Red Headed Book Lover Blog, Your Blank Pages Have Been Revealed


Wow, it’s been a while since we’ve had to write anything up on BPR, but here we go again!

In the book world, it appears there is a “blogger/reviewer” who thinks it’s okay to charge authors to review their books. She likes to tell them it’s a great way to increase their sales because her reviews create “discoverability” of their work. Not only does she charge for these reviews but she solicits them from those who aren’t even authors! Seriously! This is going to be quick and easy. 

Here’s how this goes down. “Aimee Ann”, the administrator of Red Headed Book Lover Blog (which, by the way, isn’t even written properly, but we’ll get to that later), sends an email telling the “author” she would love to review their work. Upon going to her site, we see she will ONLY review the book on HER site and any other site which will allow paid reviews. Now, how this increases sales and discoverability, no one really knows. Think about it. If someone is going to purchase a book on Amazon, they’re going to look at Amazon reviews, not go searching all over the web for a review on some site that they’ve never heard of before.

And she calls her work “ethical” because she is so transparent about it. Those in the book world know reviews are NOT paid for! Do you pay someone to facilitate a review tour? Sure! But to pay a single person for a review? You are throwing money out the window. And the reason she doesn’t post her reviews on Amazon? You guessed it! She would have her account wiped in an instant!


So this is how the initial correspondence begins. “Aimee Ann” sends an email just gushing over the book she supposedly stumbled across. She fills it with all sorts of flowery language to stroke their ego and draw them in.


What she DOESN’T do is tell the author that she charges when she contacts them. Instead, she waits for their reply. 


Notice how this person asks some hot-button questions? You see, this person isn’t even an author, so it was quite suspicious when “Aimee Ann” contacted her in the first place. Then, “Aimee Ann” hits her with the fees.


She’s not a business but she charges for her “services”? Sounds like a business to us!


She’s even going to let you simply SEND her the money! Well, she’ll go on to tell you she will also invoice you, but we think that you can see where this is going. NEVER just send someone money unless you KNOW them! But wait! If you don’t want to send her a copy of your book, you can certainly send her the money for her to BUY your book! Huh?


Now, riddle us this: How can she respect this person as an author if this person isn’t, in fact, an author?! Wow … just … wow. Next, this “author” replies and asks “Aimee Ann” which book she would like to review. Wait for it …


This is … interesting.


So let us get this straight. This “author” says, “Yo, tell me which book you would like to review and I will send it right over,” and “Aimee Ann” replies with, “Pick one!” Listen folks, we’re going to go out on a limb here and say that this is a lesson for How to Spot a Scammer 101. This person has no clue what they are even talking about! 

Remember when we said we would get back to the spelling of her blog name? Here you go! Redheaded is ONE word, not two.


We bring this up is because “Aimee Ann” says she’s also offering book editing services. Authors beware, the grammar on her site is atrocious! Even her paragraph about the editing service is rife with mistakes! Here, see for yourselves.


There you have it, folks. What do you think? Would you pay this person $75.00 to review a book she can’t even spout off a title for? Think long and hard before you start throwing your money at people. 

Red Headed Book Lover Blog, your blank pages have been revealed and the book is closed. 


Rebecca Ethington, More Blank Pages Have Been Revealed


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.”[1] 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.”[2]

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.

[1]Simon, G. K., PhD. (2010). In sheep’s clothing: understanding and dealing with manipulative people. Little Rock: Parkhurst Brothers.

[2]Simon, G. K., PhD. (2010). In sheep’s clothing: understanding and dealing with manipulative people. Little Rock: Parkhurst Brothers.

Rebecca Ethington, Your Blank Pages Have Been Revealed


Every once in a while, something catches our attention that is so appalling and egregious that it really lights a fire under us. So much so, that we really go out of our way to find all the evidence we need to shed as much light as possible on a scourge that paints the entire indie community as a bunch of charlatans. When we began to receive several messages blowing the whistle on Rebecca Ethington, we were happy to tell those individuals that our case file on her was already several inches thick.

You see, those of us at Blank Pages have many high horses to sit on, but the highest of them all represents violence against women and children. When anyone in our community presents their story as one of being a survivor of VAW, we take that seriously, but if anyone in our community exploits VAW to extort money from others, then that is another thing altogether.

According to her social media platforms, the so-called martyrdom of Rebecca Ethington began in 2014 when she “ finally got the courage to leave [her] husband of ten years [and] got the courage to walk away from a ‘very scary’ relationship” in July of 2014. What she leaves out from her fairy tale is that her husband at the time had already filed for divorce against her.

ethington1 (1)She also leaves out some other important details from her story. This might have been an oversight on her part, but we suspect that it might have more to do with her knowing that people would be less inclined to give her money if they knew the truth.

As many might think, mothers are given sole custody of their children more times than not in a divorce. This is definitely the case in Utah where, statistically, mothers are given primary custody of their children in 80% of custody determinations. In general, this is because judges move to preserve the status quo in picking the primary parent, which is often the case in a state where so many mothers are stay-at-home parents and can be the primary parents. But this isn’t what happened in Ethington’s case. In fact, she says she lost her kids because they were taken away from her – that she’s been fighting to get them back for the last three years.  Not only this, but she claims that she has only been now been assigned a custody evaluator and this is now her chance so please send her all the money.

All of Rebecca Ethington’s claims are either completely false or a loosely fabricated reality. 

 This is one of those cases where Google becomes your best friend when you know how to use it and where to look because we found all the information online from public record searches.

Ethington says she walked away from this relationship supposedly in July of 2014, but in August of that same year, her then-husband filed a police report against her due to her abuse of him. The police officer’s report is below.


Ethington might try to spin this by saying that her then-husband faked his report and that this was yet another attempt at making her look bad, right? Because it’s not, like, we haven’t heard her say that before, like, ever. Unfortunately, the police report states she admits to striking her then-husband:


The supplemental photographs were not part of the public files, so, unfortunately, we were not able to view those to ascertain the difference between Ethington’s version of a slap and her then-husband’s punch. However, it seems the officer taking the report was able to differentiate between the two because he cited her on scene:


We will give Rebecca Ethington credit; she did appear at her court date and plead guilty:


Ethington’s plea was an abeyance agreement, which means that if she completed the conditions of her agreement then she could have the charges dismissed after the abeyance period and there would be no conviction on her record. Here was her abeyance agreement:


According to the docket, Ethington completed her plea in abeyance at the end of May 2015.


We obtained these records not through Google, but through very eager journalism interns from a local university who were anxious to use FOIA requests. They were also poor college students who were very eager to earn an extra $50. We assume they haven’t taken their Ethics in Journalism classes yet.

Shortly after Ethington assaulted her husband, a judge granted him an Ex Parte Child Protective Order, which is granted when a judge believes it is necessary to protect a parent and his or her children from the other parent. These are generally set in place for approximately 20 days or up to 150 days, depending. In this case, the Ex Parte was in place for around the usual 20 days. It is unusual for judges to grant Ex Parte POs in Utah:


Almost all Ex Parte Protective Orders include a variation of the following text:


And finally, we deliberated on whether or not to include this particular section, ultimately deciding that it was imperative. Throughout Ethington’s smear campaign against her ex-husband, she has insisted that she has been kept away from her kids, that her ex-husband has made it nearly impossible for her to have a relationship with her children. And yet, even in this Ex Parte, this proves to be false:


Ethington’s ex-husband could have requested anything under the civil portion of this Ex Parte. He could have stipulated that she had no contact with their children and it would have been granted. This would have been a perfect time for him to exert ultimate control over Ethington and rip his children away from her, with permission from the court. And yet, he didn’t. Even during this time, after she physically abused him, he still stipulated with the court for her to have standard parent-time. It is reasonable, in the circumstances, for him to request supervision (that they both agree to, by the way) and to not permit overnight visitation.

And so we ask you, dear reader, does this sound like the same man Ethington has made into a villain? Before you answer that, we’ll have you take a look at what the Court states in her ex-husband’s temporary protective order:


“the Respondent has abused or committed domestic violence against Petitioner, or that there is a substantial likelihood that Respondent immediately threatens Petitioner’s physical safety.”

Think about that.

Think about being a victim of domestic violence, trying to protect the safety of your children, and the culture around you tells you that it’s impossible for you to be a victim because you’re a man. And then think about how your abuser has rewritten the narrative in order to make you the bad guy so that she can be the victim in her community. This happens consistently to women every day who leave abusive relationships and we are outraged over it, but when it happens to a man we are silent because we won’t dare to ask questions even when the woman’s story doesn’t make sense.

