Gaslighting The Rose of the World

Capturing Beauty


John Presco

Copyright 2020

My late sister, Christine Rosamond Benton, is the victim of posthumous Gaslighting by Tom Snyder, the ghost writer hired by Stacey Pierrot. Bi these villains Gaslight Shannon and I. On page 162 and 163 we hear from Marian Sayler, who allegedly is Christine’s sponsor in A.A. She was a friend of the McCurdys who were in my sister’s AA group. Michael McCurdy was a manager in the Rosamond gallery where Marin caught Rosamond doing a whimsical painting of a frog. I saw this frog on the webpage of Rosamond’s first biographer, Sandra Faulkner. “Dunken The Frog” was a children’s book Sandra was trying to sell. When I pointed out this ART FRAUD, to Executor, Sydney Morris in a letter, Dunken disappeared. Snyer said he would not use my sister’s and my recovery. He lied! Three people in A.A. are employed to commit an act of fraud. This constitutes CONSPIRACY!

‘It was Christine’s sense of humor, I think, I enjoyed the most her. I went to the gallery on Doloress Street once, and Christine was working on a painting of  a frog for a children’s book, I believe. It was entitled “Splash” and I still have it over my bathtub at my home in Palm Springs.”

Marian describes the little frog, layered with Rosamond’s sense of the comedic. Ever the courtiere’, Christine had placed over the frog’s green skin, a little striped bathing suit.”

There is a story I enjoyed as a youth, The Princess and the Frog’. I will concentrate on Snyder’s transformation of a bathing frog, into a weapon to destroy me – with the help of my brother and sister in AA – who should never have contributed to Pierrot’s bio. She paid for it. Christine’s Anonymity was broken. There are thousands of Recovery Books on the market – written by people in Recovery! Tom and Stacey – along with Vicki and Mark Presco – knew I began my Recovery Book in 1992 – two years before Christine ended up making a SPLASH in the Pacific Ocean! Let’s ask some good questions:

  1. Why didn’t Splash make it into that children’s book? If it did, why didn’t Julie Lynch include images from this book in her book?
  2.  Why isn’t Mirian’s frog in Julie’s book?
  3.  Is there a record of this sale?
  4.  Is is signed by Rosamond?

Christine NEVER painted in her gallery! I have been searching for Sayler for years – and can’t find her. Is she a FICTIONAL person. If you know her, let me know! I called up Michael McCurdy last year, and he was anxious to hang up. I would love to have my attorney question him on the witness stand, along with his wife that told me to stay out of it when I asked good questions in 1994.

As a Biblical Scholar I notice timeline statements, like “I still have it over my bathtub.”. Take out the “still”. “I believe” is used to strengthen the claim, the entitlement. Pierrot allowed her Ghost Writer to tamper with evidence I submitted to the Superior Coust of Monterey. Will Sandra make a good witness for Dead Rosamond? Vicki told me Sandra absconded with a 5,000 dollar advance she got to author my family bio? I sent her an e-mail with a pic of Dunken, along with this question;

‘Did you paint this image?”

Why do these parasites believe this is what Sober Christine wanted?

I will be talking to my new therapist about the Gaslighting of Kim Haffner who made a living dealing with severely insane people. Kim denies reading Snyder’s book, because, she wanted to gather Gas Lighting Material. Did she contact Stacey Pierrot, or, Vicki Presco. She suggests she had been conversing with my daughter, and the AGREE that I am mentally ill, and tend to make crazy stuff up. With my posts on the authors I conversed with on yahoo.groups, who were Gaslighting me, comes evidence I had a valid book in the works. Does Dr. Haffner consider these authors insane because they published books about Mary Magdalene having Jesus’ baby?

Tom Snyder uses CHILDREN to hurt me. He weaponizes them. I am going to try to get a record of Haffner’s employment at the Johnson Unit where she may have abused adults who are acting like unmanageable children. Haffner riled up our neighbors to punish and control me. I believe she passed Christine’s biography around when I asked her not to. I want her on a witness stand, along with our neighbors. I told Kim about Love Match. Some Christians believe Gays should be executed.

