In his answer to whether the town's citizens participation in the acts of torture perpetrated by demons exposed them in any way to civil liability, attorney David Vincent Hiden replied in the usual, smart-ass way that only the demon-affiliated do.
The legal question posed on the site was:
Is a town full of people that torture a subset of their population with stuff like that shown on [this blog] civilly liable in any way?The question was posed knowing that no additional explanation or elaboration was needed to clarify my meaning. It was intended as a shot across the bow of those who work with the demons I am fighting—i.e., those who have profited financially and in other ways from them—now that I have assurances, as well as every confidence, that their day is done with respect to operating the way they have been in secret.
Mr. Hiden apparently couldn't resist the bait, and took this snipe:
I reviewed your blogspot and see no liability on behalf of anybody..Perhaps you should request a change of sheets so the demonic images don't appear any further, which should put your mind at ease.Note that, in my question, I did not say that I was the subject of the torture, nor is there any identifiable information about me available to the attorney through Avvo.com or my blog, or at least not enough to make a definitive connection.
This same tactic has been used in the past for exposing frauds, posers, and charletans, most notably, in California paranormal societies, groups, investigators and ghost hunters asked to weigh in on demonic activity.
Others who have inadvertently exposed their ties to demons, even while denying the veracity of the claims made in this blog, include my cyberstalker and other online pests, as described in these posts: