Malice, Libel, Lies, And Sabotaging Hundreds Of Vendors: The Attacks on the Odditorium

Have you recently heard some absolutely horrifying stories about me, the thousands of people who go to my events, the hundreds of vendors, the don of performer. I’ve run one of those two events for thirteen years. If it was some sort of illegal chamber of horrors, PEOPLE WOULDN’T GO.

We have been running events in this area for 13 years. I totally get that out of several hundred vendors and dozens of performers, some of them got mad over some incident. WE WILL FIX THOS INCIDENTS IF THEY INVOLVE US..

…IF WE KNOW ABOUT THEM.

But that’s never what we get.

There’s over a hundred vendors at this show so far. There are performers, panels, discussions, workshops, a giant robot, a kid’s zoo, arts and crafts, trick or treaters, heavy metal, stories, strolling performers, and other fun.

It’s also free to get into.

So tell me: If you think these shows are bad, why are you hurting hundreds of other people? If I’ve done what you say, hurt one person–call the cops.

But no. Their goal is to destroy the event for thousands of people with NO proof, evidence, or even, to be honest, without even discussing their fairly serious legal allegations.

It’s not okay.

…can we just put on events and have everyone have fun?

Some laws Kat Hooten and Catherine Seeley appear to have broken about Jeff Mach appear to have broken include the following:

The Facebook post in question constitutes libel per se under New York law—a tort of the gravest reputational violence.Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.) defines libel as:

A defamatory statement expressed in a fixed medium (including electronic publication) that tends to expose a person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or to deprive him of friendly intercourse in society.

The post’s core assertions—that Jeff Mach is a “pedo,” “groomer,” and “sexual predator”—directly impute the commission of serious crime involving moral turpitude, the first and most classically actionable of the four defamation per se categories long recognized at common law and reaffirmed in New York:

1. Imputation of crime (especially felonious sexual offenses against minors);
2. Imputation of loathsome disease;
3. Imputation of unchastity (to a woman);
4. Words that prejudice a person in his trade, profession, or business.

Accusations of pedophilia and child grooming fall squarely within category (1). New York courts, following Restatement (Second) of Torts § 571, treat false charges of serious sexual crimes—particularly those involving minors—as inherently defamatory per se. Harm to reputation, emotional distress, and social exclusion are conclusively presumed; no proof of special damages is required.The additional labels “con-man” and explicit calls to boycott the event independently satisfy category (4), as they impugn professional integrity and predictably deter third parties from commercial dealings (vendor participation, ticket sales).The statements are:

• published (disseminated to third persons via Facebook group);
• factual in form (not mere opinion, hyperbole, or rhetorical flourish);
• unprivileged on their face (no conditional or absolute privilege appears);
• devoid of any curative qualifier that transforms bald assertion into protected speech.

Result: Absent the absolute defense of truth—which demands clear, convincing proof that the accused actually committed the imputed acts—the publication is presumptively tortious. The poster faces exposure to general damages (presumed), compensatory damages, and, upon a showing of actual malice, punitive damage

In short: this is textbook libel per se—egregiously actionable, reputation-destroying defamation on its face. Truth alone immunizes; all else invites civil liability.