They would have to file in Toulouse and you know that.

None of this has happened, check for yourself ... there are NO pending lawsuits and/or outstanding criminal charges against Laura Knight-Jadczyk and/or Arkadiusz Jadczyk! These are LIES being spread all over the Internet by Vincent Bridges, Jay Weidner, Chris Horlacher and their tiny troop of deranged minions. They've taken an honest mistake that Laura made and apologized for years ago, and twisted it to the point that it's totally unrecognizable when compared to the actual truth of the matter. But enough on that topic.

Yes that would be a good idea Laura. I bet that the editor software in MS Word won’t have as much trouble with your meandering sentences and fragmented ideas as witnessed above. This article goes on and on after this with Laura bragging about what a great ‘investigative journalist’ she is.

The point of this posting is to refute Laura Knight Jadczyk’s erroneous and ridiculous statements. In the article that follows, which I am not going to bore you with, she releases private exchanges between the man she accuses of being a psychopath and his wife. After going on and on about how unfair it is that Jean took info from his wife’s lap top she then takes info from his wife’s laptop and puts the transcripts out for the world to see. Page after page of transcripts were released to make this guy look bad. This is a familiar tactic used by Laura. Of course the fact that she heavily edits all of these transcripts to make the person look really bad is never told to the reader. Laura did this with me (Jay Weidner). In 2002 I stupidly tried to make a peace agreement between her and my former go-writer Vincent Bridges. She took my peace offering as a stab in the back and released our private email exchange without permission. Comparing her release of our email exchange and the real email exchange reveals that Laura is editing through the emails removing comments by her that make her look stupid and adding comments that make her look smart. She also edits my words so I sound dumb. There is little doubt that she edits all the transcripts that she releases. Laura has no regard for the truth. She is a hysterical, ridiculous pseudo intellectual without a shred of original thought in her.

In the future I will be deconstructing more of her essays so that the interested reader can reach conclusions based on evidence instead of Laura’s incoherent ramblings.

For the entire article by Laura write me at jayweidner@sacredmysteries.com