Friday, November 28, 2008
Case# 41 Still No Justice for the Death Of Megan Meier
I feel strongly about the things I believe in. Sometimes I feel so strong and emotional about how I feel it gets me in trouble, as others that believe in differently make a point of telling me that. Trying to forcefully put me down, especially on the Internet, about how wrong my feelings are. That is fine. I am an adult and can take it. I was brought up to stand up for what I believed in and to fight for it.When I was young, doing that was very hard to do;, basically due to conflicting opinions of my peers, how they felt and how they tried to convince me to feel as they did. Basically, it was peer pressure and much of it was simply trying to fit in with my peers.
Sound familiar? I think the majority of all adults are faced this when they were teenagers or younger. Make sure they wore the right clothes regardless if they liked them or not. Or listened to a certain type of music so that they could talk to the "clique" of those kids they hoped would be friends, even if the music grated on their nerves. To do drugs or not to do drugs. The majority of people addicted to drugs started in teenage years, just so they would or could fit in with the popular crowd. This sadly, is part of growing up, and what kids must face so many times, to feel the need of being accepted.
Growing up, these kids did not discuss these problems or feelings with their parents, as they thought (or their friends told them) their parents would never understand. Therefore, a great deal of the population of teens dealt with crucial emotional problems, even when their parents tried to help or understand.
I remember this as a child growing up, and now that my kids are grown and gone, they many times tell me of the problems they had that I had no idea about. They now realize that I would have tried to help and understand. But when they were teenagers, they felt (or were convinced) that would not be the case.
I know I am being a long winded here, something I am always guilty of, but the reason I am deals with the Megan Meier case, that she committed suicide and the final results of it. This site (see link) has always done an exceptional job of keeping myself and many readers informed on the Megan Meier MySpace case and the court trials concerning this. See: MySpace Suicide "Murderer" Convicted on 3 Counts
Megan Meier, a typical teenager in so many ways, yet with more overwhelming problems facing her as a young teenager of 13. (such as: concern she was overweight and how she wasteased about this; extra emotional problems such as ADHD; lack of self esteem; depression; the list goes on and on.)
Yet, low and behold, her life was suddenly lifted up by a young 16-year old named Josh Evans via MySpace. He took her to a new high concerning her life and how wonderful she was. Only to shatter it (which was the entire intention of the INVENTION of his face, name, photos of him, his 'caring words' which, and as far as I am concerned, was a "conspiracy") by saying to Megan "The world would be a better placewithout you."
Megan was devastated, and hung herself. The world now knows, there was never such a kid as Josh. Josh was a made-up character, and the one who made it up was a 49 year old woman who created a page for him on MySpace; after her own daughter told her of problems she and Megan were having (typical problems of young teen girls). So, instead of working these things out with her daughter as a mother should do, she decided to destroy Megan. Well, she did a good job. Megan is dead.
This decision of the Court to finally convict her with only 3 misdemeanors is outrageous to me. With the Internet being so vast and growing at lightening speed daily, this type of outcome will be sending messages to others that this is O.K. to behave like this. Especially when it comes to our protecting our children.
If we cannot depend on any Laws governing the Internet or Online Communication to protect us form this type of abuse -- such as cyberstalking or trolling -- then what the hell is going to happen if there is no recourse against this type of behavior concerning children.
If there are not laws to govern this, how long will it take to make and pass protective laws up and put them in place? A petition needs to be started on changing or implementing these laws Federally -- addressed to our lawmakers in Washington, D.C. If it was I would be the first to sign it.
What the outcome of this trial said to me, is in a roundabout way: "it is OK to harass others online." In short: what difference does it matter who gets hurt or dies for that matter? It's a free-for-all online.
How many more LORI DREW'S are there on the Internet that come into our and our children's lives via their keyboards and onto the screens of places like MySpace, chat rooms and forums? (One need only to read THIS SITE to find out)
Things have to change and fast concerning the Internet. Laws need to be tougher and strictly regulated. What happened to Megan Meier could happen to others. And as far as I am concerned, Lori Drew knew exactly what she was doing to Megan. She used a gun and pulled the trigger was transformed by the Internet. Not only that, she knew exactly how to aim the gun and had her target in full view. Excellent sharp shooting from 4 doors down I would say.
I wonder how many could be based next on the pitiful outcome of this trial!
Katie
Labels: conviction, cyberstalkers, harassment, harm, internet abuse, lori drew, megan meier, murder, myspace, suicide
Monday, November 24, 2008
Case# 40 - Phil Haberman, Military Phony & Online Predator
...On Sept. 7, 2006, Kristen Rhoad appeared as the defendant in a domestic violence lawsuit -- the charge was cyberstalking -- brought by her ex-husband, Phil Haberman. He wanted an end to her e-mails, her missives to his boss, her online tracking of his whereabouts. And he wanted an end to her blog, The Rhoad Warrior, which was dedicated solely to writing about him.They met on Match.com. The single mother, then living in Las Vegas, couldn't resist when the guy from Special Forces messaged her. The two met for dinner at Gardunos, a Mexican restaurant at The Palms hotel off the Vegas strip. They were married a month later.
But it wouldn't last. Haberman moved on even before their bitter annulment, eventually settling in Sarasota County, while Rhoad moved to San Diego.
And like many scorned lovers, she turned to the most efficient weapon in her arsenal: the Internet. She spun her side of the story to online publications like Lovefraud.com and greensickle.com, and eventually started her own blog.
Set against a brown floral background, Rhoadwarrior became a repository for her outrage. In just a few months, she imbued the website with research into ...Haberman's best-kept secrets and most-private embarrassments.
Now, nearly three years after exchanging vows and two months after the blog began, Haberman was in court, asking for her to get out of his life completely. Through the hiss of the audio recording taken during the hearing in Sarasota County, Rhoad and Haberman's voices sound equally resolute as they make their cases before Judge Robert Bennett Jr.
"She hunts me down," Haberman stated in his testimony. "She tracks me down."She told the court that Haberman hadn't worked with Special Forces, that he'd committed bigamy and falsely claimed he received a Purple Heart. (Haberman's lawsuit did not contest or refute the allegations in Rhoad's blog, nor did he deny any of its claims during the court hearing. He declined two requests from Creative Loafing to comment for this story.)
"What's the purpose of this, your honor, but to harass for no apparent reason, via Internet?" he asked the judge.
"I don't write to harm him," Rhoad testified in response. "I write to expose him."
"The reason I posted my blog," Rhoad told the court, "is for clarification of who Phil Haberman is and to warn people of his sociopathic behavior."
Bennett didn't see it that way.
On grounds of cyberstalking, he ordered Rhoadwarrior taken down. Rhoad has refused, claiming the injunction unconstitutional. On Jan. 16, Judge Bennett responded to Rhoad's civil contempt of court with an order to return to the Sarasota courthouse on Jan. 25 or face a bench warrant for her arrest.
Bennett may have had reason to find Rhoad guilty of cyberstalking. But considering the murky and constantly evolving legal status of freedom of speech on the Internet, his ruling also challenged the First Amendment.
BREAK-UPS CAN BE HARD, but the Internet has revolutionized amorous revenge. And the judicial system is not necessarily keeping up with technology.
"[Bloggers' rights] is very much an emerging area of the law," says Gerald Weber, legal director for the Georgia branch of the ACLU. "Personal jurisdiction comes up with some frequency, and there are a lot of unsettled questions."
Many of which are coming from those -- mostly men -- who've inspired the wrath of Web-savvy exes. Sites like DontDateHimGirl.com, where former dates can review and comment anonymously on men, have gathered nationwide attention.
Tasha Joseph, a Miami Beach entrepreneur, launched the site in July 2005, describing it six months later to The New York Times as a "dating credit report." Even though the site's terms of use state contributors cannot post untrue or defamatory information, some men have claimed that comments saying they have herpes or sleep with men are not only false, but have caused them emotional and monetary damage.
Last June, Pittsburgh lawyer Todd Hollis slapped Joseph, the site's domain owner, and several DontDateHimGirl.com posters with a $50,000 defamation suit. Joseph argues that her site is protected by the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a protective measure for Web hosts distinguishing them from their users. (The law was cited in a November 2006 decision in California that found webmasters and bloggers not liable for defamatory comments written by others on their sites.) Hollis maintains that the defamatory language should provide him rights to certain damages.
Hollis' suit was dismissed and DontDateHimGirl.com is still going strong.
First Amendment law places some limits on speech, and those same limits apply online: False allegations and direct threats aren't covered.
"Concerning the rights of one citizen to speak about another citizen, the online world doesn't have any special rules," says John Morris, a staff attorney at the D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology.
An ex with a Web connection can plaster information online for thousands to see. Charges against lovers (or co-workers, friends, even junior high classmates) can quickly circulate through cyberspace with the assistance of sites like MySpace.com and Blogspot, and end up in the real world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, Haberman and Rhoad made an attractive couple.
She, slim and doe-eyed, looked younger than her 38 years. He, almost six years her junior, showered her with compliments and seemed to glow with intelligence.
"The nice, 'good boy' kind of thing," Rhoad recalls. "He seemed clean cut -- the puppy dog eyes! -- and he traveled a lot. He sounded like he was established."
Plus, he was a soldier. According to Rhoad, he even wore a black long-sleeved Special Forces shirt to their first date.
"I'd had a streak of bad luck with men," she says. "I figured, 'Military, they do background checks and keep in shape.'" Having grown up in Phoenix, Rhoad had a thing for troops; at 16, she'd dated a Marine.
Though they had known each other less than a month, Rhoad was convinced Haberman was a good catch. She had been through a messy divorce and a string of "losers with no jobs." To care for her 13-year-old daughter, Heather, she had been balancing work as a legal aide with modeling gigs and small walk-on roles in Vegas-based flicks like Casino and Showgirls. She says she was unemployed and living on food stamps when her romance with Haberman began.
Within weeks, he and his dog had moved in, but money remained tight. Rhoad even stripped at a local club for three days. "I was working the b-shift," she recalls, "the day shift. The kind of place where you're lucky if you leave with the 20 dollars you paid out."
On Jan. 9, 2004, her last night dancing, Haberman had news. He'd just gotten orders to ship to Iraq, and wanted to know, would she marry him?
Rhoad accepted -- "It's Vegas, you know?" -- and right after their lickety-split vows the following day, he left for Fort Bragg.
Soon, however, Rhoad was accusing Haberman of cheating (in the September hearing, she accused him of proposing to four different women while still married to her). The distrust only deepened when he was deployed to Iraq in March.
"I'd had it with him," she says. "[But] it's supposed to be 'good or bad or otherwise,' you know?"
She stayed with him, but began investigating her husband's finances, specifically money Haberman received from the military.
Military personnel on permanent duty are eligible for basic allowance for housing (BAH) payments, which vary depending on where they live and whether they have dependents. Key West, where Haberman had a P.O. box, has high property values and thus one of the highest BAH rates in the country. Believing she deserved a part of his payments because he was living with her when he left for his service, Rhoad filed complaints with the military, according to evidence in the September hearing.
Just seven months after their wedding, Haberman filed for an annulment. In a rage, Rhoad upped her research of her now ex-husband, beginning an investigation into his military credentials and reaching out to members of the press in an attempt to get her version of his story told.
GLENNA WHITLEY WAS WILLING TO LISTEN.
A reporter at the Dallas Observer, an alternative newsweekly, Whitley was also the co-author of Stolen Valor, a book about people who lied about their military service during Vietnam. After Rhoad contacted her, Whitley took an interest in the story and launched her own investigation into Haberman's military history. What Rhoad did to disseminate Whitley's findings would play a central role in the ongoing story of her relationship with Haberman.
Whitley tracked down Haberman's military records through Freedom of Information Act requests, and contacted his teachers, relatives and other acquaintances in Dallas. Through this investigation, which lasted nearly three months, she uncovered discrepancies in Haberman's military record.
In September 2005, the Observer published her lengthy report ("G.I. Jerk"), with a subhead deflating his Special Forces credentials ("He's about as real as Rambo"). The article piqued the interest of wounded veterans angered by Haberman's alleged lies and feminists sympathetic to Rhoad's plight, like Donna Andersen.
Andersen, a self-described victim of "cheating," (cheating? try bigamy, fraud & a serial con man) has been prolific in her own online reporting. On her site, Lovefraud.com, she posts stories about con men and criminals, all purportedly guilty of deception in their marital and romantic lives.
Two months after Whitley's article went live on dallasobserver.com, Andersen published her own account of Haberman and Rhoad's relationship.
Phil Haberman's campaign to get stories about him removed from the Internet began long before he sought an injunction against Rhoad.
Haberman left a voice mail for Lovefraud on February 22, 2006. He demanded that the True Lovefraud Story about him, originally published in November, 2005, be removed. The message was ignored.
He called back on March 27 and said Lovefraud's report that he was no longer in the military was untrue. "I'm in a new reserve unit in Florida ," Haberman said. He was asked to supply documentation of his reenlistment.
None was received.
Haberman's campaign picked up steam in June when he sent Lovefraud a scan of his new military ID. The card showed an issue date of May 30, 2006 and an expiration date of October 30, 2007. To verify Haberman's claim, Lovefraud contacted the P.O.W. Network.
