Earl de Blonville: Early Adopter of "alternative facts"

Since August of 2014, Earl de Blonville has claimed that Australian police were investigating his allegations that I, Kent Madin, am cyberstalking him. In late August, 2014 and then again a few months later, I phoned the central office of the Victoria Police and on both occasions they confirmed that there was no open or closed investigation in their records. Mr. de Blonville was an early adopter of "alternative facts". In various emails Mr. de Blonville has made much of having a "Rottweiler" of a personal lawyer. So he clearly has had benefit of legal advice, advice which would have been entirely in line with what Bozeman Police, the FBI and now Melbourne Police have now established, that there is nothing in this dispute that even begins to support a charge of cyberstalking AND that Mr. de Blonvlle is free to pursue his concerns in civil court.

Mr. de Blonville's behavior is oddly reminiscent of current events in the US, where someone just keeps insisting that "alternative facts" are true. Perhaps Donald Trump needs someone to head the Department of Alternative Facts. Unless, of course, Mr. de Blonville is unavailable due to his grueling expedition to Lismore.

November 28, 2016 I received a notice from the company that hosts this website, that a Police Constable was requesting that the site be removed. Because it is clearly outside the authority of the police to demand the removal of a website (that is the purview of the courts), I initially thought this was a fake inquiry, someone impersonating a police officer. But I was able to locate Constable Louise Colban and, in fact, speak to her at her station. She confirmed that she was conducting an investigation and I offered to answer any questions she might have. She declined.

I then filed a complaint with the Police Accountability Office (Victoria Police) and requested clarification of whether or not Constable Colban was operating within her proper authority. Roughly 50 days later I heard from Dectective Senior Sergeant Rhona Brown, who, most importantly, informed me that the investigation was over and no action would be taken. But Sergeant Brown's note also raised additional questions.

1: How do you conclude an investigation without interviewing the alleged criminal? DSS Brown's answer was " If the evidence doesn't support a person being interviewed, we don't interview". In other words, based on looking at whatever Earl alleged and based on whatever Constable Colban found on her own (presumably by reading the offending website, earldeblonville.net) it was concluded that there was no reason to go any further with the investigation. In other words, they found nothing that even rose to the level of seeking clarification or rebuttal from the alleged criminal! The simple term for this is "baseless allegation" or the more trendy "alternative facts".

2. What about damage done to the (now clearly innocent) target of the investigation as a result of Constable Colban's comments to website hosting services (and who knows how many other entities)? Here we have a problem. DSS Brown states flatly that the police will not send out a "nevermind" notice, something that lets a private company that was hosting my material know that the police have dropped the issue. But the damage is done. My only recourse, without an official statement from the police, is to try to convince the company to reinstate me. But that would require believing someone who the police have indicated is a criminal. Good luck with that.

Click here to read my email communications with DSS Brown who I also spoke with on the phone for 45 minutes: