Website Criticizing Business Wins in Court

Web sites are a great way to spread the word about a business.

As for spreading the bad word about one? That can have mixed results.

A Web site dedicated to criticizing a Lorain County home builder won a court battle last month to stay on the Internet. Just as significantly, the owner maintained his ability to run the Web site anonymously.

But the owner, listed as "John Doe" in the court filings, warned that taking on a person or company in such a Web site can bring a cost. He and the builder, Powermark Homes Inc., fought over the site in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court for more than a year and a half.

"If there is a lesson in this, it is to be careful, be very careful what you say or put on the Internet," he said through his lawyer. "Even if you are only making innocent comments on a blog, you can wake up one day and find out you are being sued simply because someone didn't like what you wrote, and the nightmare begins."

The first Web site targeting Powermark was disconnected before the man started a second, www.powermarkhomessucks.com.

Powermark lawyer Bruce McLain, who handled parts of the defamation and invasion of privacy suit, said it matters who owns the Web site.

"We are quite sure this person is not a consumer at all but another business," he said, but he conceded: "We can't prove it."

Powermark Homes Inc., based in Columbia Station, builds large homes throughout Greater Cleveland, according to the company's Web site.

The site www.powermarkhomes.net caught the attention of the company in 2007 with the words "Powermark Homes Alert: Do you really want to do business with this Ohio home builder?"

The site also had a photo, taken from Powermark's official site, showing owner Mark Powers and his wife, Lisa, with several messages superimposed over it, including, "The Truth Exposed."

That site was taken down by the hosting company after McLain filed a copyright infringement claim because the photo was used without permission.

The site later returned under the new name. Although it contains a few comments about the builder, it mostly lists links to entries in local courts for lawsuits involving Powermark.

Lawyers for John Doe stated in court filings that consumers have a right to know about problems with the home builder. They noted that most of the material on the site is part of the public record anyway.

Powermark's lawyers did not go into detail about statements they found objectionable, other than the Web site's address. Instead, they tried to compel the site's creator to testify.

At a 2007 hearing, Lisa Powers objected to the site's owner remaining anonymous.

"Why don't they say it directly to my face personally?" she asked, according to a transcript. "That's what I don't understand. They can hide under a John Doe shield, but they can post my face over something that I had nothing to do with."

The case sat mostly quiet for more than a year before Judge Timothy McCormick dismissed Powermark's claims on Dec. 15. He did not issue a written ruling and declined to comment this week.

Greg Beck, a lawyer who backed the Web site through the public interest group Public Citizen, said that barring an appeal, the site will remain up.

He said that preserving the right to anonymous speech -- whether to avoid harassment or firing or retribution or simply by preference -- was key.

"It shows that in Ohio, what you say anonymously online will stay, unless someone has a very good reason to take that anonymity away," Beck said.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Online Romeo Swindles a Woman for $1,200.

Buffalo woman reports Online Romeo swindled her for $1,200
By Maki Becker

A woman reported to South District police early today that she was swindled out of $1,200 by a phony Romeo she met through the online dating service, Match.com.

The victim said she met a man who identified himself as "Joseph Patterson" on the dating Web site on Dec. 29. She said the man persuaded her to send him four money orders totaling $1,200, which he claimed he would use to buy a plane ticket to come visit her.

The man also sent the woman a fake check for $2,455. The check did not have a water mark and was from a bank that does not exist.

The man told her to cash it and send him the money.

The victim initially contacted the FBI out of fear that she was not only the victim of a scam but also that her personal identity and credit information may have been compromised.

The FBI told her to file a report with the Buffalo Police, which she did.

ORIGINAL

Robert Darden Does the Cyberpathic Heave-Ho

We apologize that due to the holidays we weren't able to get together to finish this expose. But Mr. Darden deserves one last look. (We know he's been coming here to read this -- like all Cyberpaths -- ego surfing themselves)

A great look at how someone on a religious-oriented site, who portrays themselves as a scripture quoting 'man of God' is actually an Cyberpath trolling the net for vulnerable women for either cybersex, naked pictures or casual sex while using lines like "I love you" and blaming the victim for his cutting & running when he either 1. gets bored or 2. finds better victim(s). - Fighter

Here are some final emails between Darden and his victim
Our comments in dark blue.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "XXXXXXXXX.XXX

I'm so sorry. I didn't realize I let your hand go. I'm sorry. I didn't feel the connection go but it was a very painful topic. I remember now and I think I got lost in the pain and drowned out everything around me, including you. I didn't realize and I understand your reaction now. Please know I wasn't being dishonest.

I'm not perfect, but I guess I was hoping you could love me, all of me, imperfections and all. But I understand you're unsure of me now. Trust is not something easily rebuilt once it's been lost. So I understand your changed feelings and I'll leave where we go from here up to you. I'll be okay with whatever you decide.

And please know, that whatever works for you, I loved what we had together and I will always cherish and treasure you.
(Don't take the blame!! This is just what he wanted and now he's going to rub it in)

In love,
XXXXXXX
~~~~~~~~~~~

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Darden wrote:

I love you because I don't see your imperfections. I only saw your heart. Please don't try to make this about me. I didn't change. (It's ALWAYS about you - what a liar!)

I let you in even if was uncomfortable for me. You closed me out. You didn't trust me to understand. I understand pain. I have been understanding towards your pain the whole time. I am in pain also. I never used that as a excuse to shut you out. I never judged you. I accepted you. Did you accept you? Did I get to close to someone that you have not accepted. (Darn you wouldn't send me naked pics or have cybersex with me...!! You must pay!!)

I don't want to force anything on you. Especially not yourself. You are beautiful to me. That is all I could see. (All he could see was free sex!) I just want to put things in perspective. We tried something that I feel you were not ready for. (CASUAL SEX!! and because you have feelings & I don't you didn't go for it. I hadn't brainwashed you thoroughly enough. But hey I am gonna blame you anyway) That is the bottom line.

I feel you want something from me on your terms. I understand if you are not ready. I need you to be honest with me. You say that you have been but you haven't. One example is [dating site]. Please don't see this as me throwing it in your face. I feel that you won't see my point any other way. I am just trying to get to the truth. TRUTH. (you wouldn't know the truth if it jumped on you & bit you)
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now she's trying to end it and not understanding why he won’t give it up and she doesn't get that he’s putting it all on her so he can leave her with a megadose of guilt!! Cyberpaths love to do this... make the victim leave so then they can play VICTIM!! Or make it so bad that if the victim continues to stay they can say "it's THEIR FAULT TOO!!"

Either way he wins. If nobody in the situation is to blame, then there is no way to resolve the problem. If you are to blame, then you must fix it. As for him, he is just an innocent victim and utterly blameless, therefore unable to do anything at all to find a solution, but totally justified in being a sod.

ARTICLE

From: "XXXXXXXXXXX.XXX
To: rdardenea@xxxxxxx.xxx
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:58:09 +0000
Subject: Re: Seeking forgiveness

Thank-you. I thought I was ready. I wanted to be ready but maybe I wasn't. This may make me mistaken but not dishonest. Maybe neither one of us was ready.

I am not a dishonest person. I wasn't dishonest about the [dating site[. I noticed you were on because at work I kept your profile in my browser and when I was missing you I would go to it. You don't have to be logged on to do that. I should have asked you about it but not asking wasn't being any more dishonest than not telling me about it. It shook my trust but I wanted to believe in you and I felt asking you about it would be wrong. I deleted my account because I believed in us, in you.

I have grown so much and I love myself enough to know what is my truth and to not let others define my truth for me. I accept me. I accept me now because I see myself as Christ sees me. I see myself through my Father's eyes and I know that I am beautiful. That I am strong. That I am worthy because of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and for no other reason. I know that I am worthy to give and to receive love. So if you want to believe I'm dishonest that's okay because what you believe about me can't change God's reality. And that's the TRUTH. (cough cough... Using God to dump all over her.)

Narcissists I've known also have odd religious ideas, in particular believing that they are God's special favorites somehow; God loves them, so they are exempted from ordinary rules and obligations: God loves them and wants them to be the way they are, so they can do anything they feel like -- though, note, the narcissist's God has much harsher rules for everyone else, including you.

ARTICLE

I let you in as well. And now I release you. I know, that if you're honest, you want this to end so I will make it easy for you and say goodbye. As I said before, whether you want to believe me or not, I loved what we had together and I will always cherish and treasure you. You have such a blessed ministry. May God continue to bless you and may you continue to prosper. I hold no ill feelings towards you. Thank-you for loving me and for leading me to a place where I could finally love and accept myself. I pray the same for you.