...All of these websites had posted their Haberman stories before Rhoad launched her blog on July 13, 2006. All of the authors had conducted their own research and determined that Haberman's stories were half-truths, exaggerations or outright lies.
....Kristen Rhoad was prepared to present proof to the Florida court that the statements in her blog were true, and that Haberman was a fraud. She had the following with her:
* Proof that Haberman was not currently in the Florida National GuardRhoad was never given the opportunity to present the documents into evidence.
* Military documents that Haberman had forged
* Military discharge documents, indicating "other than honorable" discharges
* Confirmation that Haberman had received $17,000 in excess military payments
* Proof that Haberman had taken $5,000 from another female victim
* Proof that Haberman's wages were being garnished
* Letter from Haberman's employer stating that he was a fraud
* Records of civil and criminal cases against Haberman in Florida
...Rhoad said she posted information about Haberman to warn other women about him. She has heard from women thanking her for the information...
Lovefraud received the following e-mail in May, 2006:
Ha, too funny. He started IM'ing me on AOL. I KNEW he was a psycho, so I did some research and found your article. His AOL screen name is Forcreconmarine. Too funny, what a psycho; and YES, he does have a temper.
Saw it come out when I declined his offer for a home cooked meal, with his request that I wear stockings, garters and stilettos. I said, "You're looking for a prostitute buddy," and blocked him. He is still on though - constantly!!!
With the Observer story in hand, Rhoad got in touch with POWNetwork.org, a not-for-profit website that tracks prisoners of war, soldiers missing in action and a group it calls "Phonies & Wannabees." After receiving a tip about a soldier's service -- or lack thereof -- P.O.W. Network then verifies the accusation by talking to troops who served with the soldiers in question.
The website, which boasts an archive of over 60,000 documents, started researching Haberman in November 2004. "We requested military records from the St. Louis Records Center," says co-founder Mary Schantag. Haberman sent records himself, hoping to clear his name, she says, and others were tracked through military service branches. Many of the posts on the P.O.W. Network page devoted to Haberman -- links to articles, clips and blog entries -- came from Rhoad.
Soon Haberman's photo, and his sullied reputation, would become a mainstay on at least four military-themed blogs.
Then, in July 2006, another blog joined the digital discussion.
For Rhoad, setting up an online journal of her own wasn't difficult. On Blogger.com, the terms of service are defined: While bloggers are advised to steer clear of slander, the site claims no responsibility for any false statements.
A blog was the perfect medium for her message.
In the beginning, RhoadWarrior blog posts came out in long form. She ruminated about her feelings for him: "Let's get one thing straight -- I do not want Phil back in my life." She called him names: "I know Phil is a small, insignificant scumbag at the bottom of the military's list of prosecution."
She gave sweeping descriptions of Haberman's alleged wrongdoings:
According to the September testimony of North Port Police Department detective Mary Thoroman -- who made a point of saying that she had run a clean background check on Haberman -- Rhoad wrote that he had been arrested on a theft charge and dishonorably discharged twice.
...Rhoad also posted definitions of her own First Amendment rights.
"Is my blog slanderous?" she wrote. "Not even."
As evidenced in the pleading of the September hearing, Rhoad began adding other juicy tidbits about Haberman's affairs. She published updates on at least one woman she alleged Haberman had "scammed" out of $5,000, e-mails from informants stating where he might be working -- even his address and a picture of his house.
Finally, Rhoad provided a full catalog of links to other blogs lambasting her estranged ex-husband, and included the P.O.W. Network and the articles from both Whitley and Andersen.
Meanwhile, Haberman prepared his own retaliation.
On Aug. 23, 2006, he filed for a temporary restraining order against Rhoad. Accusing her of domestic violence, Haberman claimed she had been "cyberstalking" him through e-mails and her blog.
"At the annulment hearing," he alleged in his petition, "[Rhoad] said afterwards to me that 'This is not over and never will be. You WILL PAY for what you did to me. Mark my words.'"
He continued with anecdotes about Rhoad's planned attacks on him, as relayed from her daughter to a friend of Haberman's. Citing numerous sustained injuries to his morale, he snapped back with character slams of his own.
"I have genuine fear of Kristen and what she will do," he wrote. "She has the ability to manipulate and connive people to doing what she wants by eliciting sympathy out of others. All it will take is for someone to read her blog, click the links, and decide they want to come to my house and take care of me the way she wishes to have done." (readers, does this sound familiar?? How many times have we heard this baloney? - Fighter)
Haberman knew what he wanted; his petition ended with several requests. Along with a halt on Rhoad's direct communication with him, he pleaded for an end to his ex-wife's online scavenger hunt.
"I am also asking for an injunction to be issued ordering her blog, and any collaborations she has had with other internet sites to be removed from the internet. These should include greensickle, the Dallas Observer, Lovefraud, POW Network, Veriseal, MySpace and Blogspot."
The hearing was scheduled for early September, to be presided over by 12th Circuit Judge Robert Bennett Jr. in Sarasota County.
HABERMAN'S REQUEST TO SHUT DOWN RHOAD'S BLOG stumps some legal experts weighing in on the case.
"Normally, people don't do it this way," says University of Florida law professor Lyrissa Lidsky, former associate dean of UF's law school and a First Amendment expert.
The problem, she explains, is that in this case, an "injunction" -- or court-ordered halt of an activity or behavior -- serves as a form of "prior restraint," in effect stopping Rhoad from continuing her writing in the future.
While protective orders are routine in stalking cases to prevent victims from being confronted by their harassers, those restrictions do not typically limit speech.
"If the speech is legal, if it's truthful," says Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology, "then I'm skeptical that it ought to be taken down."
The best chance Haberman would have for getting Rhoad's blog removed, Lidsky says, would be to prove it full of lies or threats of violence.
"If Rhoad's stories are false," she says, "Haberman has a right to sue her for defamation."
But, she says, taking a blog off the Web in this situation, based on anything but its accuracy or its threatening nature, would likely be a violation of the First Amendment.
ON THE MORNING OF SEPT. 7, Rhoad, Haberman and his primary witness, North Port Police detective Thoroman, appeared in Courtroom J before Bennett. Haberman was asked to testify first in the civil hearing.
He made two points. The first was that Rhoad had left voicemails in 2004 stating she would seek revenge. Second, he was eager to prove that Rhoad's e-mails, the stories on LoveFraud and the P.O.W. Network, and her blog had combined to cause him harm. (Under Florida's cyberstalking statute, to cause someone "substantial emotional distress" through online communication without serving a "legitimate purpose" is illegal.)