Well, Ethington’s story has never made sense.

Due to respecting the privacy of the children, we will not reveal specific information from any protection orders, divorce papers, or custody agreements (yes, we have those, too). But we will post enough in order to demonstrate that what we do have is legitimate.  And we will do this because we feel it is time for Ethington to not only stop manipulating her fan base but to also allow her ex-husband to live his life without the continuous harassment and defamation.

First, we’ll talk about custody since that preoccupies a lot of her fundraising. Ethington’s divorce was finalized April 30, 2015, and includes 32 total points that both parties agreed to in order to finalize. There is a separate document that outlines the parenting plan, but reminding the reader that both Petitioner (ex-husband) and Respondent (Ethington) had to agree to ALL 32 points outlined in this agreement, the finalized divorce awards custody in this way:


In spite of what Ethington has claimed, she has been given joint legal custody, which means that she and her ex-husband have equal weight in making decisions when it comes to their children. Their father was awarded primary physical custody, which means the children live with him full-time while Ethington is able to have visitation – “reasonable parent-time”. In other words, this divorce and custody arrangement is a normal, average custody arrangement just like anyone else’s. The only thing that is different is someone’s reaction to it.

This all went to mediation in September of 2016, and by “all” I mean two subjects from the original divorce settlement: custody and the issue of royalties. We’ll get to the royalties in a moment. The mediation agreement outlines specific expectations for custody and visitation arrangements, including what times Ethington can best reach the children for phone calls and FaceTime. It also emphasizes the original custody determination:

Ethington13The mediation agreement, in fact, makes it so painfully clear as to how Ethington can have access to her children, that we had to wonder why she was thinking she couldn’t have a relationship with her children. The agreement includes: an exact listing of when Respondent will have her parent time (including holidays, weekends, and summer vacation), when she can have phone calls and FaceTime (times are explained because of children’s sports and dance lessons, etc.), and also an offer from the Petitioner to create a Google Calendar that will include all the children’s activities, medical appointments, playdates, etc. 

Further, Ethington likes to play “I have to pay for everything and drive to see them” card. But this is exactly what she agreed to in her parenting agreement:


When it comes to summer vacation, “Parties will transfer children … during summer break, and each party will be responsible for their own transportation costs.” Both Petitioner and Respondent had to agree to this plan. Both of them. Ethington agreed to all of these stipulations and is now claiming that she is the victim. Perhaps she will, and claim that she had to agree to these terms or else she lose her kids forever. If that were the case, however, her ex-husband would not make such an effort in the same agreement to give her access to the children.

Not included here, but continuously brought up by Ethington, is how her ex-husband moved the children away from her, supposedly to make it so she can’t see them as easily. However, according to Utah State Code 30-3-37, she has 60 days to object to the move and yet she didn’t. Why didn’t she? Why did she wait until after they moved to start objecting? Yet one more contradiction that she chooses to leave out from her GoFundMe. Another contradiction? You’re going to LOVE this one, guys. According to court dockets, Ethington is the one who keeps attempting to bring her ex-husband back into court. We’ve tried repeatedly to obtain access to these dockets, but our luck ran out in this regard. But here is the list that we could confirm – and maybe there are more, who knows at this point? Since Fall of 2016, we counted one Petition to Modify the Decree of Divorce (mediated), two denied temporary restraining orders, one denied motion for a temporary custodial order, and one Motion for Order to Show Cause that appears to have a note of refusal to sign by a county commissioner.

Another point of leverage Ethington uses in her favor is her royalties being stolen by her ex-husband. Those of us who work hard on our writing are protective of our royalties; the idea of our marriage ending and our ex being awarded a portion of our royalties makes us cringe, right?

In fact, this whole royalty thing is the excuse Ethington used to get out of the dust-up she irrationally created when she accused another author of plagiarism. Remember that whole fiasco? You know, the one where she read a blurb that only sort of remotely sounded like Through Glass  — sort of – and Ethington went Whomp!Whomp! on that other author’s ass for no reason? Yeah, that was weird.

