Last update: March 9, 2015

Contact History
between PasstheWORD Services

and the Editor at


Abbreviations used on this page are as follows ...

  • PasstheWORD is abbreviated as PTW;

  • Jane Lead is abbreviated as JL;

  • The Editor at, Diane Guerrero, is abbreviated as DG.



November 24, 2004

  First Contact: A flattering email received from one Diane Guerrero,(DG) from an AOL email address stating ...
1) her desire to publish Jane Lead's (JL's) works in hardcopy,
2) her desire to keep JL's text intact,
3) that she would not be writing any commentary,
    and finally
4) asking permission to use the electronic, source files from PasstheWORD (PTW) of ALL of JL's writings for her project.

November 25, 2004

  PTW volunteer posed numerous specific questions to DG.

November 26, 2004

  DG responded with evasive answers, much double-speak, and more flattery while revealing an intention to modernize the text.

November 26, 2004 —
   December 7, 2004

  PTW volunteers prayerfully deliberated the matter; there was no confirmation that the Lord had reversed His direction to PTW — to retrieve the original manuscripts from all the adulterations, truncations and modernizations that had occurred since the 17th century and to only publish the manuscripts as they were given to JL.
  It was made clear that PTW should take NO part in this deliberate attempt to "re-modernize" JL's works and that NO permission should be given for DG to use the e-files from PTW as that would violate PTW's own mandate to protect them in the same form as they were given from the Godhead.  The e-files had been copyrighted by PTW in the first place in order to protect them from any such adulteration.

December 8, 2004

  PTW's administrative contact sent an email notice to DG at her AOL address,  that her "Request for permission was Denied" and stated the reasons why.  This email reviewed that the PTW e-files were the intellectual property of others and ended with the following text..."In other words, to be very clear, Diane M. Guerrero and associates, DO NOT use any of the Jane Lead files from (or, for that matter, any other files from for your personal publishing efforts.  They are not to be converted, copied, modified, scanned, OCR'd, or otherwise used as source material for your efforts."

December 8, 2004

  DG acknowledged receipt of the above email from PTW.

...then...until April 24, 2008

  3 years and 4 months of NO CONTACT.

April 25, 2008

  DG writes from the same AOL email address to PTW on the pretense of asking a question about the availability of JL's last work in English.

April 26, 2008

  PTW volunteer answers her question and mentions remembrance of the former contact with DG.

April 27, 2008

  DG writes back, with her cover story attempting to assure PTW that she has not used material from PTW.  She further states that she is now convinced that she should "enter into what is written rather than concern herself about publishing".  She did not speak the truth, as you will see. {This email is shown below.}

DGsEmail to PTW 4-27-2008


May 1, 2008

Just 4 days after her above email to PTW, DG's domain registration information for her new web site,, was recorded in the public Whois database.  {see image below}


DGs Whois record of JLO
PTW was unaware at the time of the creation of DG's new domain.

Late Fall, 2008

  Those at PTW were made aware that was in existence and that there were many similarities to be observed between the on-line appearance of the documents with those at PTW. 
   PTW checked the domain registry information in the Whois database and immediately recognized the name of Diane Guerrero, now the domain owner and "editor" of the few derivative documents already posted on The editor also had posted  a whole list of documents yet to come with an elaborate list of original manuscript copies that she was working from.
   At this point in time her website,, contained references showing that the authentic 17th century texts were at PTW, and flattering things were said of the efforts of PTW.  Her page of "resource links" also pointed to PTW at this early state.

Early January, 2009

  Periodic visits to revealed manipulations of JL's writings, and confirmed many suspicious similarities in the renderings of the text. 
  A decision was made to confront the editor, DG.  Preparation of a "demand letter" began with much thought about what would be necessary to prove DG's posted claims about how she obtained her e-files — particularly her cover-story claim to have "scanned" the originals.  This claim by DG had raised a "red flag" at PTW since it did not ring true, based on their own experiences which had shown that typical OCR [optical- character-recognition] technology does not work well with JL's originals, producing so many errors that it was counterproductive to use.  See the evidentiary report about DG's Scanning Claim for proof of this.

February 16, 2009

  PTW sent a 1st Demand Letter to DG at the same AOL address that she formerly used in her 4/27/08 email to PTW.  In this demand letter, PTW reviewed the history between them, her lack of honesty in prior emails, and insisted that all the offending derivative works be removed immediately from until such time as DG would provide proof that she has not used the copyrighted PTW e-files. 
  Specifically PTW asked to see photographs of her originals, proof of where and when she obtained them, proof of purchase & ownership details for the alleged OCR software which DG claimed to have used to "scan" the originals, copies of the raw OCR output for each document, etc.  PTW suggested that she begin providing her proofs with the first JL work that DG had posted, entitled "The Heavenly Cloud Now Breaking".  No response.

February 20, 2009

  PTW re-sent the 1st Demand Letter - this time to the AOL address listed in the Whois database (no response from this address either) with a second copy to DG's contact email address listed at .

February 20, 2009

  DG finally responds from the address with profuse assurances that she didn't use PTW files; DG attaches a jpg file showing the cover-page from her copy of an original of JL's Heavenly Cloud from the British Library, and she gives the name of her local reference librarian at the University of Idaho who assisted in obtaining it.  Later, close examination of this graphic image, revealed that the source copy she had obtained was also copyrighted, this time by the British Library Board ! {see the image below}

DGs-HC-title page from British Library source copy

February 22, 2009

  DG sent PTW a long email filled with excuses, convoluted double-speak, and obfuscations, ending with her absolute refusal to remove any files; DG also refused to provide the detailed 5 proofs that PTW required; DG offered only to provide 2 of the 5 (refusing to provide any proof of OCR capability or the required sample copies of her OCR outputs, without which there would be no proof on her behalf).

February 27, 2009

  PTW sent DG an "update and 2nd Notice" insisting that DG comply with the requirement to remove the items of concern [and specifically listing them by name] if she wished to show good faith that she meant to prove her word that she has not stolen the PTW e-files of JL's works on which to build her modernized editions.
  PTW also sent DG a separate email detailing why they could no longer take her at her word...that she had lied to them in the past and now she would need to provide the required proof that she had not violated copyright law.

February 28, 2009

  PTW sent DG a short follow-up email pointing out that her copy of the original of Heavenly Cloud was copyrighted by the British Library Board.  PTW asks twice for a copy of the release from the British Library Board allowing her to publish. Proof was never provided.  DG's responses were curt and accusatory at this point.

March 1, 2009

  PTW asked by email again for OCR Software information (second request).

March 2, 2009

  DG sent back an evasive email ... brushing off the requirement ... now saying that she doesn't save her OCR output files.

March 2, 2009

  PTW insisted on seeing the OCR Software Information (third request); asked DG directly if she is refusing to provide proof that she owns OCR Software?   No response from DG.

March 4, 2009

  PTW's further investigation of the text on  revealed more stolen text on DG's "Writings" page, where the descriptive text from PTW's "Bibliography & Index of the Authentic Works of Jane Lead" had been copied directly by DG onto her "Writings" page.  PTW notified DG of this offense in detail and demanded that the illegally copied text be immediately removed.   PTW reminded DG that they were still awaiting proof of her alleged OCR software (fourth request).  DG did not remove the other offending text; no email response again.

March 5, 2009

  PTW noticed that DG had recently removed all acknowledgements of and references to PTW's 17th century authentic versions of Jane Lead's manuscripts from her website,   DG  had also removed all of her previous links to PTW and had removed the flattering references to the work of PTW as well.

March 7, 2009

  PTW sent a detailed email notification to DG that the review of the two Heavenly Cloud materials that she had provided were in no way sufficient to prove that she produced her own e-files. 
  To counter DG's excuse that she "doesn't save OCR output files", PTW kindly suggested that she instead send OCR Software output files from one of her "documents-in-progress" that was currently being "scanned", (fifth request) along with the same requested proof information from the original list so that PTW could prove the validity of her alleged methodology by reviewing her current "document-in-progress". 
  No response again.

