It’s been a busy few weeks for BPR Team now that the weather is warmer. We’ve all been preoccupied with hunting down leads for other stories but we have few moments to return our attention to write Part Two for Rebecca Ethington.
We’ve had several emails asking clarifying questions about what we had written in Part One. Some of these questions were already answered in Part One, but there are a couple that were actually good questions, so we will address them here. Before we do that, however, we thought we would mention a few things.
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation “to create so much doubt in the minds of their targets of exploitation that the victim no longer trusts their own judgment about things and buys into the assertions of the manipulator, thus coming under their power and control.” There are several different methods in gaslighting, and manipulators will often employ a variety of them to get their way and abuse their victims. For example, a gaslighter will be so assertive in their conviction, and so intense in their viewpoint, that their target will soon doubt their own perspective. Another tactic is for a gaslighter to vigorously and staunchly deny any wrongdoing, in conjunction with righteous indignation, until the same result occurs.
Gaslighters will often use facts that will feel largely accurate (i.e., Women lose their kids in Utah if the men use a mens’ rights attorney) but will include small, hard-to-prove distortions in order to prove their position (i.e., I mentioned my ex’s name to another attorney and he said, “Oh, he does this to women all the time.”). It’s important to note that gaslighting is especially effective when the abuser uses other tactics like shaming and guilting others—they’ll do anything to make others doubt their own judgment and back down from challenging them.
But why do gaslighters, well, gaslight? They want to get their way—maintain their advantage over others—and they will do anything to do it, that’s why. Gaslighters are expert manipulators and deception is their superpower. This “deception can be accomplished by outright denial, distortion of key aspects of events and a variety of other methods.”
Does any of this sound familiar? Because it should.
In the time since we published Part One on Rebecca Ethington, she has put her gaslighting on overdrive. Not only has she shamed and pressured people into removing their posts linking to our post but she has also had people removed from Facebook Groups.
Need examples? We were hoping you’d ask:
Gaslighters create so much doubt in the minds of their targets of exploitation that the victim no longer trusts their own judgment about things and buys into the assertions of the manipulator, thus coming under their power and control.
Rebecca posted this on her Facebook after we published Part One in order to let her friends and followers know she was unfazed by her truths being revealed. If any of them had doubted her virtue, she wanted to assure them. They need not worry. It was our fault, she told them.
Except, there are some important things to point out:
- Anyone who posted “that dumb link” is not affiliated with Blank Pages Revealed, which means Darling Rebecca is angry that someone she cannot control is posting the truth of their own free will and choice. There’s this thing called the First Amendment, Rebecca. People can freely read what they want and they can share it where they want.
- We have never been contacted by law enforcement, Facebook, or WordPress, so that was all bullshit.
- We have never been subpoenaed. Also bullshit.
- And Rebecca staying quiet through her divorce? We imagine her laughing maniacally as she typed that because that was also I mean, really, everything we know about her divorce is from her. Silly Rebecca.
A gaslighter will be so assertive in their conviction, and so intense in their viewpoint, that their target will soon doubt their own perspective.
At one point, someone had the good sense audacity to question Rebecca’s ethics in using her children to peddle her fundraiser, as well as the fundraiser in general. This person raises a good point in keeping your personal life separate from your professional life, and BPR thinks it is a valid point to raise. Authors often complain about not being treated professionally, especially indie authors, and it is hard for anyone to be taken seriously when you’re airing your dirty laundry for everyone to see and then asking for money to get it cleaned. BPR might not have even taken issue with Darling Rebecca if she had not gotten her kids entangled with all her tea spilling. But alas.
Well, as always, Rebecca couldn’t just leave this alone and be the professional she says that she is. Instead of simply saying, “I appreciate your viewpoint even though I disagree” she had to launch into a reprimand, insisting how she is right, damn it, and you better bend to her will:
Because legal matters are exactly the same thing as medical costs, a house fire, and/or a spa day? These are not even close to the same comparisons at all. The Original Poster specifically said, “personal life, especially legal matters.” Fundraising for medical costs and a house fire would be more along the lines of an emergency, though BPR believes that an individual author would do well in not personally fundraising for those circumstances but perhaps allow a friend do so in their honor. And we have not ever seen an author fundraise for a spa day unless it was for someone else.
Responding to someone who admits that she has not even read anything negative about the situation at all in such an aggressive way in order to “persuade” that person to your side is a gaslighting red flag.
PS: Your children are not being killed and they are not in a dangerous situation.
A gaslighter vigorously and staunchly denies any wrongdoing, in conjunction with righteous indignation. And gaslighters will often use facts that will feel largely accurate but will include small, hard to prove distortions in order to prove their position.
This Facebook post escalated, as they say, in a hurry. The Original Poster innocently asks about the bidding process in Darling Rebecca’s shady fundraiser.
The Original Poster was absolutely correct in asking about administrators bidding up on items. We have evidence of this happening and actually, this is why Facebook has added its own auction option so that it makes holding auctions more ethical.
The Original Poster makes a lot of sense here. It is not only dishonest to shill bid, it doesn’t make any sense. KayLynn can just donate the money directly to Rebecca and there is no actual purpose to bid up any of the items—unless they are purposely trying to drive up the bids in order to get people to pay more for each item. This also makes sense since they are raising money for Rebecca to save her children from a warm loving home.
The Original Poster wasn’t going to let the response “Nobody is asking you participate if you don’t want to” be the final answer when she was already suspicious of the whole operation.
This person was smart enough to know that things weren’t adding up. As we mentioned in Part One, mothers are awarded custody of their children in Utah approximately 80% of the time, yet somehow Rebecca was not. In truth—something Rebecca seems to be incapable of telling—Rebecca hasn’t ever lost custody of her children. She has joint legal custody of them and her ex-husband has primary physical custody. In short, Rebecca Ethington has custody of her children.
She sounds so believable, no? There are so many untruths here that it is difficult to know where to begin, but we shall persevere.
First, Darling Rebecca says, “It is not impossible (or nearly impossible) for mothers to loose rights in this state. That is an assumption made in all states, Utah is not singular in that lie.” She goes on to say that because of the plethora of divorce attorneys in Utah that cater to fathers’ rights, mothers are losing their children all over the place in Utah. This doesn’t prove true statistically.
In our most current US Census (2013), mothers were awarded custody 82.4% of the time in the entire country. That’s a pretty firm measurement to contradict an assumption and a lie, as Rebecca says. Conversely, that leaves 17.6% of fathers with custody. This didn’t change much by 2014, where the Census says five of every six mothers were custodial parents (82.5%) whereas only one of every seven fathers was a custodial parent (17.5%).
So what about Utah, the land o’ plenty when it comes to fathers’ rights attorneys? 84.6% of mothers are custodial parents. This means the 80% success rate of all the plentiful fathers’ rights attorneys that advertise “all along is only I-15” is only .12%.
Wow. Those are terrible odds. Especially when you utter your ex-husband’s attorney’s name to a prosecutor who says, “He does this to women all the time.”
Let’s discuss this ex-husband’s attorney, D. P., whose testimonials are all from women. Mr. P is a family attorney who has practiced since 1998 and has been a member of the Utah Bar since 1998. He has handled over 1000 divorce and family law cases. He’s argued cases before the District Court of every District in the State of Utah, the Utah Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Mr. P has consistently scored a 10 Avvo Superior rating which consists of three components: Experience, Industry Recognition, and Professional Conduct. Not only this but he has been voted as one of the Top 10 Attorneys in Salt Lake City, UT by the National Academy of Family Law Association, one of the Premier Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the Family & Divorce category by the American Academy of Trial Attorneys, and has been named one of the 10 Best Divorce Attorneys for two years by the American Institute of Family Law.
To say he is experienced in law is an understatement, and to say he is sexist is offensive.
Gaslighters use other tactics like shaming and guilting others. They’ll do anything to make others doubt their own judgment and back down from challenging them.
We admire the tenacity of the Original Poster here because she held her ground against Darling Rebecca. We just might hire her for BPR.
We love this Original Poster. She has, what we call, chutzpah! Rebecca lost her marbles and went into Operation Gaslight straight away by first guilting: “This right here is a painful assumption. I hope you never find yourself in a divorce in Utah” and then rolled right into shaming “You will get that smug ass attitude smacked right off.” We see what you did there, but the Original Poster wouldn’t stop, would she, Darling Rebecca? And that pissed you off.
Shame, shame, Original Poster! And taking their cue from their leader, all of the minions started to weigh in:
Rebecca has trained them well, hasn’t she? We’ve left out the Original Poster’s responses due to space constraints, but trust us … she was brilliant. Of course, Rebecca tried to have the last word:
Still laying the guilt and shame on pretty thick, hey there, Rebecca? Yup, you sure are. Let’s review the guilt: “Honesty and prejudice are two separate things. Airing your opinions does not make them true.” Oh, the tears! How they fall! And then the shame: “So no, you are not being honest. You are blasting baseless assumption that will only hurt yourself.” (Which doesn’t even make sense unless she’s threatening the Original Poster. And also, prejudice? Huh?)
Gaslighters are expert manipulators and deception is their superpower. This “deception can be accomplished by outright denial, distortion of key aspects of events and a variety of other methods.”
Obviously, there are far too many instances to illustrate this example of Rebecca Ethington’s gaslighting. Basically, all of Part One is an example of her manipulation and deception. However, we do want to point out a couple points of her willing distortion.
Come on, really? Breast cancer?
Rebecca Ethington, are you telling us that you are actually willing to go so far as comparing your fundraiser to that of raising money for breast cancer? Just how far are you willing to go in order to distort your version of reality? Approximately 40,900 people will die this year from breast cancer and Rebecca Ethington is willing to exploit their deaths for a fundraiser that isn’t even necessary because SHE ALREADY HAS JOINT CUSTODY AND VISITATION.