Love always,

XXXXXXX

(poor girl hadn't figured out yet she was talking to a PATHOLOGICAL PREDATOR and her words were wasted. He was playing games and enjoying watching her twisting!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good morning XXXXXXX,

I will always love you. (BARF!)

As I have said before I got to meet someone who I was able to fall in love with. It is my feeling that the person has retreated back deep inside of you. This is a change that I can not adjust to. I can be on the surface with any one and several ones at the same time. I am looking for someone that I can get deep with. I sense a change in our relationship. I sense a change in you. That is the truth. That is my truth. I would like for you to respect it. If you can not then do with it what you will.
(Oh spare us Darden... the only thing you want to get deep with is someone's intimate parts)

Our communication through these past email makes it very clear to me that we have lost something in our communication. You are saying that you don't see it. You don't feel it. If it only exist in my heart then that is what I have to go on. (She lost nothing Darden... you just played her for a fool!)

I am so happy for you that you have found so much beauty in yourself. I hope that I had something to do with that. Regardless I am happy for you. You have always been strong in God. Stay strong in yourself. Thank you for releasing me. I truly think that is what I need. I can't find what I once found to be just for me. I too love what we shared but it is not the same. I remember the good and I chose to take the good with me. The sun rises and the sun set to rise again and again another glorious day.
God bless you and keep you forever. (oh we feel SICK!)

Darden signs his name again, only once in future correspondence. He never again uses her name. He's objectified, devalued & discarded her and let's it show!

---- Original message ----

Good morning Darden,

I've had time to reflect and you are right. We attempted something I wasn't ready for. I am still struggling with low self-esteem, low self-worth, and not fully accepting myself. So although I thought I had accepted your love, I guess deep down I still questioned your motives because I couldn't understand how you could love someone like me. This is something I can now see and will continue to work on. I accept your need to move on and find someone to love and to love you how you deserve to be loved. And I thank-you. I would still like to be your friend if you will have me. If not, I understand.

Many blessings,

XXXXXXX

(Oh no - here it comes:

You will never be cured of contact with them if you don't face this unpleasant fact about them. They don't love you. They don't love anyone. They can't.

Lamb, you are as lovable as can be, but the Wolf doesn't love you. He doesn't dare let himself love you, or he'd starve. Correction: he does love you – for lunch.

ARTICLE)

Darden probably realized she was close to figuring him out and had to end it.

From: rdardenea@xxxxxxx.xxx
Sent: Tuesday, 15 July, 2008 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Good morning

You are worthy you are worthy you worthy!!! Why? God has made you worthy by what His Son has already done. We believe Him and that makes us worthy. If I give a gift and it is received with doubt the gift's effect is reversed so it is no longer a gift but a curse.

I can't move on right now. My heart is with you. It is with your heart. I have been calling you to a safe place away from danger and you don't trust me. That doubt has caused you to remain in danger. How does that make me feel? Like my love means nothing. I love you.
(GAG US!!!! Blame shifting -- blame shifting -- it doesn't end with this predator)

'Darden'

It was this last one that really shook his victim up. Because:

He was talking as if he thought He was God.

Worth noting:

1. The night before sending the video to end our ‘relationship,’ he told me he doesn’t usually last long in relationships and he has a problem with women.
2. He also made it quite clear he does not like psychiatrists – he told me he used to see one because he would ‘hurt’ people -- RED FLAG
   
3. As part of his seduction, he recommended movies for me to watch, two were love stories (Daddy’s Little Girls and Why Did I Get Married) and one was about a man with psychological problems who hates psychiatrists (Rain on Me) Teaching her not to question him!!
4. We exchanged pictures and some of the new pictures he sent me he also posted on the dating site. That’s what I saw when I came across his profile – nicely updated with photos I thought were meant for only me!
5. He said he used to be addicted to porn and used to have a problem with lust

We would bet money he STILL is addicted to porn (just look at what he sent to her!! and lust? It's his whole reason for breathing! Women are just objects to these men. Being on religious affilated dating sites just "makes them look safe!!" and they are NOT!!

ALWAYS WATCH THEIR ACTIONS
NEVER BELIEVE THEIR 'WORDS'

Related post: "SOUL SLAYER"

Related post: Cyberpath: Ed Hicks - Adieu Adieu (notice the similarities!)

Another Cyberpath Tries to Extort His Victim

A hotshot tax attorney was busted for allegedly trying to blackmail a former lover into sending him nude photos by threatening to give her husband, neighbors and relatives what he claimed was a raunchy DVD of their past sexcapades.

Steven Klig, a partner at finance giant Deloitte, allegedly sent the woman extortionate e-mails from such locations as Disney World, where the 44-year-old married father of two was on vacation last week.

"Just to give you a head's up. I've been doing a little editing on our video. Mostly some blurring of myself so that I won't be recognized," he wrote in one e-mail, according to the criminal complaint.

"You, on the other hand, can be seen very clearly having the time of your life being f---ed by me."

Klig, of Great Neck, LI, allegedly claimed to have secretly recorded the footage during "one of our sessions," which the woman told the feds took place "a number of years ago."

Klig, who was arrested Monday on federal extortion and harassment charges, allegedly began his salacious shenanigans with a letter mailed to the unidentified woman's home last Oct. 20.

In it, he allegedly said he would turn over the DVD in exchange for a "one-time reunion" and "a couple of recent nude pictures of you."

The woman didn't respond, but instead went to the FBI after Klig allegedly e-mailed her husband on Nov. 10, using the address _robertgibbons1967 @yahoo.com and saying he was an "old friend" looking for the woman's e-mail address.

The feds then began a computerized cat-and-mouse game with Klig after they say he e-mailed the woman on Dec. 11.

The next day, an agent posing as the woman wrote Klig back, asking what he wanted and pleading, "I want to keep my family out of this."

He allegedly responded, "I don't need money. What I really want is something new to look at."

Klig then allegedly detailed his preferences for the "first installment" as:
"(1) fully clothed;
(2) without your shirt;
(3) without your shirt and pants (in just a bra and panties);
(4) without the bra and (5) fully nude."

The e-mail exchange continued through Jan. 3, with the agent offering various excuses for failing to provide the photos and Klig ultimately threatening to post the video on the Internet, investigators said.

Klig apparently tried to cover his tracks by using public computers and free or hijacked wireless Internet access to contact his victim, sources said.

Klig, free on $200,000 bond, is currently "on leave" from Deloitte, a spokeswoman said.

His lawyer did not return a phone call yesterday, and a woman who spoke from behind the door at Klig's home said, "There's no one here by that name."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Internet Cult That Stole My Son

We are posting this because these SAME BRAINWASHING METHODS are used by cyberpaths. Often more covertly but just as dangerous! - Fighter

Even by the internet's murky standards, it's deeply sinister - a website that brainwashes youngsters into disowning their families and vanishing into thin air. Here, one mother tells her chilling story

By Kate Hilpern

One Wednesday afternoon in May, when Barbara Weed's 18-year-old son Tom was right in the middle of his A-levels, he abruptly left home. 'Dear Family,' said the note he left on the doormat. 'I need to take an indefinite amount of time away from the family, so I've moved in with a friend. Please do not contact me. Tom.'

He has not been in touch with any of his relatives since.

But Tom is not a missing person: his family know roughly where he is. It's just that he won't talk to them - and they suspect he never will.

'He got hooked in by an online cult,' says Barbara. 'The website convinces vulnerable people that they should hate their parents and leave their family.'

Barbara Weed, whose teenage son Tom walked out on the family after getting involved in a 'virtual cult' on the internet

Even the wording of Tom's letter is from the website. Its founder says: 'The letter should buy you six to 12 months before your family come looking for you, and that will give you time to get used to living without them.'

Barbara did not wait that long. 'I tried to respect Tom's wishes and leave him alone, but once I discovered that the website was responsible for him leaving, I visited him at a cafe where he was working part-time,' she says.

She worked out that if she ordered a cup of tea, he would have to listen to her for about a minute. She told him that if he ever wanted to come home, he could. 'He just looked at me, shaking his head, as if to say: "You fool."'

What baffled her was how a website could have such a dramatic effect on an ordinary family, and in such a short space of time.