Of course, when Ethington was confronted about it, she fell back on the usual sadness of life. The last line of her status was super-melodramatic: “Guys, I think I just lost my kids.” And it wasn’t because of anything she did because Ethington never does anything wrong. Let’s take a look back at this exciting moment in time when, for no reason whatsoever other than reading a blurb, Ethington attempted to ruin an author’s reputation and it backfired:


The first step in stirring a pot is to bait the hook, which Ethington does in the status. She drops the Amazon link to this “plagiarizer” to see if anyone will engage.


And someone does engage, but not in the way Ethington probably expected. Someone says she has read that book and says it’s not the same at all. Instead of assuaging Ethington’s concerns, though, this only makes her worry more. What happens next is a day’s worth of drama that would have delighted Ethington – if it had gone her way.

When things blow up in the wrong direction, Ethington knows it is time to deflect attention, and so suddenly, this all became someone else’s fault. It wasn’t her fault that she falsely accused another author of plagiarism; it was her ex-husband’s fault. Obviously, because why not?



Let’s get this straight, apparently, the ex-husband randomly discovered this book and instead of contacting the author himself, he contacted Ethington and went all “Boo! Boo! Bogeyman” on her, so she sent out an accusatory Facebook Status. And then, after she saw the shit hit the fan, she wrote a long status in which she lists the following excuses for what happened:

  • Someone took a question out of context and sent screenshots to the other author
  • More conclusions were jumped to
  • She was attacked all day on her own page
  • Someone made assumptions, ergo she’s screwed
  • People should know her well enough to know “that’d she never”
  • Someone stepped out of line.
  • Someone caused more damage.

We have to ask ourselves, when will Ethington ever just accept responsibility for her own actions? When will she stop blaming her ex-husband and other people?

She brings up the issue of royalties and how obsessed her ex-husband is taking her money so much that we thought we should put that to rest as well. We didn’t want to post screen shots from the settlement, so instead, we created a chart to identify what the court determined in terms of what both Petitioner and Respondent would be awarded. Feel free to use this chart as a handy guide whenever Ethington brings up Imdalind and how her ex-husband is planning on stealing something from her.

Respondent will be awarded all of the parties’ interest in Imdalind Press, LLC, which is an expired Utah limited liability company. Petitioner will resign all positions that he holds with Imdalind Press. All copyrights owned by Imdalind Press will be transferred to Respondent.

Except as otherwise provided herein: Petitioner & Respondent each maintain 50% marital interest in all copyrights in Respondent’s name including the Imdalind Series, novellas, Of River and RaynnThe Catalyst and Through Glass.

With exception of the last two books of the Imdalind series, Petitioner will have no interest in any future works of the Respondent.

Effective 3/1/15 Petitioner will be awarded 30% of gross receipts from sales of all existing and future books in Imdalind series, including Burnt Devotion (pub. date 2/22/15) and Dawn of Ash, the final book of series. Amount of gross receipts will be verified to Petitioner by the accountant for Imdalind Press.
If rights to Imdalind series or currently existing books, novellas, Of River and Raynn-The Catalyst or Through Glass sold to a publishing house:

Petitioner will be awarded 30% of any advance

If any advance is to be repaid, Petitioner will repay 30%

Petitioner will be awarded 50% of any excess funds

Each party will be awarded 50% of any amounts received from the sale of film rights to the foregoing.

Respondent will be awarded 70% of any advance

If any advance is to be repaid, Respondent will repay 70%

Respondent will be awarded 50% of any excess funds

Each party will be awarded 50% of any amounts received from the sale of film rights to the foregoing.

Ethington has raised so many lies, half-truths, and hysterics over her children and former marriage that nobody has thought to even question the validity over such claims. And this is exactly the problem because now, when an author in our community legitimately has a problem and needs to leave an abusive relationship, people will be hesitant to help. This is what makes us the most upset in this situation. We need to build a community in which the abused feel safe to reach out and ask for help regardless if they are male, female, or a member of the LGBT+Q community. Individuals who falsely represent themselves for whatever reason make that safety more difficult to achieve and put more DV victims at risk. Ethington’s ex-husband has endured enough and for what reason? Because she said so, which is no reason at all.

Rebecca Ethington, your blank pages have been filled in and the book is closed.






Blog at

Up ↑