Motion to Reconsider

by Metropolitan Victor, Pro Se Plaintiff

Now comes Victor Prentice, a Co-Plaintiff in the above titled cause, who as a Pro Se Plaintiff asks this Honorabe Court to Reconsider the Decision in the Contempt matter of the Defendant, Montgomery Grffith-Mair A/K/A Father Monty. Since most of the defamation testified to in Court remains up on the Defendants websites (Domains) Justice for the Plaintiffs has not been served.

Plaintiff feels many of the details were not made clear at the hearing and that the Defendant has committed Perjury, which I do not say lightly. Please review Items 3 and 4 immediately below.

Defendant has published a page claiming just the opposite of the Judgment filed on Aug. 20, 2004. See item #6 below.

Plaintiff declares we proved our case for defamation and invasion of privacy at trial. The materials complained about at trial remain up on Defendants websites and we continue to be defamed and or privacy invaded.

Plaintiff also declares he understands the Judgment to order said materials totally and completely removed from the internet.

1) The Judgment lists "8" pages by name and they have both htm and html sites or mirror sites.

2) The Judgment states "This would include but not necessarily be limited to the following: and 8 pages are named.

3) The Defendant claimed in his brief and/or under oath that he had removed the "10" pages named in the Judgement. He publishes this claim also. On Jan. 13, 2005 Plaintiff printed out "supposedly removed pages (1 page) and (14 pages) which were named in the Judgment and were not removed.

4) The Defendant did not remove the other pages named. He removed the text only and left the page address and metatag information up allowing these pages to continue to be indexed by search engines that will allow people to come to the blank page do a search and read the metatags. The following examples are pages supposedly "removed" but if you go to this addess while there is no text showing the pages are available as well as the metatags;

Example 1: Defendant publishes no text on but metatags include the following; Plaintiffs names, mountain view, arkansas. victor voodoo, american orthodox catholic church (Corporate Church Plaintiffs "short name") and much more. Page also shows a background being many tiny pictures of this Plaintff using a Registered Copyrighted picture of the Plaintiff without permission. Defendant takes many Copyrighted photos and documents and republishes without permission throughout his website to attack the copyright owner. Metatags show page title "Dead-End Prentice. By Father Monty".

Example 2: Defendant publishes no text on but page remains in place with address, background and meatags. Abp. James picture remains up as a background with an upside down cross, and the metatags include Plaintiffs names, church short name, continuing episcopal church, cec, sonneteer of scum, james family, internet scum, kook of the month, loveland, colorado, cj3, cjthree, homosexual, and much more. The title shown is "His Not So Sweet Son! By Father Monty".

Example 3: Defendant publishes no text on, metatags include Plaintiffs names, theocacna (church initials), charles rosencrans, ( priest & director) american orthodox patriarchate, orthodox metropolitanate in north america, north american holy synod, (names referring to Plaintiffs) metropolitan victor, julie clark (a corporate director) dirty colin, and much more. The title reads "Prentice Escapes Criminal Indictment For Now! By Father Monty. (Or how his defunct "THEOCACNA" is seen as a shameless sham!) Again this page with no text is available, address and metatags are up.

Example 4: Defendants other pages named in the judgment are down in this mannr. No text to read but the address is still up, some others may have backgrounds showing and metatags are still up showing the search engines the page is there to index and visit.

The Defendant continues to violate the Judgment and intent by continuing to publish almost ALL the pages we sued about and misled the Court by his misleading testimony. The evidence is on his websites for all to see at,, and any other sites the Defendant may setup. The 3 named herein were also listed as Defendants in this lawsuit.

5) The Defendant claims all he must do is remove the individual pages as named in the Judgment.

Plaintiff claims the Judgment stated he must cease all writing about Plaintiffs on his domain as well as his other sites and (as named in the lawsuit) and any future sites he may establish or be party to as stated in the order of this Court on page 3, item #1. Defendant is also to remove ALL material about Plaintiffs as stated in item #2 on page 4 of said order.

6) From the following statements by this Defendant on "Innocent of Contempt. By Father Monty". Address: Monday, December 20, 2004 The Defendant claims the following about Plaintiffs and Judgment and more:

a) Defendant writes "...there was no order that prohibits the appellant from writing about the Plaintiffs..."

b)Defendant writes "Therefore, I am otherwise granted the right under Judge Wrights order to write or say whatever I may on the internet about such characters as the Plaintiffs"

7) Defendant continues to show his contempt of this Honorable Courts authority by publishing on Innocent of Contempt. By Father Monty. the following claim: "Although under Canadian law at where the stories are published it was not lawfully required of this Appellant nor the webhost to remove such material..."

8) Defendant continues to publish foul, vulgar and defamatory remarks on his ansinewswire pages about Plaintiffs. ANSiNewsWire. Notes & Edited By Father Monty. (Anglican News Service International | ANSi, 415-421 Oak St., Hot Springs, AR 71901. USA.)

Defendant publishes the following; "Colin James is still a Motherfuc_er" and "cu_t" is also posted there. Other such vulgar works are also published there and on other pages. Also the states Thus, Bishop Simpson (who is a Plaintiff against this Defendant in another Court and with an unrelated church) and Abp. James "are kissing themselves all over". This was published Dec. 14, 2004 and is what the Defendant considers Public information?

9) Defendant publishes on Deeply Texan. By Father Monty. (Chit-Chatting with Bishop John Parnell of Texas) July 27, 2004 Defendant posted (after the April trial) false and defamatory remarks as shown in the following;

Example 1: Defendant publishes "This man (Joseph Colin James III) is a false clergyman who is a registered sex offender and is a convicted felon". The Defendant adds his disclaimer "there is no independent verification of these charges".

Example 2: Defendant publishes "Like his partner Victor Lewis Prentice, Joseph Colin James III is a know pathological liar". As I testified we are not partners, we had only met twice - 3 times inculding the contempt hearing.

[We are with different Churches, not "in business together" nor do we have any form of "partnership". After the trial Defendant published that I claimed we had no partnership referring to a homosexual due to my objection due to his use of the term "partner".]

Example 3: Defendant publishes "...and his church partner and convicted criminal Victor Lewis Prentice of Sudan, Tx.".

NOTE: The matter of my being a convicted criminal was testified to in court. Defendant continues to publish I committed criminal acts over 30-35 years ago in Bay City or Bay County, Michigan. A letter was made availabe and testified to that the County shows no felony record for me. That letter and the letter from the newspaper - Bay City Times which stated they did not write articles about me should settle this but the Defendant still has those related pages up stating I am a convicted criminal, calling me a kidnapper and more. These pages also continue to claim a Michigan State Police officer claims I shot at police over 30 years ago and more. We have letters from Internal Affairs, MSP and the Law Enforcement Standards Commission showing this an does not exist, this was testified to but Defendamt keeps all these pages up also. Those pages include sex offender.html, baycity.html, vlpfiles.html and msp.html. [All testified to]

10) Defendant has continue to publish that was testified to about a conection between Plaintiff Prentice, Church Plaintiff, and with the Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh. This was testified to also.

11) Regarding Defendants claim that what he has published since the jury verdict stem from Public Records Paintiff asks for a stricter intrepration of this. Please refer to his page on where the Defendant has a link to a newspaper article in the Lubbock, Tx. newsaper about a puppy hit by a car I sought help for. The Defendant would claim this page is public information but only has about a paragraph and link about the puppy and the Defendant publishes the rest as his attack and invasion of Plaintiffs privacy.

Example1: Defendant publishes "Although Vic, at age 66..." (false)

Example 2: Defendant publishes "clearly the local vet folks have kindly taken it upon themselves to care for puppy (false) Their response was money before we care for the animal and the suggestion to put the pup down, so I went to the newspaper in Lubbock and we raised the money for puppy to be operated on at the orthopedic vet clinic in Dallas.

Example 3: Defendant publishes "I wonder if Prentice moved his elderly mother with him to Texas..." again claiming she was still alive after publishing numerous articles on how I lied that she had died. (invasion of privacy)

Example 4: Defendant publishes statements that name Plaintiff "Joseph Colin James III" in matters not related to the pup, claims the case (our lawsuit) was "Pretty Bloody Dead" because I had moved to Texas and stated "I had no plan to show my demonic mugshot at any Court or trial". Also refers to Abp. James late mother again.