"Anything and everything that she can do," he testified to the judge, "in order to cause me emotional duress, emotional stress, anything -- it's what she's doing."
"Under freedom of speech, your honor, the First Amendment gives me the right to post on the Internet, true allegations. True!" said Rhoad.
"Is he in danger of being found that he is a fraud and a con artist?" she asked.
"That is a civil side of the law," Thoroman responded. "And that is not my jurisdiction."
Bennett asked her directly.
"And your purpose for posting all this over the Internet is what, exactly?"
"To alert the women who have been his victims like me," she answered. She wanted "to warn people of who Phil Haberman is."
The judge wasn't impressed.
"I think, Ms. Rhoad," he said, "you're a menace. I think you're absolutely motivated by revenge and a desire to destroy this man. Your allegations may be true; the First Amendment protects you to the extent that you don't use it to harm others. [But] the First Amendment is not an absolute guarantee. None of the Bill of Rights is absolute."
Rhoad reports that she was stunned. But the judge had more to say.
"We can't use our free speech to set out and accomplish the destruction of a person's reputation," he said.
His decision was succinct but ambitious.
"Respondent shall remove, or cause to be removed, all blogs, e-mails or other Web-based communications to petitioner or third parties that refer to petitioner and which are posted, or caused to be posted, by respondent."
Reading his order to the defendant, Bennett acknowledged its pitfalls. "I don't know how you go about doing that," he said. "But that's going to be required. You are to have absolutely no contact with this gentleman, directly or indirectly. If this injunction is violated further I can sentence you to six months in county jail, and don't think that I will not do it."
The audio recording of the trial ends with Haberman verifying that all related pages would have to be taken off the Web.
BENNETT DECLINED CL'S INVITATION to comment on the ramifications of shutting down Rhoad's blog; exactly how one follows such a ruling remains difficult to determine. Because the allegations on the blog were not proven true or false -- and thus not liable for defamation -- applying the ruling to the blog is a challenge.
Cyberstalking charges are typically grounded in some form of direct communication, such as e-mail. Yet in this case, a blog was treated with the same parameters as an e-mail -- whether it arrived in an inbox or sat in cyberspace didn't matter.
"Harassing e-mails are really different than a blog," says Morris, "and I think would be treated differently from a constitutional perspective. If one person is harassing from e-mail, throwing toilet paper on the house, if you have an action like that it can certainly be enjoined."
Lidsky says blogging should not count as cyberstalking at all.
"It seems farfetched that blogging could be a form of domestic violence," says Lidsky. "From what I understand, the cyberstalking statute is designed for, well, stalking-like activities: 500 phone calls a day, that kind of constant harassment. But telling your story on a blog? That doesn't seem like domestic violence to me, but then again," she says with a laugh, "I'm only a First Amendment specialist."
While Lidsky says that blogging does count as communication, as it has a definite audience, "I don't think that's what the statute was designed to address," she says.
"If a blog could now be enjoined under cyberstalking, during any heated divorce, that could have a lot of implications for free speech. What's the difference between this and a memoir?"
Finally, the injunction is only valid throughout the state. But "[Rhoad] doesn't have the technical means to keep her blog out of Florida," says Lidsky. "In foreign countries, some bigger organizations have managed to block content from going to certain places. For her to keep her blog out of Florida, she'd have to shut down her blog everywhere."
GI JERK
When she's not on the set working as an extra for TV movies ("It's good when it's good," she says of her day job), the aspiring starlet is still updating her blog, in violation of Bennett's decision. Other sites have continued to publish stories on the case -- LoveFraud wrote an account of the trial -- and the P.O.W. Network's Haberman page is still up, complete with Rhoad's posts.
Haberman hasn't given up fighting, either. In late October, he filed a motion for contempt of court with the state attorney, who rejected his case, referring him back to the 12th Circuit judge.
"As of today," Haberman wrote a few weeks later in his request for an emergency hearing to deal with Rhoad's violations, "there have been roughly 75 violations of the court order, which bars both direct and indirect contact with the plaintiff."
Half a week later, 12th Circuit Judge Lee Haworth denied the motion.
But with Judge Bennett's decision on the books, one can't help but wonder whether Rhoad shouldn't stop posting. She can't completely remove Phil Haberman from the Internet, but is it worth it to keep writing?
"I did think about doing that," she says, "but people keep e-mailing me: 'Thank you for posting your blog.' I realize it can look vindictive, my keeping a tab on him. But if people are aware of what's out there, I don't see the real harm.
"People like Haberman rarely get arrested or prosecuted. I hear horror stories all the time of predators getting away with victimizing people. They run up credit cards and leave the victims with the debts. They falsely accuse their ex-spouses of being unfit parents and win full custody of children. They bleed their victims of assets, and then harass them through the courts, when the victims can’t afford to defend themselves.
"Then the victims get no justice from the legal system.
"Victims are frustrated. They’ve been had, and they know the predator is going to do it again. They at least want to warn others about the person who conned them, hoping to save someone else from the devastation they suffered.
"I’ve seen that exposing con artists works. People have contacted both Rhoad and Lovefraud, expressing gratitude for the warnings about Haberman. They avoided becoming victims.
"To me, posting the truth about a predator on the Internet is more than legitimate. It’s a public service."
SOURCES
Creative Loafing
LoveFraud
Labels: blogging, cyberpath, defamation, fraud, lawsuit, military phony, Phil Haberman
Case# 39 - Cyberbullying On The Rise
“Cyber bullying” is a new term that seems to be a household phrase that is infiltrating many homes with teenagers and young children. While it is important to discuss preventative ways to deter these actions, it’s also important to understand why there has been such an extensive rise of cyber bullying.Traditional bullying occurs in the classroom or on school grounds, but technologically savvy kids are taking their unsettling words to the Internet through email, MySpace, Facebook, other websites and text and instant messages. Cyber bullies are posting disturbing messages, videos and images of their contacts onto the web where millions of other people can see. Cyber bullies can also remain anonymous on websites and through email messages so the increase of bullies on the web is also rising.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noticed a rise in cyber bullying. In 2000, only nine percent of kids ages 10 to 17 experienced this type of bullying. The percentage has now reached 50 percent for 2008. Another study shows that 64 percent of the teens that said they were the victim of cyber bullying were never bullied at school. There are a few reasons why this rate has increased so much. This age bracket is becoming more technologically savvy as a result of entertainment and their other interests going online. Schools are also teaching students how to use the Internet to acquire help with projects and homework. Social media groups also let these kids create a profile about themselves and easy ways to communicate with others.
i-SAFE Inc., a worldwide leader in Internet safety education, conducted a study to prove the rise of cyber bullying. Their conclusions showed that: 53 percent of the 1500 student surveyed have admitted to saying something mean or hurtful to a person through the Internet; 42 percent of those surveyed have experienced bullying online; and 58 percent of those surveyed have had someone say something hurtful to them online. Even more alarming, 58 percent never told their parents about their experienced with being bullied online.
