"We are the victims not you."

Steven Jarvis' textbook behavior of abusing, defaming, harassing and bullying

Steven Jarvis, former Special Education Teacher from Fort Worth, Texas, who is banned on Twitter and Medium, rambles in many public Substack articles: Creepy control fantasies, ableism, doxxing threats, seeing evil fantasy socks everywhere, wanting people in prison for no reason, suicide talk about others, demonstrating lack of understanding of first grade geometry, and much much more. Many articles contain incomprehensible word salad.

But most of these articles are aggressively defaming anonymous Twitter accounts he falsely claims are operated by a travel blogger named Susan from New York.

For example here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here - the list is incomplete and of course does not include articles not published yet at the time of writing this.

Recently Susan Portnoy showed up in the comment section of one of Jarvis’ articles to asked him directly to remove these articles, because the accusatory claims about her are untrue and taking a toll on her.

He knows exactly that his claims are untrue

Before looking in that conversation, let me point out one important fact at the beginning:

Jarvis knows very well that his core claim that the anonymous Twitter users like “KassandraSeven” or “octopus_teach” are the travel blogger Susan from New York is completely untrue.

Proof? Just look at Jarvis’ own words:

"We know KassandraSeven, assuming she isn't Susan, admitted to stealing Susans work via reblogging and taking credit for it."

"KassandraSeven was the one who contacted Susan via her email, so whomever is behind that account should be investigated and prosecuted over stealing someones identity and work, passing it off as her own."

"[KassandraSeven] ripping off and reselling Susans work, reblogging Susans work, and pretending to be Susan is pretty troubling."

"Take things up with KassandraSeven/octopus_teach on how she has used [Susans] identity and work since 2017 to profit off of it.

Side note: All these accusations against KassandraSeven, octopus_teach and others are completely made up without any basis in reality.

In summary, Jarvis knows very well that Susan and these anonymous Twitter accounts are different persons. But in most of his articles he nevertheless presents his fantasy stories in which they are the same person. Defaming anonymous Twitter accounts is not enough for him.

He needs a specific face, name, and life to attack personally. A completely innocent person, the travel blogger named Susan Portnoy from New York, who has done absolutely nothing to him or anyone else. Of course, in his public articles he presents here as completely evil, while he is both the victim and the hero in his fantasy stories.

Conversation between attacker and victim

Let’s come back to the conversation between Susan and Jarvis in the comment section of one of his articles. Susan starts by asking Jarvis to remove untrue and defaming content about her.

From there the following conversation happened.

The following presentation is the complete conversation in correct order - no misrepresentation by manipulating the order as Jarvis does.

What is Jarvis' first reaction?

Act 1: Playing the ignorant

Jarvis:

"Could you be specific?"

This after having written literally dozens of aggressive article attacking her personally.

Well, Susan holds her ground:

Act 2: Denying

Jarvis:

"And what are you doing over on my substack expressing that you think you are Sue or Susan?"

Jarvis basically says: Noooooo, stupid little Sue-thing, of course it was never about you! It was just about someone else having the same name as you, living in the same city as you, having the same job as you, having the same website as you, traveling to the same countries as you, and in general having the same life as you!

Side note: There is no sign that anybody ever threatened Jarvis or his family as he claims. It seems to be completely made up.

Didn't work either. The evidence against him is overwhelming.

Act 3: Telling the victim to shut up

Jarvis:

"There is simply no logical reason for you to be over here [...]"

In other words, Jarvis basically says: let me alone, shut up, I am busy with defaming and harassing you.

Didn’t work either.

Act 4: Bargaining

Jarvis:

"I will include a statement that you deny being associated with her [...]"

Jarvis offers to add a conterstatement of her, basically in exchange for getting her permission to harass and defame here in dozens existing and future articles. Very generous.

Didn't work either. The victim asks again for removing defaming content - rightly so.

Act 5: Attacking the victim

Jarvis:

"Would you like to address how it is you can afford to live in NYC with no discernible work produced?"

Jarvis basically says: You little stupid girl, what do you want from me, big Mr. Jarvis!

The sad irony is: It is Jarvis himself who is unemployed for some time now and seems to have money problems.

Side note: Mr. Javris baselessly accuses someone else of stealing Susans work. After Susan asks for specific information about this claim, what is Jarvis answer? “You can request that information [from someone else].” Accusing someone first and having no evidence even later.

All this didn’t work either.

Act 6: Shifting the burden of proof

Jarvis:

"She is you until that is proven otherwise. [...] My work documenting your 'other' work will continue, and of course stay up using the name Sue and Susan."

Note that Jarvis is not claiming that "she is you, as proven by …" Instead he writes: "She is you until that is proven otherwise."

Meaning: Harasser Jarvis thinks that he does not need to present any proof his defaming claims. And he will continue defaming until the victim has proven that the claims wrong. While, of course, he does not accept any such proof anyway (even when presenting a solid picture proof that these two persons claims to be identical are living in complete different towns).

In summary: Jarvis admits straight out that he does not need any evidence before defaming someone. And even if there is evidence that his claims are false, he just doesn’t care.

This didn’t work either.

Act 7: Blaming the victim

Jarvis:

"You are choosing to be over here reading. Your choice."

Jarvis basically tells Susan: Why are you bothered by me attacking and defaming you? Just look away! Yikes.

What a surprise, didn’t work either, Susan stands her ground - rightfully.

Act 8: Reversing victim and offender

Jarvis:

"You haven't been defamed [...] We are the victims not you."

Yes, of course, in his view he is the victim, not the offender.

Also note that Jarvis implies that it is absolutely fine to “target” (meaning: defame and harass) people as long as you don’t “target” their “business/personal accounts” - whatever this means exactly anyway.

Needless to say, didn’t work either. Susan stands her ground and asks again for removing his defaming articles.

This leaves us with …

Some people are intentionally lying to gain financial or other benefits.

But Steven Jarvis is another level: He is intentionally lying to create denigrating fantasy stories about real existing people.