March 11, 2009

  PTW sent DG a final email admonishing her for her poor witness and covert activities, reviewing with her that a servant of the Lord should not be covetous, prideful, full of guile, use deception, steal, make excuses or take credit for the work of others, appealing to her to do the right thing, and stating that if the infractions were not corrected that PTW would have no choice but to alert readers of Jane Lead of the illegal documents that she had produced. 
  No further response.

Mid March, 2009

  PTW volunteers began documenting evidence of DG's copyright violations, and began preparation of graphical representations in the form of screen-captures to possibly be used to report the activities of Diane Guerrero, the Editor at  to her Internet Service Provider.



April 1, 2009

  DG announced on that printed booklets were now available for all her derivative SDV works of Jane Lead and that they would be sent out free of charge according to Matt. 10:8.

April 20, 2009

  DG uploaded another derivative work of Jane Lead -  making a total of 8 pirated files thus far from PTW that had been changed, branded and printed for distribution and potential collection of "love offerings". 

May 28, 2009

  Another derivative work of JL's was uploaded by DG; thus far 9 of the 20 works from PTW had been copied, converted into derivative works by DG, uploaded to her website and offered as booklets for distribution.

June 10, 2009

  The Report of Copyright Violation was ready for review by authorities.   PTW's online administrative contact, RW, transfers the copyright violation complaint to PTW's representative agent, who proceeded to notify authorities at DG's Internet Service Provider (ISP) that copyright violations had taken place.   
   As soon as this notification took place, DG was alerted by her ISP.  She immediately began her efforts to cover her tracks at  which she has continued to this day.
   Authorities at her ISP ultimately took no action, citing that since the advent of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the settlement of Internet copyright violation claims was out of their hands, and was now being directed into the civil courts, rather than being determined by Internet Service Providers.   



2010 - Summer of 2012

  The list of illegal SDV editions of the writings of JL grew to 16.  To cover her tracks, DG converted all of the documents into PDF file format, so that no one could examine the underlying stolen html code closely. 
  When PTW discovered that the meaning of JL's messages was being changed and even reversed by DG in certain instances within her SDV editions, five evidentiary Reports were made public for the purpose of warning the Readers of Jane Lead, so that they might not be further deceived by the counterfeits at
  Shortly after the Reports appeared at PTW (on May 17th of 2012), DG removed all of her early website files at, and replaced them with a totally transformed commercial website. All reference to Matt 10:8 had also disappeared.  This commercial look of her website lasted only a few months, when she reworked her site again.
  Another website,, registered to DG, also appeared on-line.   This second website duplicated the content at (until late 2014).   Also DG had assumed the role of teacher.   Offered on both sites were "Studies" beginning with her SDV adulteration of the 2nd Edition of The Revelation of Revelations. 

Fall of 2012 - End of 2013

  When her broken promises to provide free downloads of the SDV editions were exposed, the editor once again re-did both of her websites; first she offered free downloads of what she called the 17th century versions of JL 's files which were pirated and modified illegally from PTW.  This went on for some time, while she was still trying to sell her SDV editions from her own websites.  Then by Spring of 2013, she again began offering free downloads of her SDV editions.  The free booklets offer did not reappear.   She appeared to have reworked all of her files, re-naming all of them again...this time with an ambiguous 8 digit number to further obfuscate her fraud.  With all her manipulations, we suggest that you do not trust her 17th century versions of Jane Lead's writing to be accurate to the authentic texts.

Present Day

  PTW still maintains, within their index listing of each of Jane Lead's authentic manuscripts, a warning flag if an illegal SDV derivative exists, by inserting a "Reader Alert" below the particular manuscript-name that has been modified by DG, so that the readers of JL might not be deceived by the impostures offered currently at  Those interested in the number of name-changes/manipulations that have been done to individual document files at, can view them in detail, within each "Reader Alert".
  For those who are not clear as to why the SDV editions of JL's writings at   are not to be trusted, there are also a set of reports now available at PTW showing DG's copyright violations and the supporting evidence that was gathered.  You are now viewing a portion of that on-line report.   Other evidentiary Report links are to be found at the bottom of the Fair Warning Reports Page.

Back to:  The Fair Warning Reports Page

Back to: Index of Jane Lead Manuscripts