Much more is stated unrelated to the "public" information and so much is false since and he testified in Court he writes what he believes and makes no effort to verify the facts and truth or what he writes or what others write and he posts or publishes. Basically everything is public information to the Defendant and he plans to continue to write about the Plaintiffs and ignore this Judgment as he ignored the Gag order in Bay St. Louis, MS that was upheld by the Mississippi Court of Appeals and a copy of that decision is online at the MS court of appeals site. At trial Plaintiffs attorney even brought this up and may have submitted a copy of Defendants site gag.html (I believe)when he asked Defendant about still being on probation from his Mississippi convictions. An important consideration is that most of what Defendant writes and publishes is false, madeup and used to defame and invade Plaintiffs privacy.

12. Defendant publishes on Kinda Whiplashed By The Reverend Chiropractor. By Father Monty June 5, 2003 Defendant names Plaintiffs Prentice, James and The Holy Eastern Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Chrch in North America. He refers to Plaintiffs stating "Their infamy knows no bounds!!", invades the privacy of Fr. Mike who served a term as President of the Sate of Arkansas Chiropractic Board, state to Fr. Mike that he could be held legally financially liable for damages if the Church were sued and refers to me as a "tick" (he did another page referring to me in that manner) and repeats on this page that I have "committed grave crimes against (the late) Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh, first Archbishop President of this Church (appointed 1927 and we were incorporated in 1928). Defendant continues to refer to this Church Plaintiff as being "defunct" on many pages.

Here also please note the importance of "metatags". This webpage printed out to 9 pages while the metatags printed out to 14 pages since the metatags appear to contain the whole article of this site. This shows the Defendants intent was to circumvent the judgment and to in fact leave his webpages up for search engines to index, people to go to and to keep our names and pictures online (as background) on pages ordered removed.

Since this Honorable Court stated in the Judgement that the Plaintiffs are not public figures I ask that my right to privacy be returned at this time. Since the Judgement also states "...there is no adequate remedy at law" Plaintiff states our requests below would be some remedy and the collection of the Jury award another. Defendant published that the Plaintiffs would be lucky to ever see a dime of the jury award.

THEREFORE, Plaintiff asks this Honorable Court for the following relief entitled to under the entered Judgment and Jury findings and award and to in effect see that justice is done for the Plaintiffs in this case.

Plaintiffs Pray the following be ordered to enforce and uphold the Judgment in this case dated August 20, 2004 being;

1. Defendant be ordered to cease ALL publishing and posting of ANY written material about Plaintiffs including E-mails, which are written materials used on the internet.

2. If this Honorable Court allows Defendant to post any "public" material he be ordered not to post anything but links about Plaintiffs to public newspaper articles less than 2 years old and TV reports about Plaintiffs that may arise.

[No comments by Defendant, which we feel would be defamatory and/or invade our privacy, should be allowed based on the history of his past "writings" and "postings" which are false, inaccurate and unproven claims. At trial Defendant did testify that he "Writes what he believes" and when asked if he verified this, Sgt Gorden he stated he had "spoken" to his wife. Mr Garner then asked Defendant "By Phone?" and the Defendant stated "No, by e-mail".]

3. Defendant be ordered to immediately remove ALL pages about Plaintiffs, including those Defendant claims are "public" regarding this case, to remove from newsgroups, search engines and other such sites all articles he posted or had posted on the internet. This must include all links, page addresses and all metatags. Based on all the pages written since trial and judgment Defendant appears to claim everything and anything is public record.

4. Defendant be ordered to cease all "investigations" of Plaintiffs since continued activity would be allowing continued "Invasion of Plaintiffs privacy" which was part of this lawsuit and stated in this Judgment, i.e. in the paragraph "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT..."

5. Plaintiff Prays the Defendant will be declared in Contempt of Court.

6. Plaintiff prays this Honorable Court will sanction Defendant in this matter.

7. Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court spell out the requirements in detail to prevent Defendant again falsely claiming he has abided with the Courts Judgment.

8. Plaintiff asks this Honorable Court to now impose a time limit for Defendant to abide by. Plaintiff suggests all mention of Plaintiffs be removed within 24 hours from all sites that Defendant has control over and 7 days to contact and remove from other sites on the internet.

9. Plaintiff suggests this Honorable Court might explain to Defendant why this Court in fact does have jurisdiction over this Defendant under the Law.

Respectfully submitted,

Most Rev. Victor Prentice
Pro Se Co-Plaintiff