Numerous Victims of Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process

Nicole Prause has shown a consistent and troubling pattern of (1) filing groundless, malicious complaints and lawsuits, and (2) threatening such actions, or publicly claiming that she has filed them, when she has not done so. (Three main pages documenting Prause’s behaviors: page 1, page 2, page 3.)

Below is a partial list of such complaints and false claims. (Out of fear of reprisal we have been asked to omit additional individuals and organizations.) Also, Prause regularly claims “whistleblower status” to keep her activities under the radar. So, there are likely other, non-public complaints in addition to those listed here.

The baseless administrative complaints Prause actually lodged were generally dismissed as nuisance filings. However, a few led to time-consuming investigations that were ultimately dismissed or produced little in the way of substantive results (can also download PDF Documenting Nicole Prause’s Malicious Reporting and Malicious Use of Process).

Malicious Reporting

Staci Sprout LICSW – (see this page by Staci Sprout: Bullying, harassment and defamation from unexpected sources as a sex addiction recovery activist)

  • Reported to Washington State’s Department of Health, twice. (no action)
  • Reported to National Association of Social Workers. (no action)
  • In 2020, Prause also filed a groundless small claims suit in California against Staci Sprout. Dismissed by judge due to lack of jurisdiction.
  • PDF of Staci Sprout’s affidavit filed in Rhodes v Prause recounting events.

Fight the New Drug – Reported to Utah’s Division of Child and Family Services on the theory that sharing first-hand stories of porn recovery constituted the abuse of minors. DCFS took no action.

Rory Reid PhD – Prause’s former colleague at UCLA. Appears to have been reported to UCLA (and perhaps to the California Psychology Board). Prause’s attacks on him began concurrently with UCLA’s decision not to renew her contract, bringing her academic career to an end.

Linda Hatch PhD – (July, 2019: Linda Hatch, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.)

Bradley Green PhD – (July, 2019: Bradley Green, PhD affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.)

  • Reported to University of Southern Mississippi (No action)
  • Reported to journal where one of his papers appeared (Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity). Journal publisher investigated and took no further action.

Jason Carroll PhD – Reported to Brigham Young University because Prause didn’t like research results (No action)

Geoff Goodman PhD – Reported to Long Island University for “harassment” (No action)

The Reward Foundation ­

Alexander Rhodes of Nofap

Gabe Deem, founder of RebootNationPrause (falsely) reported to TIME Magazine that Gabe Deem impersonated a doctor to write a formal critique of her study (letter to the editor) in an academic journal (and the letter was traced to Gabe’s computer).

Exodus Cry – (July, 2019: Laila Haddad affidavit: Donald Hilton defamation lawsuit against Nicole R Prause & Liberos LLC.)

John Adler MD – Prause reported Professor Adler to Stanford University for “harassment” (No action)

CUREUS journal – Prause reported the journal to PubMed Central, trying to have it de-listed and thus discredited (No action)

Don Hilton, MD – Reported to the university where he mentors neurosurgery students, the Texas Medical Board, and academic journals with unfounded claims that he faked his credentials (No action)

Keren Landman, MD – Prause asked VICE magazine to terminate expert Dr. Landman for writing an article recommending use of condoms in porn in support of Proposition 60. Unbelievable.

Most of the 7 physicians who co-authored Park et al., 2016 – Prause reported them to their state medical boards for simply being on the paper (more about Prause’s unrelenting malice related to the paper, which disagreed with her views: Prause’s (failed) efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted) (No action)

Gary Wilson, who co-authored that same paper

MDPI – The parent company of the journal that published the review Wilson co-authored with Navy physicians (documentation: Prause’s efforts to have Behavioral Sciences review paper (Park et al., 2016) retracted).

  • Prause reported the journal to COPE (journal ethics review board) (Superficial response, but paper has not been retracted.)
  • And to PubMed Central (No action)
  • And to the FTC (No action)

Note: In 2019 MDPI posted two official statements related to the unethical behavior of Nicole Prause (such actions appear to be without precedent):

D.J. Burr – Prause reported Burr to Washington State’s Department of Health. (No action)

Prause has also repeatedly, publicly urged members of the public, via social media, to report professionals and professional organizations to psychology boards, to the FTC, and to the Attorney General. Sections of Prause page with documentation:

Diana Davison – Prause threatened journalist Diana Davison and The Post Millennial by means of a spurious cease & desist letter threatening legal action because they published a factual expose’ that was not flattering to Prause. (No action)

Malicious Use of Process

After years of malicious administrative reporting, spurious cease & desist letters, and misuse of law enforcement personnel, Prause, in 2019, began abusing the court system (and the targets of her wrath) with malicious legal proceedings (and continued threats of legal proceedings) in order to silence anyone who calls attention to her bias or activity.

As recounted above, she filed an invalid small claims court suit against therapist Sprout, and a baseless restraining order against Wilson.

In addition, to suppress criticism of herself, Prause has threatened some 6 social media accounts with groundless small claims court lawsuits – and filed a suit against one of them, which she did not pursue. In this way, she continues to silence people’s right to free speech about her activities and apparent bias.

1) Tom Jackson (@LivingThoreau) – November, 2019

Prause publicly demanded $10,000 not to file suit, and then filed it. Jackson deleted his Twitter account. Prause did not appear at the trial and the case was dropped. The suit served its purpose of silencing Jackson, who had backed up his opinions with indisputable photographic evidence of Prause attending porn industry events. Details – https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#Jackson

2) Mark Schuenemann (@Kurall_Creator) – November, 2019

Again, Prause demanded $10,000 or she would sue. But didn’t. Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#Mark

3) Fearless Dan (YouTube channel) – November, 2019

Around the time the Rhodes v. Prause defamation lawsuit was filed, YouTuber Fearless Dan posted a short video discussing the Rhodes suit and Prause’s long, documented history of defamation and harassment. His video contained images of him scrolling through the first YBOP Prause page, showing the table of contents, and briefly highlighting a few sections. Fearless Dan’s video was factually accurate and defamed no one. Nevertheless, Prause reported it to YouTube and threatened Fearless Dan with legal action. Details: November, 2019: Prause misuses “Safe At Home Program”: She threatens YouTube channel with legal action, falsely claiming a video was defamatory & linked to her home address on YBOP.

4) December, 2019: @samosirmatthew Matthew

Prause threatened to sue him for saying she sounded like a “Foundation funded propagandist.” Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#Matthew

5) January, 2020: TranshumanAI

Prause informed this guy he was being sued after he publicized some facts about her. He deleted his tweet and changed his Twitter account name. Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#AI

6) March, 2020: “anonymous”

This person (who has asked to remain anonymous) called out Prause on her well documented ties to the porn industry. Prause went after their job and threatened a suit. The person made their account private. Details: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/nicole-prauses-unethical-harassment-and-defamation-of-gary-wilson-others-3/#anon

7) May, 2020: Charles Zhang of DonorBox

After DonorBox Founder Charles Zhang dared to tweet (and comment on) the ScramNews apology and payment to Alexander Rhodes and NoFap, Prause demanded $10K and threatened Zhang with a lawsuit based on misrepresentations of Zhang’s tweets. See Zhang’s Twitter threads with the details: https://twitter.com/rebelczz/status/1264587197249753088, https://twitter.com/rebelczz/status/1264991195106664449

1 reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply