2. I want a review of the case so that I could counter-sue for defamation, money for therapy, and a restraining order to deter any willing petitioner from forcefully using a weapon against me, out of bad judgment. It seems that they wanted to force a relationship under their own terms and did not want to discuss about it. Since it was relational and my background of getting negative feedback with their direct replies from every one of them not wanting to talk about it with me, I did not see it as wrong to continue discussing it through a different medium that I felt was less direct. The consequences that they thought they could legally impose on me were excommunication from a church and being arrested for no apparently bad reason. The main evidence that I celebrate is that never went to jail so that means no police record with no absolute victims. It could have been reported with a very active and biased officer motioning out of being very angry but it did not happen with me. If the arguing could go back and forth, then they relent to wanting to not talk after I impose my views then I think they are wrong for stating I should be arrested. The implied remarks of stopping a discussion with them were not really that verifiable to me as it had never crossed my mind. It feels like they would not mind using violent force since they sort of praised it with their written accounts. They would try to hide things by stating it was uncircumstantial evidence and try to ride on the fear itself. I believe it is practicing McCarthyism, which has been a notable practice; history does have the potential to repeat itself in eccentric, social circumstances.
