HOW TO HANDLE ONLINE HARASSMENT

FROM WHOA

You must clearly tell the harasser to stop
Generally speaking, it is unwise to communicate with a harasser. However, as soon as you determine that you are truly being harassed by someone, you must very clearly tell that person to stop. Simply say something like "Do not contact me in any way in the future" and leave it there. You do not need to explain why, just state that you do not want the person to contact you. Sometimes it is helpful to copy this message to the abuse department of the harasser's ISP. Keep a record of this message for your records. Do not respond to any further messages of any sort from the harasser. Don't have anyone else contact the harasser on your behalf.

It is common for the harasser to claim that you are harassing him or her, but if you aren't contacting the person, it is clear that you aren't the harasser.

Save everything
One of the first impulses many harassment victims have is to just delete any communications they've received, and that's a bad idea. It's important to save absolutely every communication you have with the harasser - email, chat logs, ICQ histories, anything. If the harasser has created a web site about you, save copies of it to your local system and have someone you trust who would testify in court for you if necessary to do the same. If you receive any phone calls from the harasser, have them traced immediately (your local phone company can tell you how to do that). If you receive any kind of postal mail or other offline communications, save them (with envelopes, boxes, etc.). Do not destroy any evidence - and do not handle it more than absolutely necessary or permit anyone else to do so. Immediately turn the evidence over to the police. Place envelopes, letters, etc. in plastic bags to protect any possible fingerprints.

Complain to the appropriate parties
It can at times be a little difficult for people to determine who the appropriate party is. If you're harassed in a chat room, contact whoever runs the server you were using. If you're harassed on any kind of instant messaging service, read the terms of service and harassment policies they've provided and use any contact address given there. If someone has created a web site to harass you, complain to the server where the site is hosted. If you're being harassed via email, complain to the sender's ISP and any email service (like Hotmail) used to send the messages. Figuring out who to complain to is one of the areas in which WHOA's volunteers can definitely help you.

Cease & desists also can be sent to them and you can go to the police (and their police) and demand a report be filed on them.

Determine your desired result
What do you want to have happen? You need to think about that. Be realistic. It's reasonable to expect that you can get the harasser to stop contacting you. It is reasonable to expect that you can increase your safety online and offline and that of your family.

It is not realistic to expect an apology from the harasser or any kind of "payback" or revenge. If you want to file a lawsuit because of something the harasser said or you believe they said about you, find a lawyer who will take the suit, but realize that you'll probably have to pay a lot of legal costs and may not ever get any kind of satisfaction.

Take our advice
You have to be willing to take the advice given to you, or you're wasting your time and ours. If we suggest that you change your email address, there's a good reason for it, even if it is a hassle. If we suggest that you not visit a particular chat room again, there's a good reason for it.

MORE AT WHOA

Serious Jail Time for Cyber Harassers

New Mexico is taking another look at cyberstalking with legislation that could mean serious prison time for those who use the Internet to harass someone.

Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez and two state lawmakers are proposing a new state law that would bump up cyberstalking to a felony and would force cyberstalkers to register as sex offenders.

APD Chief Ray Schultz said it's time to make laws tougher to stop predators in cyberspace, who have managed to operate from behind bars.

"One of those loop holes is the fact that somebody in jail can cyberstalk from jail via electronic means and there's no way for that to be successfully prosecuted," he said.

Mayor Chavez unveiled new legislation Thursday that will make it a sex crime to cyberstalk an adult--a fourth-degree felony.

"Right now, stalking an adult is a misdemeanor in New Mexico," Chavez said.

Last year, a Sandia Labs worker was sentenced to two years under federal law after using her work computer to stalk the lead sing of the rock band "Linkin Park" in 2006.

Children are already protected from being stalked electronically in New Mexico, but the mayor said that isn't enough. He wants all convicted cyberstalkers to register as sex offenders.

"I think any legislator would be hard pressed to say anyone convicted of stalking a child online ought to be able to proceed in anonymity in the future. They need to register like all the other creeps," Chavez said.

The FBI said it will have a new, state-of-the-art computer forensics lab in Albuquerque next year that police departments will be able to use to enforce local laws and track cyberstalkers.