You’re right, Rebecca, this “somehow doesn’t get treated the same” because it isn’t the same. Your situation isn’t “dire.” It is not as “needed or traumatic” as having cancer and needing cancer treatment. And how dare you even make the comparison?
Breast cancer is the second most common cause of death from cancer in women in our country and Rebecca Ethington wants to use it as marketing tactic for her fundraiser.
Rebecca’s deception is so profound that we are sure that even she doesn’t know what is true anymore. For example, BPR isn’t sure why she is hurting for money anyway. According to her website, Duck and Bicycle, she is doing quite well for herself:
Apparently, she is a Social Media Mastermind with a six figure a year profit. That’s a big profit, so why is she fundraising? The About Page clearly says the business has compounded and grown “in the years since.” Before people comment asking for things like “context” and proof that this is actually Rebecca’s company even though her name is right there on the page:
Notice that the name of the website is actually there in the bottom left hand corner. What’s that you say, Dear Reader? You’ve been horse-whipped into needing more proof? We’re so glad you asked:
Because we are so benevolent, we blacked out some private information from the WHOIS report but BPR did find out some interesting things about Miss Rebecca and how she’s never had retirement accounts to drain or how she still has the same car that’s never been repossessed. But we figured she wouldn’t want all of you to discover that so we hid the private information there.
Now, we had one question that came through the comments on Part One that we thought we would address because it was actually a good question:
I was wondering why only a few of the documents have Rebecca’s name on them. Couldn’t they be anybody’s documents?
The obvious answer here is that we cropped the documents from Part One in order to protect the privacy of the children. In the documents that don’t show Rebecca’s name, there was too much identifying information that could link the Ethington children to the documents and we want to safeguard these kids as much as possible. We are also good people and while we wanted to reveal the truth about Rebecca Ethington, we didn’t want to humiliate her. And when it comes to the actual Divorce Decree, these always use Petitioner and Respondent, not individual names.
However, in order to allow for transparency, and after a great deal of discussion amongst the BPR team, we’ve decided to show as much as possible of these documents in order to clarify and answer this particular question.
First, the police report:
Second, the court docket is five pages long and we aren’t going to post the whole thing. We’ll post the first two pages:
So, apparently, Rebecca has explained her guilty plea away by saying it was because she had a public defender—which isn’t really fair to the public defender, by the way. Public defenders work hard for very little money and to throw them under the bus that way isn’t cool, Rebecca, especially since he was able to get you a plea in abeyance. Besides, Rebecca first appeared before the judge by herself (which is what “defendant pro se” means) and pled not guilty for her arraignment. At this time, she was advised of her rights and penalties and Rebecca waived her right to counsel. While we do not have the court stenographer’s transcripts (and our GRAMA request is still pending) the docket notes state “The defendant is advised that this offense may be used as an enhancement to the penalties for a subsequent offense.” Of course, BPR is very curious as to what this subsequent offense could be (could this be another offense, or is this for any future offenses?), but the not guilty plea is entered and set for pretrial and then what happens? The defendant is appointed counsel. Which is wise; we don’t blame her at all.
We will not post the Divorce Decree in its entirety as we do not feel it is ethical to invade either side’s privacy in such a way. So how do we prove that Rebecca is, indeed, the Respondent? Well, it’s a little tricky but we think we’ve managed to find a balance:
As you can see, Dear Reader, we do have the actual Divorce Decree so we haven’t just created one out of thin air.
Rebecca’s Divorce Decree clearly states that while her ex-husband has been awarded primary physical custody, it is “subject to Respondent’s rights of reasonable parent-time.”
Need more proof that this is Rebecca’s Decree? Alright! Guess what Rebecca’s maiden name is … go on, guess … we’ll wait.
It’s Blaisdell! The audio rights to Imdalind were transferred to Daddy Blaisdell. Cool, huh? And do you know what else?
Her attorney was Daddy Blaisdell’s cousin. Yup. So this is definitely her Divorce Decree. And what about the custody agreement?
Totally matches what’s in the Divorce Decree because that’s what happens when they’re about the same people.
We know this was a lengthy post to get through with a lot of information, but Blank Pages Revealed felt it was all very necessary to publish a Part Two on Rebecca Ethington. We hope everyone eventually gets the giveaway prizes from the 10,000 Likes Party that Rebecca has cheated people out of (If you only knew how many emails we’ve received on that issue alone!) and maybe even from this fraud of a fundraiser. Who knows?
Keep in mind, Dear Readers, everybody has a First Amendment right to post links from this website to their Facebook page or share it wherever they wish—even if Rebecca bullies people and makes up stories about subpoenas and police reports. After all, crocodile tears only look good on crocodiles, and Rebecca Ethington is the most talented crocodile around.
Simon, G. K., PhD. (2010). In sheep’s clothing: understanding and dealing with manipulative people. Little Rock: Parkhurst Brothers.
Simon, G. K., PhD. (2010). In sheep’s clothing: understanding and dealing with manipulative people. Little Rock: Parkhurst Brothers.