While it may seem like a simple solution to prevent cyber bullying is to take away all computer privileges, many of today’s kids use these websites and Internet tools as another way of socializing. MySpace cyber bullying is a popular mode because bullies can post hateful information on another person’s profile page or on their own page, or a bully can create a separate profile just about bullying this particular person. Facebook cyber bullying is similar to MySpace cyber bullying because they can create fake identities or create a page with the sole purpose of bullying another person. Twitter is another social media network that is adding to the rise of cyber bullying. A user can “follow” another person to post status updates or send mean messages. Users can also post links to websites about cyber bulling as “helpful” how-to guides.
In extreme cases, kids are learning how to create their own websites, free of charge, to target a while site about bullying individuals. The person gains acceptance with their group of friends because they are humiliating the other person for everyone to see. Then, the bully will use MySpace, Facebook or Twitter to spread the word about additions to their hateful website.
Access to the Internet is also increasing. Local small businesses are offering free wireless Internet access for their customers as a marketing tool to increase their sales. Cell phones offer quick and simple access to the Internet. The Internet is offered in school libraries and classrooms for school work and educational tools. If your child is not allowed on the web while they are at home, of course they are going to find alternative ways to stay connected.
Some social media websites require the child’s email address and password to gain access into their account. This limits the ability for a parent to monitor their navigation through certain sites and some parents just aren’t involved enough to be concerned with what is going on over the internet. Without an open level of communication between child and parent, there may be another life your child is leading without you even knowing.
ORIGINAL
Labels: cyberbully, cyberstalking, defamation, emotional abuse, hurt, libel, slander, smear campaign
Friday, November 21, 2008
Case# 38 Lori Drew/ MySpace Suicide Case Hears Testimony
A Missouri woman knew her 13-year-old neighbor was depressed and suicidal when she sent cruel Internet messages to the teenager, her former assistant testified. The girl killed herself after being told the world would be better off without her.Ashley Grills, 20, told jurors Thursday she helped Lori Drew set up a fake MySpace profile of a 16-year-old boy to lure Megan Meier into an online relationship. Testifying for the prosecution under a grant of immunity, Grills also said she sent the last message from the fictitious "Josh Evans" to Megan in October 2006 on the day the girl hanged herself.
Megan Meier (left)/ Ashley Grills (right)
When she learned of Megan's death, Grills said Drew told her, "`We could have pushed her overboard because she was suicidal and depressed.'"
Testimony was to resume Friday in the case against Drew, who has pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy and three counts of accessing computers without authorization. Each count carries a potential sentence of five years in prison.
Prosecutors say Drew, 49, her then-13-year-old daughter, Sarah, and Grills created the MySpace alias in September 2006 to befriend Megan to find out if she was spreading rumors about Sarah.
The case is believed to be the nation's first cyberbullying trial. Its results could set a legal precedent for dealing with the issue of online harassment.
Defense attorney Dean Steward told jurors that Drew did not violate the Computer Use and Fraud Act — used in the past to address computer hacking — and reminded them that she was not facing charges dealing with the suicide. Steward has repeatedly asked U.S. District Judge George Wu to exclude testimony about Megan's suicide and twice sought a mistrial.
Grills, who helped Drew with her coupon magazine business, testified that she told Drew they might get in trouble for the scheme, but that Drew replied, "It was fine and people do it all the time."
Grills said Drew thought the MySpace account was a funny idea and was present about half of the time when Grills and Sarah sent messages to Megan.
Grills said she remembered at least one time when Drew sat down and typed messages on the computer. She also testified that Drew wanted to print the conversations between "Josh" and Megan, lure the teen to a mall and reveal who the fake boy really was.
To finally end the hoax, Grills said she devised a scenario in which "Josh" would move away so Megan would lose interest in him. When Megan persisted, the tactics changed.
"We decided to be mean to her so she would leave him alone," Grills said.
Grills said that a short time after finding out that Megan committed suicide, Drew and her husband ordered her to close the MySpace account.
The case is being prosecuted in Los Angeles because MySpace computer servers are based in the area.
ORIGINAL
THE MEGAN MEIER FOUNDATION
CLICK HERE TO DISCUSS THE MEGAN MEIER CASE
RELATED POSTS:
WEB HOAX LED GIRL TO KILL HERSELF
MYSPACE HOAX VICTIMS' FAMILY SEEKS JUSTICE
PUBLIC OUTCRY ON THE MEGAN MEIER CASE
A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY EOPC RUNS THIS SITE
EOPC ATTACKED ON TV OVER MEGAN MEIER CASE
JUSTICE FOR MEGAN MEIER
SUPPORT FOR OUR STAND ON THE MEGAN MEIER CASE
MEDIA PEES ON MEGAN AND TELLS BLOGGERS ITS RAIN
THE MEGAN MEIER CASE
NO APOLOGY, EVEN IN DEATH, FROM MEGAN'S 'MURDERER'
LORI DREW: PREDATOR OR INTERNET MARTYR?
LORI DREW: HAPPY; MEGAN MEIER: DEAD
MYSPACE SUICIDE CASE: NOT OVER
MYSPACE SUICIDE CASE - SOME TRUTH AT LAST
LORI DREW - FINALLY INDICTED
Labels: ashley grills, cyberbully, harassment, harm, lori drew, megan meier, myspace, suicide
Monday, November 03, 2008
Case# 37 Example of a Full Frontal Attack by an Exposed Cyberpath
Cross Posted from EOPCIn light of Angela Buer, another similar prize-Cyberpath who came back on our radar in 2007 was Gridney/ Yidwithlid/ Sammy Benoit (some of his known online identities - none of them his real name)
We re-ran his expose from 2005 in summer of 2007 and it seems Gridney/ Yidwithlid finally found out that he'd been exposed. His repeat notoriety didn't thrill him and he decided to go after us, our friends at The Exposer and just one of his victims; making the ludicrous assumption that she was all of us! Of course she was caught completely off-guard, having zero idea what was going on until after we re-ran the expose.
It never fails that the exposed cyberpath thinks EOPC is run by their victim(s). They are so hyper-focused on the truth being out there and trying to smear & suppress that their narcissistic egos only see their expose and don't even bother to notice that whole long list of predators we have in our right hand columns.
Some, like Brad Dorsky, assume we are a bunch of petulatent teens on a bash-site. Well, if that's what helps them sleep at night...
In the interest of brevity we are going to borrow from our friends at the Exposer, their last post on "Gridney/ Yidwithlid.
(posted from THE EXPOSER with permission:)
A few months ago EOPC told us one of this online predator's victims was being victimized by him (he called it "a falling out" ha ha ha) yet again and she wrote a new blog with all the information on it called THE STUMBLING BLOCK. Its well worth a read because you can really see her devastation and emotional turmoil. Every victim could relate to her honesty!
It was an attempt to stop the craziness & lying by "J"/GRIDNEY/ Yidwithlid against her.
He wants her to control the internet and take down all posts about him - she tried. But he's going to continue to give her a public beat down. GRIDNEY/ YidwithLid. like all of them, even says the relationship was "her fault too" - never mentioning that this victim genuinely cared for him while he lied to her & had a hidden and malicious agenda towards her. (Don't they all?)
The site also has a post which GRIDNEY (who now calls himself "yidwithlid" or "Sammy") - put up and then erased, which whitewashes what he did (never talks about his major addiction to hookers, porn, phone sex, cybersex babes, etc -- all validated by law enforcement internet forensic sweeps) - and paints himself as a victim.
He removed that post from his blog and went right back to business as usual; stating he would 'not react anymore' and the 'subject was closed.' That post still remains HERE however. Sound familiar readers?
EOPC told us that GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID has a site which is nothing less than an outright hate attack on one of his victims, full of projection and accusing her of everything he did or is doing.. Like all emotional predators/ cheaters & womanizers (narcissists & psychopaths) - he blames her for everything - even when she has clear, hard evidence what she did and didn't do. After being called on his outright copyright infringment -- he took most of that site down but it still remains, rather than being deleted -- along with a libelous technorati profile - HERE.
She even reported to EOPC she begged an MSN support site in 2004, to remove her posts about Yid when that site owner told her HE WAS SURFING HER NICKNAMES AND COMING THERE TO READ WHAT SHE WROTE! (btw, the support site REFUSED to take down the posts and so did we as well as EOPC)
Yet he's mad and calling HER a stalker? Because WE support his victims and refuse to pretend 'it never happened' and allow him to continue to lie about we really happened.
Incredible!
To Clarify: that MSN group was a VICTIMS SUPPORT GROUP - so YIDWITHLID's just admitted HE'S a stalker!. He CYBER STALKED his targets and got mad that they were looking for support about what he did to them!
That MSN group? We looked -- His picture is there - BUT HIS NAME IS NOT! So unless you have even MORE victims YIDWITHLID, who might recognize you - you are angry over NOTHING!
MSN however, knows he was SURFING and stalking his victims from board to board! Monitoring their every word and emotional pain. What a GREAT GUY!
Hell to pay when you disagree with an internet predator's version of truth, right readers?
This predator also names her and blames her for everything but global warming. yidwithlid committed copyright infringment against our sites and EOPC. We have written to Blogger.com about it - so now this bully says he's making a bunch of new sites about his victim. To RETALIATE FOR THE TRUTH BEING OUT THERE
Why? Because he thinks: She is us.
EOPC told us he thinks she is them too!
He's scared of her because she's that OMNIPOTENT apparently.
This is so funny because this victim does nothing for either us or EOPC. Typical of a narcissistic predator's paranoia when their false image of being perfect & important is threatened. Which is exactly why this story is so important. It's textbook, readers.
He attacks & smears even after she tried to ask everyone to stop bothering him. Unfortunately - can't control everyone now, can you?
YID has only proved he committed copyright infringement as well as speaking libel and harassing someone who, to the best of our knowledge, probably has little to no clue what is going on or has moved from the situation for her own healing.
YID asserts because he was part of the chat that he owns the copyright. He does own part of the copyright to the chat only (which are wall to wall lies & manipulation on his part, and prove his victims had no idea what they were truly getting into) - but not our or EOPC's comments or commentary on the chats .
He can't revoke the copyright because it was published in 2005 originally by EOPC and they extended their copyright to us - and the permission of only one of the chatters or emailers is necessary - and EOPC got them from LAW ENFORCEMENT. bye bye copyright!
In fact: The Exposer did a little checking and back in March 2007, Sammy (yidwithlid's pseudonym) posted this on someone else's blog (along with some other thin-skinned sarcasm):
Posted by: Sammy Benoit | Mar 16, 2007 5:01:07
AMA copyright may be embedded into a bitmap or jpeg file with software on a Mac or PC. Also, there are several companies that can officially help copyright images so that it is documented.
If these two things are done, and a quiet agreement is made with whomever uses it, it should be pretty easy to please everyone, and misuse of it would be easy to spot and stop. Well, hopefully.@@@@@
So he does know about copyrights! Well, well, well.
No "I'm Sorry", no attempt to speak to his victims (he's got PLENTY of lame excuses not to) - just rage - telling his victims to MOVE ON because he has [of course he has, he doesn't want to apologize for destroying someone's life - since he's perfect and everyone else is just an object]... besides he started up with this new identity like nothing happened!
Just like all cyberpaths - nastiness - and childish emails like these went to EOPC:
From: Yidwithlid@aol.com***************
To: cyberpaths@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:33:58 EDT
Subject: Re: http://stumblingtchatzkahs.blogspot.com
http://stumblingtchatzkahs.blogspot.com/....
From: Yidwithlid@aol.com
To: exposer@37.com
Received-On: 06/26/07 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Exposer Requests You Remove Copyrighted Content Please
NO
______________
From Yidwithlid@aol.com by mo-m22.mx.aol.com
for exposer@37.com
Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
Yidwithlid@aol.com X-Eon-Dm: dm08
Date: 06/26/07 1:54 PM
From: Yidwithlid@aol.com
To: exposer@37.com
Received-On: 06/26/07 5:54 PM
Re: Remove Content Please
No
But thanks for asking
____________________
From: Yidwithlid@aol.com
To: exposer@37.com
Cc: support@blogger.com
Received-On: 06/28/07 3:47 PM
Re: http://stumblingtchatzkahs.blogspot.com
cool two emails from you today thank you so much..
If you are publishing stuff that I wrote.. then who gave you the copywite...
I didnt.
and I didnt write them say so take off all references to me and I will take down my site
By the way Are you enjoying the Nut job convention [victim's name]?
Tonight I am going to open up three new stumling tchatches sites.
These immature emails bring to mind this quote:
Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.
~ Whittaker Chambers
Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.
~ Whittaker Chambers
This cyberbully who is such an innocent victim? He should be more careful what he puts on the net. The Exposer actually checks!!
GRIDNEY's got lots of blogs out there it seems and can't get enough of his own writing! He has accounts on aggregators, etc but the ONLY thing he ever puts out there or approves of are HIS OWN POSTS.
This one's from yidwithlid.typepad.com in past January 2007:
"January 21, 2007
New Peoples Choice Category: Most abusive of system
From two different sides of the world we wondered ....Who was crapping on our posts and yours. We had our lists of suspects but couldn't prove who was giving the bad grades ten at a time ...and how they were working sooooooo fast. Still have no clear proof. We do have some suspects . We googled the posts of one and noticed that there was one who would put up 8-9 posts one day, get them up over a hundred points take them down and repost the same articles the next day.
Then Sherlock Bagel Blogger found the a gun that was smoking even more. He put it in a much nicer way than me:
The awards known as the People's Choice awards seem to be finishing a lot quicker than most people expected.
I was going to hold on to this information until the results of the People's Choice Awards' became known, but I feel that it is not being honest to not divulge what I know.
I've debated with my self, my family and friends, should I or shouldn't I?
I also don't want to be accused of 'bitter lemons'.
I wrote a letter to another blogger and in the course of the letter I presented/made a table, now that I have made the table I feel something is seriously amiss.
I wont say what it is.
I'll leave the plain facts speak for them selves.
I have a PDF of the Google cache of 17th of Jan of the Israel forum's blog_best [rankings] which is now no longer available. [I have a copy and a html back up] and I have a PDF of the 19 th Jan 2007 Israel forum's blog_best
Thats less than two days apart
What's the main difference? Well check it out you should be able to see it, it occurred over less than two days.
The person is relying on no one seeing anything or saying anything. Well I won't say anything if you don't.
Well here it is in Table form:
Rank 19th Jan Blog Name Votes tally on 17th Jan Rank on 17th Jan Votes tally 19th Jan
Date last activity
Tally count difference
Up or DownPlaces
1 The Last Best Place 5224 1 5503 18th 279 0
2 Freedom's Cost 3676 2 3734 16th 58 0
3 Yid With Lid 5916 3 6066 18th 150 0
4 Samson Blinded 2359 8 3579 18th 1220 +4
5 Daf Notes 3993 4 4199 18th 206 -1
6 Bagel Blogger 4737 5 4949 19th 212 -1
7 The Maggid of Bergenfield 1092 6 1113 16th 21 -1
8 Simply Jews 6818 7 6978 18th 160 -1
9 Baleboosteh 2367 9 2422 18th 55 0
10 JoeSettler 2253 11 2255 17th 2 +1
11 Sarah's View 4317 10 4366 18th 49 -1
12 The Way I See It 3250 12 3279 16th 29 0
13 Divrei Chaim 1385 13 1404 18th 19 0
14 Orthomom 3016 17 3102 18th 86 +3
15 Chayyei Sarah 1592 15 1592 14th 0 0
16 Ask Shifra 1600 16 1616 14th 16 0
17 The Muqata 2078 14 2140 18th 62 -3
18 Slightly Mad 1425 18 1425 14th 0 0
19 Israellycool 4319 19 4440 19th 121 0
20 Lazer Beams 2230 20 2315 18th 85 0
_________________________
Here are snapshots of sections of the webpages in question:"
Well, waddya know! Seems he and this BagelBlogger are into watching who comes and goes from this 'supposedly' unbiased site and 'totally fair' blog voting.
And YID attempts to assert he has 'zero control or influence at this aggregator. ' LOL
CLICK HERE TO LOOK WHO'S AT THE TOPS ON THE AGGREGATOR!!
Yid With Lid VOTES: 26910
Bagel Blogger VOTES: 13649
If you click the link to the aggregator? Yid has MORE VOTES THAN ANYONE ELSE - almost DOUBLE! And the list appears to have numerous bloggers who haven't posted in weeks. Yid and Bagel Blogger are CAREFUL not to make themselves #1 and #2 - there's some rigging going on - this aggregator may be a fixed race for FRIENDS or ASSOCIATES OF THESE TWO ONLY! hmmm....
Sounds like YIDWITHLID controls his part of the internet, don't it??
Typical of all narcissists - they make SURE they are TOPS in their little online "club." sickening and childish... but that's a narcissistic cyberpath for you!
And here's a quote we found from 8/14/07 - on GRIDNEY (YidwithLid's) website:
I love the web's freedom. But with freedom comes responsibility. Certainly those who use the internet to harass or terrorize are abusing the freedom the internet brings.
Let us guess - if someone is exposing YID for the sexual & emotional predator, bully and liar he is - they're a terrorizer. Sure he loves the web's freedom - to prey on vulnerable women and dispose of them when they become inconvenient with no remorse!
But when HE terrorizes or harasses vulnerable women who actually CARE about him - he's a victim. Did yours do this to you, readers?
And if you want to prey on, lie to and manipulate vulnerable women and use them as sex toys to be tossed away when you're done - according to YidwithLid and all our exposed predators - That's FREEDOM!
The Exposer knows - FREEDOM isn't FREE. Nothing every really disappears on the net, no matter how much erasing you try to do. And where's your responsibility, YidwithLid and all the rest of you predators? For what you did to innocent people who had no idea you were using their naivete, compassion and vulnerability?
Did we mention cyberpaths are hypocrites? Now let's check out some of J/ Gridney/ Yidwithlid's terrorizing tactics:
"J"/ GRIDNEY /YidWithLid has his blogs set so:
1. you HAVE to have a Blogger account to comment;
2. no anonymous comments. He "says" its for the integrity of his blogs! B.S. He wants to be able to track & smear anyone who calls him on his lies - just like a predator - always protecting their "image." CAN WE SAY HYPOCRITE!
Yesterday I recieved a few "anonomous" postings about one of the writers who's work I have repulished on this blog. (someone whom I have only met via email after I posed one of his stories) The comments were very defamitory about this person.It is quite interesting that people who say bad things about others, like to keep their names and real emal adresses "anonomous" It tells me something about the quality of what they are saying. Anyway, those comments will continue to be deleted as I will not be a party to their acts.Hold on! "J"/ Gridney/ YidwithLid doesn't use his real name! So that makes HIS comments anonymous. Smells like a double standard there SAMMY!
Don't make a cyberpath THINK about what they've done!! Goodness no! They are beyond reproach.
Are you telling me that [one of my victims] posted my picture on the internet including MSN newsgroups as NYC******.
[One of my victims] signed the letter to the Rabbi At aish?
GRIDNEY TRULY IS PATHOLOGICAL!
And none of his targets EVER used the nickname he states on any MSN board.