ORIGINAL

The Heart of Why We Run This Site

Yes, EOPC took on the Megan Meier/MySpace Suicide case. Why?

Because it goes right to the heart of why we run this site. Every month we get letters begging us for help or direction from those who have been targeted, seduced, used, lied to & abused and then discarded and smeared by people with internet access who think the web is one big anonymous playground. A place where you are faceless & nameless and can do or say anything you want to anyone with impugnity.

WRONG!

EOPC does believe that most of these people are pathological. They could be sociopathic, suffering from Destructive Narcissistic Pattern, Borderline, just evil or a combination. The consequences are very real.

The Cyberpath wants to walk away with no consequences. They become enraged when their victims ask for accountability and/or expose them... saying they are "obsessed: and "need to get over it." (scroll down to the comments in this post for an example of what one of our exposed predators said to his victim!)

Sorry, IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Our victims are ill, divorced, in debt and suffering because of these PREDATORS. In the Meier case - a VULNERABLE 13 YEAR OLD IS DEAD.

Telling helps everyone:
The Victim - Gets the validation they need. No more "get over it" or "move on" or "give it a rest." The Victims have been through trauma that has nothing to do with a simple relationship break up. They have been brainwashed, controlled, manipulated, eviscerated and tossed aside like garbage. And other human beings aren't garbage. This is a perfect example of the lack of regard & empathy the cyberpath/ pathological has for their victim(s)!

The Predator/ Cyberpath - Gets a needed & deserved accountability moment. If they want counseling or help to stop their online behaviors - they can write to us, we will try to help find some help!

We have victims on this site who have attempted suicide, self-harmed, ended up in the hospital and almost all now suffer from some degree of PTSD - which will take years, if ever, to get over. They are NOT drama mamas, over-reacting or 'dwelling' - they are INJURED. Seriously & profoundly psychologically INJURED. And anyone, including therapists, who tell them to "get on with their lives" and "move on" is re-injuring them!

Telling is a huge step in healing for victims. We agree that outing Lori Drew was the right thing to do.

Society needs to hold adults ACCOUNTABLE. Of course these predators cry "foul" and start a non-stop smear campaign against the victim. The victim was "scorned; its just revenge; the victim is trying to ruin my life/family; the victim is lying/ making it all up; the victim is over-reacting/ crazy/ a nutjob." And the Lori Drew version: "Give it a rest." (CLICK HERE FOR MORE MALICIOUS MEGAN SMEAR)
CLICK HERE FOR 'DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY LIED OR TWISTED THE FACTS?'
Mrs. Drew? Megan Meier is now at "REST" for eternity.

The rest of you cyberpaths? Your pathology is showing when you minimize, trivialize or spit on the profound damage you have done to your victims and often their families as well!

While EOPC focuses on Adult-on-Adult Cyberpathy - Megan's predator was an ADULT. An ADULT who targeted, seduced, used, lied to & abused and then discarded and smeared her - and pushed Megan to suicide. Lori Drew KNEW Megan was battling ADD, weight issues and depression - but Lori didn't care.

"I've said some pretty mean things online just typing. I never realized how mean it was. Now there's no way I would do that. I would call people out if they said something like that." - Blaine Buckles

Megan died in 2006 and Lori Drew STILL doesn't care: CLICK HERE FOR LORI'S POLICE ACCOUNT Most of our Cyberpaths DON'T CARE! Some examples:
"It was all just a game" Beckstead
"I'm the victim here; poor me" Langley-Guy
"If you loved me you'd stand by my lies & fraud" Thomas
"They went in with their eyes wide open" except he coerced them with lies - Gridney/ YidwithLid (Gridney/YidwithLid even developed a HATE SITE against one of his many victims which has yet to be deleted!)
"It's all false - my wives set me up. I am going to sue them all, including Dr. Phil!" Hicks "all women are whores" Dorsky.

There are links on the right to our stories, where to post your Cyberpath on the web and articles & places to get help.

EOPC calls for Lori Drew and all cyberpaths to be charged with INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.