The Haffners stalked me after I told them Garth Benton went to Sue Haffner’s high school. They wanted to control that information so it could be put in their pile after reducing me to a raving lunatic in a psycho ward. Garth Gaslights my sister – posthumously. So does Scott who was a friend of Snyder. What they did, and do to me, they did to Christine.

Theories on successful manipulationl

According to psychology author George K. Simon, successful psychological manipulation primarily involves the manipulator:[2]

  1. Concealing aggressive intentions and behaviors and being affable.
  2. Knowing the psychological vulnerabilities of the victim to determine which tactics are likely to be the most effective.
  3. Having a sufficient level of ruthlessness to have no qualms about causing harm to the victim if necessary.

Consequently, the manipulation is likely to be accomplished through covert aggressive means.[2]

In psychiatry[edit]

Gaslighting has been observed between patients and staff in inpatient psychiatric facilities.[20]

In a 1996 book, Dorpat claimed that “gaslighting and other methods of interpersonal control are widely used by mental health professionals as well as other people” because they are effective methods for shaping the behavior of other individuals.[1]:45 He noted that covert methods of interpersonal control such as gaslighting are used by clinicians with authoritarian attitudes,[1]:xiii–xxi and he recommended instead more non-directive and egalitarian attitudes and methods on the part of clinicians,[1]:225 “treating patients as active collaborators and equal partners”.[1]:246

When, at an early art opening, a patron enthuses, “Your husband’s quite a talent! Do you paint too?” Margaret seems to be racking her mind to remember, finally stuttering “I don’t know.” It’s especially painful to see how Walter’s gaslighting of Margaret’s extends to Jane, her longtime muse, whom Margaret literally shuts out of her studio to preserve Walter’s fiction. When he tells Margaret, in public, that he’ll “have [her] whacked” if she reveals the truth about the paintings, it’s able to be horribly comedic only because Waltz perfectly portrays the impotence underlying Walter’s rubbery-faced egomania. But it’s clear that the real-life threat was very plausible. In a recent profile in the San Francisco Chronicle, Margaret recalls:

“Back then, women kind of went along with their husbands, didn’t rock the boat. He finally wore me down,” Margaret says. “While we were fighting this out at home, the paintings were just flying off the walls. Posters were selling. It was unbelievable. It snowballed overnight. I kept getting in deeper and deeper. I didn’t know how I could get out of it. I lost all respect for him and myself, and lived in a nightmare.”

What is Gaslighting?

Sandra Faulkner – Storyteller

faulkner3 faulkner34 faulkner36storyteller

a. One who tells or writes stories.

b. One who relates anecdotes.

2. Informal One who tells lies.

Yesterday I sent Sandra Faulkner a message beseeching her to tell the truth. So far I have not received a response. Looking again at the Rosamond webpage Stacey Pierrot came out with in April of 1997, I noticed something I overlooked. The title of the biography Faulkner chose was the same title the ghost wrote, Tom Snyder, published his biography under. There were two authors! What is key, Faulkner said she conducted interviews with Christine – before she drowned! Did Snyder work from Faulkner’s notes, or, tape recordings?

“Do you have any notes, or recording about my late sister, Christine Rosamond. You and my daughter could pass for twins. We do not see each other, and my grandson, because Vicki Presco convinced her I am deluded, and my doubts about Christine drowned, un-founded. I beseech you to come forth and tell the truth so I can see my child again.”

Jon Gregory Presco

“Sandra Faulkner whose book ‘Love Match’ was a non-fiction best seller, has written a biography of Rosamond. Of the subject of the book ‘When You Close Your Eyes’, Faulkner says; “I was reluctant to write all that my interviews revealed about Christine.”

Did Snyder take over the project from Faulkner? Vicki Presco told me Faulkner quit and ran with a $5,000 dollar advance, but, Vicki is a good Storyteller!  This lie was covering up the true reason, being, Sandra’s artwork was being passed off as the artwork of a dead artist. This is on par with the movie ‘Big Eyes’.

Big Eyes is a 2014 American biographical film directed by Tim Burton, starring Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz. The script was written by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski. The film is about the life of American artist Margaret Keane—famous for drawing portraits and paintings with big eyes. It followed the story of Margaret and her husband, Walter Keane, who took credit for Margaret’s phenomenally successful and popular paintings in the 1950s and 1960s, and the lawsuit (and trial) between Margaret and Walter, after Margaret reveals she is the real artist behind the big eyes paintings.

“On occasion, Christine speaks for herself – these passages are included and italicized – from scattered pages of autobiographical notes, a few brief interviews, unfinished letters, and personal meanderings. These passages are all more striking for being so sparse. For Christine was not a journal keeper so much as one who reached for clarity of mind by writing. The bulk of her comments, however, consists of scattered thoughts and the ideation of a woman who was not well at the time she wrote them down.”

Piorrot’s webpage advertised a illustration of a frog.

“A poster of Rosamond’s Creation ‘Dunkin the Frog’ will be distributed to children in hospitals. T-Shirts and tote bags will be produced featuring the whimsical character.”


This frog is the creation of Sandra Faulkner, but, they are putting Rosamond’s name on it as the creator. I saw Dunkin on Faulkner’s webpage in 1997 and wrote a letter to the executor, Sydney Morris, telling him I doubt my sister painted a frog, and, gave Faulkner an interview, and if she did, those intervierws belong to my nieces. I also informed him Christine filed a lawsuit to keep her artwork off tote bags.

This is when Faulkner disappears from the Fraudulant Art Happening. My mother said they were talking about a movie, and thus they would want First Book, dictated by the Famous Dead Artist. This is why Snyder disavows Faulkner’s interviews. They also knew I was writing a biography, and were scaring me off. But, what will not do, in anyones book, is these Art Frauds lured my sixteen year old daughter, a minor child, into their camp! When Patrice, Linda, and Craig Hanson disappeared Hether Hanson from my life, that were helping outsiders create a Fraudulant Persona FOR PROFIT that did not generate monies for the estate and thus the heirs. Indeed it discourages my niece Shannon Rosamond from authoring her own biography – and Drew Benton!

These outsiders came in our midst within hours of Rosamond’s death. They said we were in “chaos” and this is why they had to take over. They created the chaos. The labeled Christine, Shannon, and myself, mentally unbalanced. We were/are the family artists.  Sydney Morris was an outsider that helped the outsiders rest away my families creative legacy. Christine named our sister, Vicki Presco to be he Executor. Bottom line;

Sandra Faulkner and Tom Snyder never met, nor did they have any conversations with Christine Rosamond. Yet they produced one biography between them, and rendered a frog named Dunkin, and fraudulently applied a world famous artist’s name to it.  Here are the complete works of Rosamond. You will not find ‘Dunkin’.

Here is Morris; “By September 2000, however, plans were underway for a biography of Decedent, which Petitioner hoped might create interest in her work. The book was published in 2002. Although the book did not spur the hoped-for interest in Decedent’s life and work, efforts continued to market the concept of a screenplay based upon Decedent’s life.

Morris does not say the proceeds of sales of ‘When You Close Your Eyes’ or monies from the movie, will go to my nieces, Christine’s two daughter. I have to conclude Sydney Morris bid Pierrot to remove Faulkner from my sight, and replace her with a new ghost writer. I will be filing a complaint with the Bar Association, because my biography, and a movie made from my book, would create interest in my sister’s work, and generate sales, the proceeds going to my nieces. This blog has created a interest in Rosamond’s work. I had 150,000 readers last year. I will go ahead and finish ‘Capturing Beauty’ and generate much interest that will benefit my nieces – my family! They failed! In every way!

The claim that Christine chose Faulkner after reading her Lesbian novel, because she thought Faulkner looked like her, is a lie, and is so strange, because Sandra looks just like my daughter, who pretended she wanted to be my daughter, but, only wanted to get near the Frauds. This is a fraud, within a fraud, within a fraud!

Jon Presco

Copyright 2015


In Mr. Sydney Morris’s Report of the Administration he says on page 4 line 10;

“Petitioner hired Stacey Pierrot, who had been assistant manager of the gallery during Decedent’s lifetime, to run the gallery and prepare and execute a marketing plan. The gallery was run by the estate until March 1996 when the gallery was sold to Ms. Pierrot through a contract approved by this Court. During the time that the estate operated the gallery, aggressive marketing efforts were made in an attempt to stir interest in Decedent’s work and increase the potential market for her work. In spite of these efforts, interest in Decedent’s work continued to wane.”

On page six, Mr. Morris explains why there was a delay in the closing of the estate;

“By September 2000, however, plans were underway for a biography of Decedent, which Petitioner hoped might create interest in her work. The book was published in 2002. Although the book did not spur the hoped-for interest in Decedent’s life and work, efforts continued to market the concept of a screenplay based upon Decedent’s life. Petitioner hoping that this might be brought to fruition, elected to keep the estate open. However, it is the Petitioner’s belief the likelihood of an increased interest in Decedents work is negligible, and the time has come to close the estate.”

“Pierrot later bought the business from the estate, royalties
from which go to Rosamond’s daughters, Drew now 11, and Shannon, 28.
Pierrot has a determined vision of where she wants the business to
go. A poster of Rosamond’s creation “Dunkin the Frog” will be
distributed to children in hospitals. T-shirts and tote bags will
also be produced featuring the whimsical character, Pierrot says. All
manner of upscale merchandising is contemplated using the images from
Rosamond’s paintings…bed linins, throw pillows and other elegant
household items.”

“That was foremost in Donald Layne’s warning. When near the water’s edge, visitors must follow a fundamental rule: Never turn your back to the sea. Yet on this fine spring day, that
is precisely what Christine does. She sits on the rock with her back to the sea, and jams her hands in the leather jacket’s pocket.”

Here is Shamus, the egregious liar. “I don’t think I am Heather’s
father. (I have 2 sons and a vasectomy. I’m happy with just 2 sons)
The part where you accusing me of shielding her from you and her
grandson is due to the fact I was asked by Heather NOT to give out
her phone number or address. If you asked me not to give your
whereabouts I would do the same. It’s a matter of trust. That’s why
it was my idea that she make a new email address so you two could be
in contact. It didn’t violate anything she asked me to do.” How can
you believe this quote: “You know,” she says aloud, “if a giant wave
came right now, it could take me out to sea, and I could drown.” This
was quoted from my own mom, whom you believe a liar. Shouldn’t you
disbelieve that as much as anything else that she or I says. You have
no “proof” that Christine said this. Mom’s words aren’t proof
according to you since you don’t trust her. You don’t get to use only
the words you want as your truth, as you aren’t qualified to discern
which is the truth and which is a lie. Either you trust what she says
or you don’t. You can’t go “well this soundsl ike it could be true,
but this doesn’t.” It’s all hearsay. Believe it or don’t. Don’t be a

“We were almost there when an ambulance passed us, going the other way. We both realized it was carrying Christine. My mind flashed back over the last few months and years, and all the anguish for Nina and Drew and me, even for Christine. I was crying, and I turned to Nina — this is what I am ashamed of — and I said, ‘we’re free. And Drew issaved.”

shamusdundon@Y…> wrote:

Mom called me last night after getting an email from Heather. Heather was very upset about the things you said to her. Mom was ticked off at me, accusing me of stirring things up by having Heather contact you, so she wanted me to write Heather to advise her what to do about it.

Mom also said she would call Heather in a day or two to add her 2 cents. I’ve already advised Heather in an email last night. I suggested she may want to wait until after the baby is born to contact you, considering she doesn’t need the extra stress while she’s present. At that time, I hadn’t read all your rubbish yet about you thinking I was posing as her. I will write her another email suggesting she call you only if you write her an apology. (by the way, write an apology as you would to her, not one you think is going to me as a fraud) long story short, yes mom does have her phone number, yes I could get it from her. No I won’t give it to you without Heathers
consent. You have her REAL email address convince her of your intent and maybe
not all is lost.

In, “Jon Presco”


Shamus, do you or Vicki – or any member of my family – have Heather’s phone number? Lillian told me she heard from Vicki that Heather was going to have a child. How did Vicki find that out, by phone, or e-mail? Heather was going to name the baby Lillian-Rose, thus she hoped it was a girl? She tells me she I am going to have a “grandson” thus she had a test – hence!

Shamus says he only had two contacts with Heather, but, takes charge of her and her unborn baby, he taking delight in our falling out. He then sets up a reconciliation between us. How interesting. These keepers of the Big Family Secret have empowered and enriched themselves, and like child-molesters they feel like gods because they never get caught, because THE PROOF is sealed in the silence of the lambs. Shamus and Vicki have taken my daughter and unborn grandson hostage, and are using them to get me to stop seeking the truth – stop asking questions – and stop doubting family members
love you. “The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.”

“I have a clean conscience. I am quite willing to hash out whatever it is you feel I’ve wronged you in. Please provide proof , and not conspiracy theories.


From: “John Presco”
Date: Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: John
Do you recall exactly when you talked to Heather? Do you think she was sincere about learning more about you, or, she wanted to learn more about me?


Maybe you should elaborate more on Heather. I’ve only had 2 phone conversations with her, and they were both about us learning about each other as family members. The only thing I mentioned about you, when she brought you up, was that she should be careful not to feel to hurt IF you said some mean things out of the blue. (perhaps you can understand why I might say that.) I never said anything to discourage her from associating with you. I have no idea the current status of your relationship. I haven’t talked to her in quite sometime. What did you mean by “outsider” going after her? Maybe you should tell me what happened….

“Before the service, Vicki had taken the trouble to go through Christine’s
bedroom, putting her jewelry and intimate belongings out of sight. As matters
turned out, it did little good, for the funeral was not long over before family
members and others were ravaging Christine’s house, taking whatever could be
carted away. The artist’s closet, a veritable mother lode – took the worst
beating. World-class spender that Christine had been, much of the clothing had
never been worn. So whatever still bore price tags was hauled off to be
exchanged for money. Jewelry disappeared, as well as other personal belongings.
Gallery employees and close friends of the family, along with Vicki, were doing
their best to staunch the flow – the estate had not yet been inventoried – but
to no avail.”

“While there had been big waves visible farther along the coast, the
ocean’s surface here is calm. Though the tide may be turning, it
seems low. Along this precipitous coastline, the Pacific is
exclusive in its moods. That was foremost in Donald Layne’s warning.
When near the water’s edge, visitors must follow a fundamental rule:
Never turn your back to the sea. Yet on this fine spring day, that
is precisely what Christine does. She sits on the rock with her back
to the sea, and jams her hands in the leather jacket’s pocket.”

“Of course adventures rarely go as planned. The properties main
gate is unexpectadly locked, so Christine goes in search of help.
She finds it in the neighbor, a attorney Donald Layne. Of imposing
size and intelligence, Layne is also blessed with a generous nature.
None of this is lost on 46-year-old Christine.

At just over five-foot five, she is a perennial fashion plate model and man-pleaser. Even
for this casual outing, she is wearing tailored tan slacks and a white tunic-style blouse topped by a short jacket in soft, muted-brown leather – distinctively styled with two snaps at the waist. The sleeves were turned up, revealing the satin lining and a hint of
a forearm. A remote transmitter is finally located for the security gate. Christine tells Layne that she and others are excited about exploring a small cove to search for any treasures left by the sea.

Layne knows the shoreline well. That evening, he sounds a WARNING
note. “IF you go down to the ocean,” he tells Christine, “have a
care”. In the morning, under a windless sky……”

“It must have been Christine’s time, and perhaps she knew so. I was
there as an afterthought. She and Drew were going to spend the whole
weekend at a guest house. Christine went back and sat down on the
final rock after saying we should go get lunch and rent fishing
poles. She always had nightmares about water, tidal waves, the
ocean’s power, the water taking control. She was facing her
nightmare; she sat back down as if she had conquered those fears. I
didn’t understand why we weren’t leaving. It must have been a
WEWERE IN DANGER. We weren’t just frolicking on the rocks.” Vicki
said. “We were responsible people, and aware of the water at all
times. It was a full moon weekend with lots of tidal action. A friend
told me that five other people were swept out to sea ( from
California’s north coast) over the same period. We went to look for
shells and tide pool creatures. Christine was sure the tide was going
out. Did she know what lay a head?”

rockyp5 rockyp4 bigsur12 bigsur14


About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Gaslighting The Rose of the World

  1. Reblogged this on Rosamond Press and commented:

    My daughter went over to the enemies of art.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.