Peymon Mottahedeh
Freedom Law School

For several years Peymon Mottadeh, President of Freedom Law School, privately defamed my efforts. So long as it was private, I ignored it. But, when he went public I felt it was necessary to publicly challenge his slanderous ad hominem attacks upon my reputation. What follows is the public record of the discourse between Mr. Mottadeh and myself. Let the public be the jury.

Bill Thornton

1. Thornton challenge to Peymon
2. Peymon to Thornton
3. Thornton to Peymon

Letter # 1


Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:39:25 -0700
From: Bill Thornton

Peymon Mottahedeh
To:  Peymon Mottahedeh, President
Freedom Law School, 9582 Buttemere Rd., Phelan, CA 92371
(760) 868-4271, (760) 868-5834
Re:  Challenge to Peymon Mottahedeh, Freedom Law School

For years you have been publicly trashing my legal theories without
providing any concrete evidence.  You simply make the claim that my
concepts are outdated, don't work, and absolutely should not be used. 
Using those unsupported claims you have actually interfered with
relationships that I established with other people.

I stand not alone in my opinion that your claims are unsupported.  Here
is a brief sampling from the Internet:

Here is your opportunity to redeem yourself:

My Law Notes website,,
contains the claims you so freely trash.  I challenge you to find
anything wrong with that information, particularly the information that
is contained within the area called FOUNDATION.

Are you going to put up?
Or, are you going to shut up?

Bill Thornton

Letter # 2

Subject: Challenge to Peymon Mottahedeh, Freedom Law School
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:33:38 -0800
From: Peymon 
To:  Bill Thornton ,

Hi Bill,

Do you see who you are quoting and relying from in your "opinion of me?
After all, we both know how the Quatloose guy is a crook who hates all
freedom seekers, like Joe Banister, Bob Schulz and me. Devvy Kidd, puts
out half truths about me and put our her lies before talking to me and
giving me the chance to tell her the "rest of the story" that she got
only half way and took out of context.

Well let's see, the first one I picked is one that I did not recognize.

that you rely on on the page that you sent me states that:

"I'm a National Socialist and an anti-Semite. I believe in racial
segregation, hierarchical world order, and the development of the racial
culture soul. I believe this approach is utterly incompatible with the
US Constitution as understood and I think it is easier, rather than try
to restore the Constitution back to some reactionary past, to simply
dump it and march forward with a new National Socialist state."

Hmmmmm. Looks like you did your homework really good on this one. A guy
who openly states that he is a National Socialist and want to "simply
dump" the Constitution.  Boy, you hit the nail on this one as far as
relying on "credible" source of information; a socialist who wants to
dump the U.S. Constitution to march toward a "National Socialist state"
New World Order!!!! A far cry from the magna Carta that you keep talking
about isn't it???

And what does he say about me?

He says: "Like, Willis and company will make a really brilliant and fact
filled analysis, and then they'll take some conspiracy theorist fake
that they just happen to have good business relations with or some scam
artist like Peymon Mottahedeh who advertises in their magazine and just
throw their name and their pet loony theory in to the mix and completely
call into question everything they've written before."

Boy, that is just a fact driven analysis that my gosh, why I did not buy
his scientific analysis of what is wrong with me? NOT!!!!

The second one I picked was your reference to:

2) who simply took
the garbage list of people that Quatloos trashes and put it all in 30 to
40 lines of all caps listing, without any explanation. Boy, what a great
source of analysis your found that really EXPALINS WHY I am wrong!

Bill, in short, you do your homework on law, the same way you have done
your homework here. You do a very sloppy job. Your SOUCES take things
wonder your strategies have failed to produced ANY TANGIBLE RESULTS.

Rather than being jealous of my success, just go and show the world that
what you do works and has real value. If others fail, long Lynn
Meredith, Larken Rose or Irwin Schiff, they failed due to their own
shortcomings, not because you figured out what is wrong with them.

A "researcher" like you, if you can not get a simple relying analysis
about some one (me) correct, from a reliable source, who does a serious
analysis of the issue (me), then how can you do a legal analysis which
is much more complex?

Similarly, if you have good stuff and it may take some time for people
to see it, like it took for people to see that Freedom Law School offers
solid education and results, it will be because what you have done. No
need to try to trash others to elevate yourself.

Bill you are a nice man. I personally like you. You are a likable,
personable, kind and genteel patriot. However, I disagree with the very
poorly researched and out of context research that you assemble together
and attempt to sell others on. You are welcomed to try our your ideas on
yourself as you wish. However, when you try to tell my friends, like
Lynn Penz and her group and mislead them, I sense a duty to speak up.

I rather not do that, since I do not want to embarrass you. But your
insistence in putting out baseless or out of context legal research,
pushes me to speak up.

I wish that you would read the law for what it is, rather than what you
wish it to be, do you a lot more thorough job of your homework and as a
result much success.

I took too much time responding to this E-mail. I need to get to work to
help people. Therefore, I will not respond to your Response E-Mail, if
any, except a short reply. I have too much other obligations that to
just banter endlessly with people by e-Mail.

Yours in freedom and justice,

Peymon Mottahedeh
Freedom Law School
(760) 868-4271 Phone


A careful reading of Peymon Mottahedeh's response shows that he did not deal with a single legal point as requested. Instead, he simply continues his pattern of labeling the whole thing invalid. For example, he says, "your insistence in putting out baseless or out of context legal research, pushes me to speak up." Nowhere in his writing does he speak up about what legal research is "baseless" or "out of context."

My conclusion is that Peymon is good at slamming, but light on logic. He's good at painting verbal images without delivering real information. He is unable or unwilling to provide any solid rational legal critique about the very thing he trashes.

I repeat my unanswered challenge to Paymon Mottahedeh:

Peymon, here is your opportunity to redeem yourself:

My Law Notes website,, contains the claims you so freely trash.  I challenge you to find anything wrong with that information, particularly the information that is contained within the area called FOUNDATION.

Are you going to back up your criticism? Or are you just another "nattering nabob of negativism?"

Bill Thornton

Let the public be the jury.