Barbara and her husband already had two sons - Nick, two, and John, four - when Tom was born. 'I adored Tom,' says Barbara. 'Nick was the mischievous one, and sometimes I did get cross with him, but I didn't need to get cross with Tom. He was such a joy to be with and had long, serious conversations with everyone. I always thought he would be the last one to leave home - that at 40 he might even still be here, which is ironic.'

A normal upbringing
The boys were so close in age that they all played together. Barbara took them to parks, playgrounds, theatre shows and Alton Towers. Even though money was tight, there were family seaside holidays every year.

'When Tom left, John said: "But we had a great childhood." '

By the time the boys reached adolescence, family life had become more dispersed.

'My sons each had computers in their rooms, and we all had such different schedules that family mealtimes didn't happen any more.

'Also, Tom was vegan and wanted to cook for himself, so I gave him money to buy food and he just got on with it.'

By September 2007, his elder brothers were at university and Tom had found a girlfriend.

'It's as if you wake up one morning when your children are teenagers and you realise that practically the only time you talk to them is when they're going to the fridge,' says Barbara.

But then there are moments when they do things, such as give you a present.' The necklace she is wearing was given to her by Tom after a summer holiday.

Tom and his girlfriend, meanwhile, had become increasingly interested in an online community called Freedomain Radio (FDR), which invites discussion about philosophy, politics and personal freedom.

Unbeknown to Barbara at that time, a key topic of the site - whose members seem to be mostly in their teens and 20s - is the idea that ultimate personal freedom can be gained by cutting yourself off from any involuntary relationships (ie your family) and entering into completely voluntary ones (ie your new mates online).

'I think once you get these corrupt people out of your life, you will for sure have enough room for all the new awesome, virtuous friends in the world,' said one member to another recently.

For members unsure about such drastic measures, there are podcasts with titles such as 'But my parents were really nice!'; and there is a chatroom in which members discuss how so many families are unjust.

There is also a Sunday call-in show in which the website's founder counsels callers. Often the subject is leaving your family.

Barbara recalls Tom and his girlfriend looking forward to the Sunday call-ins and spending more and more time on the FDR website.

'Tom did mention it at the time - although not their ideas about family - and I can remember alarm bells ringing when he said the man who ran it was giving him advice. I warned him that on the internet you don't know who you are talking to.'

The shock of Tom's disappearance
By November 2007, Tom's behaviour had changed noticeably. 'He wasn't spending time in his room just because he wanted to be with his girlfriend or on the computer, but because he didn't want to be with us,' says Barbara.

'One night he blurted out that when he left home he wouldn't come back and that I'd never see him again.

'At first, I thought he was talking about university - that he wasn't coming home after that. But I was puzzled by the bit about never seeing him again. He responded that we had no relationship, and that it was over.'

Barbara says she tried everything - persuasion, negotiation, compromise.

'But Tom didn't seem interested in communicating, merely in throwing accusations - for instance, that his brother John and me were fond of laughing at him, which wasn't true.

'I also began to notice that he was interpreting all family interactions as abusive.

'We did our best to be a happy family. Knowing what I do now about the website, I think Tom was being convinced by the online community that he had been cheated because he didn't have a perfect family upbringing. But who does? We really did try our best.'

Then one day in May, when Barbara got in from work, Tom had gone.

She read the note and was devastated. For a moment, she wondered if he had run away with his girlfriend (who has also since cut off her family to devote herself to FDR), but she and Tom had recently split up.

Then Barbara thought of the website and began to investigate. She quickly found references to something called 'deFOO' - the name the website gives to ridding yourself of your 'family of origin' (FOO). Then she came across Tom's thoughts posted on the site during the months leading up to his own decision to deFOO.

Internet cults
Trying to think practically, Barbara topped up Tom's mobile phone ('I was worried he hadn't even organised where he was going to live'), and the following day she phoned his school, fearful he would quit his education as hastily as he had family life. The school said that he seemed fine.

The next week, his brother Nick waited at the school all day to see him, but Tom wouldn't talk to him.

Another week passed. There was the exchange at the cafe, but besides catching a glimpse of him at a local festival and once on his bike, Barbara has not seen him since.

'In the early days, I burst into tears all the time,' she says. But now that some time has passed, she is trying to keep things in perspective.

'He could be floating down a river dead; but he's not. He could be somewhere that I don't know about, never sure if he's alive or dead; but he's not. I have to keep reminding myself that, as far as I know, he's well and happy.'

In some ways, Barbara feels relieved that he has left Leamington Spa - where the family lives and Tom was born and brought up - and gone away to university.

'I was dreading it, but it is so hard knowing I could bump into him at any time. Also, I know he is starting his new life.

'Every parent wants their child to be happy, to do well, and that's what he'll be doing. So that's great. I just wish I could be part of that - that I could give him another £50 when his student loan runs out, that I could celebrate his successes with him.'

Website founder rejects 'cult' suggestion
The Cult Information Centre, which says that several people have been in contact recently about family members recruited into cult-like organisations via chatrooms or other online means, recommends that such families try to keep up some form of contact.

'So I sent Tom a text message to wish him luck at university and tell him that I'm thinking of him,' says Barbara. 'I don't know if he would have read the message or whether he just deleted it when he saw it was from me.'

Because Tom's new 'family' is online, Barbara has - at least until recently - been able to see what he is up to. It's how she knew what A-level grades he got and it's how she knows at which university he is studying.

'I spend far too much time on the site,' she says. She logs on as soon as she gets in from work, and often doesn't switch off her computer until the early hours.

'It's a bit like he's sitting at the next table. I hear everything he's saying, but I'm not in the conversation.'

This month, however, the chatroom has been restricted to members only. 'I can't go in as a visitor any more,' she says. 'I've lost the only remaining glimpse I had of him. I don't know how he's feeling or if he needs help.'

Leah May Phillips
The dangers of cults: Leah May Phillips from Pontycymer in Wales, who tried to commit suicide this year. One of Leah's friends, Natasha Randall, 17, was found hanged in her bedroom. Her death was one of seven suicides in the small town which sparked fears the hangings were linked to an internet cult

Stefan Molyneux, the founder of FDR, who attracts many people to his website through YouTube, tells me that he simply reminds people 'that our family relationships are voluntary and you should really work, if you're unhappy in these relationships, to improve the quality of those relationships - but to remember that they do remain voluntary.

'And that gives people the motivation, I think, to try to improve them. But if you can't improve them - and we can't change other people, as we all know - for sure you should have the option to disengage.'

Molyneux, a 42-year-old former actor and IT worker, assures me that what he calls deFOO is 'actually quite rare'.

And although he and his wife (both of whom have deFOOd) are expecting a baby in December, he says on the website: 'Deep down I do not believe there are any really good parents out there - the same way I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century.'

Molyneux, whose Canadian home also hosts member get-togethers, brings up the word 'cult' before I do.

'It's the furthest thing from a cult,' he laughs. 'First of all, I don't charge anything for what it is I do. And cults isolate people.

'What I'm talking about, what I strongly suggest to people, is that they should get closer to the people they're with.

'And, of course, cults don't suggest people go to therapy to deal with their issues.'

Critics - parents predominantly from the U.S. and Canada, where most members come from - say people do pay. There's a $10 (£6.40) monthly subscription fee and you get special levels of access, according to how much more you donate, with $500 buying you the status of 'Philosopher King'. They say deFOO proves FDR does isolate people - the only people members get closer to are each other.

Some FDR members have indisputably horrific childhood stories. Some say that were beaten, others that they were sexually abused. To cut off their parents may well be their only hope for happiness.

But if you consider people of Tom's age, who invariably feel their parents don't understand them and couple this with a youthful thirst for neat philosophical answers to life's problems, then you can see the attraction and dangers of FDR.

Nothing but silence
Tom won't talk to me when I track him down, so I try to get a sense of his story from the website - I'm particularly troubled by a live call-in show from April, one month before he left home, in which he aired his passionate views about animal rights, only to be convinced by Molyneux that he is the one being treated like an animal and abused by his father, and by Barbara because she is his mother and she didn't leave his father - and for even having Tom at all.

Now, let's be clear: Tom does say that he is frightened by his father's mood swings, which sometimes cause him to throw things or shout at the cat. But the conclusions Molyneux jumps to, his manipulation of the conversation, is chilling.

The parents who talk to me do not want their names printed, and Tom's ex-girlfriend's parents won't talk to me at all.

The advice from experts is that when a parent attacks or criticises a cult, it may drive their family member further away.

I discover this for myself when I see Molyneux in the chatroom telling Tom: 'She [Barbara] misses having a victim around and so she is using the media to victimise you . . .Totally evil.'

Barbara is unfazed, saying that things had already reached rock bottom the moment Tom left home. Her marriage has since broken down, and the only good thing that has come out of all this is her relationship with her son Nick.

'We used to talk in terms of "I've got post for you" or "Can I have some money?" Now we show affection and we're really talking,' she says.

Molyneux tells me that deFOO is not inevitably for ever, but most members seem to see it as absolute. In one of his podcasts, Molyneux says people who do return to their family risk being seen permanently as unstable.

Some people do manage to leave FDR, however, and I point out that Tom is only 18. Barbara takes a deep breath.

'Tom is very strong-willed, much like I am, and when we set our minds to something we can do it. He is capable of just not coming back.'

The only time she doubts this is in her dreams. 'Sometimes I dream that Tom is standing in front of me, smiling, and I feel happy and peaceful. But then I wake up.'

ORIGINAL

Ex-Model Fights Anonymous Online Defamation

EOPC does NOT agree with this sort of defamatory blog - Skanks in NYC. It is just hateful We check our information, get members to sign a release and don't purport to diagnose or do anything more than offer our opinion. We also openly offer help to the Cyberpaths we expose. Hopefully we can stop them from preying on others & get counseling while educating the public.

A former Vogue cover girl is standing up to cyber bullies - fighting to unmask the anonymous cowards who've turned to the Web to ruin her reputation in the modeling business with a "Skanks in NYC" blog.

Liskula Cohen, 36, is seeking a court order that would force Google to reveal the person or persons behind the postings so she can hold them accountable with a defamation lawsuit. The anonymous bloggers have "posted entries, including photographs, captions to the photographs and commentary solely about Liskula Cohen that describe her as a 'skank' and a 'ho,' " her filing in Manhattan Supreme Court says.

Cohen hopes to at least force a level playing field by exposing her tormenter.

"I was shocked and embarrassed" to see photo captions and commentary "that were used to describe me as a promiscuous woman who is filthy, disgusting, foul and a whore," Cohen said in an affidavit. "The statements and suggestions made on the blog are malicious and untrue."

The site also includes "other defamatory statements concerning her appearance, hygiene and sexual conduct," the filing says. "I would have to say the first-place award for "Skankiest in NYC" would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen," "Anonymous" wrote in one posting. "She's a psychotic, lying, whoring . . . skank . . . Desperation seeps from her soul, if she even has one."

Cohen's lawyer, Steven Wagner, said the former Australian Vogue cover model is "very upset" about the cyber attacks. "The law protects freedom of speech, including anonymous speech, but it doesn't protect defamation, and people should not think that they can defame others on the Internet or on blogs by hiding behind a screen name," he said.

Cohen is no stranger to pain.

In January 2007, she was at the club Ultra on West 26th Street when she got into an argument with a man named Samir Dervisevic, who'd tried helping himself to a bottle of vodka on Cohen's table. He ended the spat by stabbing her in the face with a broken glass, disfiguring her.

"I went to the bathroom and I saw my whole career go down the drain. I looked in the mirror and saw a hole in my face the size of a quarter. I've been a model my whole life, and I've never had another job," she told The Post last year.

Her career skidded to a halt while she had to undergo plastic surgery to repair the damage, and her filing says she doesn't need any more agony.

"Defamatory statements describing me as a 'skank' and a 'ho' affect my reputation and desirability for endorsing products," and are "hurtful, potentially damaging to my reputation, and, significantly, they are flatly untrue," her affidavit says.

Cohen isn't without her fans - one blog commenter wrote that the person posting the blog was a "silly, silly fat girl."

"[D]o you wait three hours in line at a club, when she breezes right in?" the person asked. ORIGINAL ARTICLE