Gridney/ YidwithLid has gone so far as to accuse his targets of being PREDATORS (can you say PROJECTION?) and says one purposely put him on a porn aggregator (uh... Gridney? Those are automatic aggregators that crawl the net for specific words... no one PUTS you on one of those! You can't even join one - the Exposer checked!) Guess ole' Yidwithlid does an awful lot of ego surfing, huh?
Gridney/ YidwithLid also says he's "MOVED ON and she should too." Right.... "moved on" is predator speak for 'shut up about the truth so I can go back to banging whores and picking up vulnerable women online.' Predators never care because they see everyone as an object.
Let's look at Gridney/ YidwithLid's version of "moving on" and "subject closed" - here's a message we would guess is for his victims.
"when people google your site they will find out what you have been doing for the past three years instead of raising your children"The victimizing NEVER ENDS with Gridney/ YidwithLid, does it? He's the "gift that keeps on giving!" Great job of him "moving on" too, huh?
He also says he and his wife have "worked it out" - wouldn't you just LOVE to hear the twisted bullcrap he told his wife about these naive, caring, vulnerable women HE preyed on and sent to the hospital? Not the prostitutes he saw for FOUR YEARS, once a month - we mean the NORMAL ones. Like the one he knew over 25 years!
How CRUEL can one Yid be? And he, like all our predators just wants his victims to FORGET about the trauma like it never happened?
UNREAL, aren't these jerks! Which proves their pathological and uncaring nature to us over & over
GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID victimizes women, uses their good nature, lies to & manipulates them and when one of them figures his game out & that he's been using & abusing her for 2 years (and sent her to the hospital more than once!!) - he:
GOES TO ONLINE SUPPORT GROUPS AND FINDS & READS EVERYTHING THIS POOR TRAUMATIZED VICTIM IS VENTING ABOUT WHAT HE DID TO HER & HER FAMILY AND LOOKING FOR SUPPORT ABOUT... AND GETS MAD ABOUT IT!WHAT A MALICIOUS EMOTIONAL & SEXUAL VAMPIRE!! See how ENTITLED these predators feel? They get MAD that their victims are HURT!!
Be warned ladies - is yours doing this to YOU?: As a victim -- you are 'out of your mind' looking for help and they are reading EVERY WORD YOU ARE SAYING?
And then you are a "nut job" for needing mental or emotional help after they take your heart, soul, your peace of mind and trust?
GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID, like all cyberpaths - sees only what makes him look like the victim.
Just look at more of the revisionist history Yidwithlid/ Sammy Benoit posted in 2008 about one of his many victims:
You were an old girlfriend of YWL from an upstate NY college. You used the internet to track him down after 30 years, which wasn’t too hard because he’s a published writer.
You had cyber-sex with him and then got him to agree to meet up with you. When he did meet up with you, to his horror, he saw that his ex-girlfriend from college had ballooned into a 275 lb fat pig with poor hygiene and he didn’t want to bang you. He politely excused himself by saying he couldn’t do this to his wife.
You then began stalking him and his family, driving by his house, sending letters to his wife, his parents, his in-laws, his rabbi, the police, anyone with whom you thought you could slander his good name. His poor wife was left with no choice but to report you to the police after you threatened to harm her children.
Sound familiar porkchop?
Law Enforcement sent EOPC a lot of information in late 2004 on Yid, after his Target #2 RELEASED it to us:
- this victim he speaks of in the quote above? Was NEVER his girlfriend... never went on a date with him... was just friends. In fact, in college Yid treated her horribly after he 'got what he wanted' from her, including an abortion.
- It has been forensically verified that Yidwithlid used CLASSMATES.com to track down this victim and possibly others. (Total opposite of his assertion)
- This victim was manipulated & lied to by him and had to do DE-PROGRAMMING from what he COERCED her into and still has serious, medically verifiable PTSD. (Did we mention a number of medical people have all the Forensically Verified info. on Yidwithlid also?)
- Yid saw prostitutes, advertised for sex partners , used his credit card on phone & webcam porn sites from 2000-2004 on a regular basis so he had no problem whatsoever "DOING THIS TO HIS WIFE" with anyone he could coerce or pay for. His assertions it was all 'planted' cannot be verified with internet archives or law enforcement.
- This victim has never stalked, harassed, driven by his home, etc. (BTW - Law enforcement alerted us that his wife has a number of companies registered at their HOME address due to her job and their address and phone is regularly posted on construction projects in the Tri-State area as CONTACT numbers. A little websurfing would turn up anything any wacko needed to know), nor did she have anyone "do it for her"
- Yid gave his spouse 'selective information' so she would use her contacts at their police precinct to have a Detective friend call and needlessly hassle this victim (imply she would be arrested, etc), not once but four times -- just after she came out of the hospital for trauma symptoms the first time - in an attempt to silence her. (NOTE: Yidwithlid didn't silence her because his favorite brothel was busted in a very public trial and allegedly he was ID'd by a couple of the 'employees' there after this victim Yid attacks went to police in fear for her family. Good going, Yid!)
Predators love to believe their mere words create reality. But now we know what Yidwithlid is telling people "really" happened.... LOL
So Mr. GRIDNEY/ YIDWITHLID (or any of our cyberpaths) - Tell us - what were your victims supposed to do? LIE & COVER MORE FOR YOU? AFTER YOU DESTROYED THEM?
These predators continue to amaze & astonish at their audacity. GRIDNEY/ Yidwithlid could care less he caused divorces, severe trauma and put one of his victims in the hospital! He just continues on with his baseless accusations & being indignant. (sound familiar readers?)
Predators are ANGRY at their victims. FOR TELLING THE TRUTH AND SEEKING HELP FOR THEIR TRAUMA.
List of the links on gridney/ YidwithLid (a long but MUST READ!)
Why should the truth slow any of them down?
By the way, on Yid's blog he says to email him your email address so he, himself can add it to his mailing list. There are automatic sites that can do this for you (example: Feedblitz) so why are we suspicious that Yid is collecting emails for fresh prey? Women who might like one of his articles and be somewhere his job sends him on business? Does his wife know this?
These Cyberpaths never stop.
How's that for sick?
The Cyberpath is the angry one who wants their victims to JUST FORGET IT so they can lie, never apologize, smear them and continue duping their family & friends? Yes.
And this story, readers is a perfect example.
@@@@@
Don't forget Cyberpaths! If you want help or want to write an open apology to your victim(s) just mail EOPC and they will be happy to help you change & make amends ! Send your apology to: Cyberpaths@gmail.com. If it's genuine - we'll be happy to post it!
yidwithlidLabels: attacks, cyberpaths, exposed, harassment, narcissistic rage, predator, smear campaign, sociopath, threats, twisting the truth, yidwithlid