EOPC calls for Sarah Drew to be removed from the Drew home and put into immediate Psychological Counseling so she can learn EMPATHY & COMPASSION.

LORI DREW: Click here to read what you should be doing right now.

And to any Cyberpaths/ Predators who may be reading this - Click here as well.

EOPC ALSO CALLS FOR NO VIGILANTE JUSTICE - NO HARASSMENT OR ATTACKING OF THE DREWS OR THEIR PROPERTY. The Police in their area need to dismiss that silly property suit the Drews have against the Meiers immediately.

We are reposting a comment we read on one of the many blogs talking about the Megan Meier case for everyone to read. It could be extrapolated and applied to all our victim's cases:
Who is responsible? Everyone is responsible depending upon their ability to influence these events – both before and after. The media was shameful. It was not until the world at large became aware of and outraged by this that anyone local saw fit to take action. Most of that action was cynical damage control. It was window-dressing; more salt in the wound. Predictably, that has enraged the world even more.

All that evil needs to prosper is for good people to do nothing. Evil prospered. It did so, not for a day, a week or even a month. It prospered for more than a year and flourishes still. After that length of time I would say that they 'aided and abetted' this crime by continued failure to act. They aggravate things even further by a studied effort to deny their role in this.

This should go to a jury trial. Someone took an action. It caused a death. The charge should relate to that. The local community in question appears to have made ‘littering’ the charge for such cyber-stalking crimes. That is an outrage. I think most of the world would find a homicide related charge more appropriate. Charge them, and let a jury decide upon guilt or innocence. The jury might well return a verdict that gives the lie to the complacency of that entire local community.

A crime was committed. I am not aware of a single jurisdiction under common law that would not allow a prosecution of some kind for this crime. That the family has had trouble bringing even a civil suit is beyond comprehension. I am sure the larger community will correct that, no matter how hard the local community tries to stop it.

So many entities had some type of duty here. They all failed to do that duty. An adult stalked, SEXUALLY harassed, and drove a child to her death. You heard me right. They stalked her. An adult sexually engaged a child over the Internet. The child subsequently died. The order and temporal proximity of events shows clearly that the child died due to the actions of that adult predator. The perpetrator further harassed the grieving family after the fact. That included making a complaint to the police against the family of the dead child. If this were a movie, it would be hard to swallow the premise it is so outrageous.

I believe that a sense of remorse has an influence on sentencing. When a jury finds this predator guilty, that person’s persistent lack of remorse should inform a sentence sufficiently punitive to act as an effective deterrent. The consensus in the ‘blogosphere’ seems to be that the main perpetrator should go to jail and stay there. I agree. Why allow them to do it again?

What happened here, and then dragged on for so long without a just resolution, did not happen in a vacuum. That entire community sat by and watched this unfold with hardly a whisper of dissent. Arguments about what they could and could not do and what they actually did do only add fuel to the fire. A child is dead. We know who many of the responsible parties are. The most responsible party has admitted at least a portion of their role to the police and there exists a record of this. The entire community is aware of what has happened. Some members of that community have been aware for long enough to prosecute, convict and imprison the main perpetrator. Instead, they did NOTHING. The only official action appears to have been on a complaint AGAINST the grieving family. A child is dead, her family is destroyed and that family has seen NO comfort or redress from their local community. The only penalties extracted from the perpetrators have resulted from the widespread visceral revulsion of the world at large.

This is telling CLICK HERE

As of this writing, the link above allows a search of the St. Charles Chamber of Commerce. You will find them proudly promoting the business of the predator. Search for “Family Savings Magazine” and there they are in all their gory glory. How monstrous is that? Would you do business with members of that Chamber of Commerce? I would not. I wonder what other disgraceful self-serving lies exist on that site?

I am a web professional. I taught networking. I have been a denizen of cyberspace since before the web was born. Friends and family of mine are psychologists and educators in the schools at all levels. I am also the parent of happy healthy young girls approaching the age of the child in question. I have devoted considerable time and had expert help to make our Internet environment a safe one for my kids. I have trained the kids well to protect against such things as happened here. Even MY children could be vulnerable to such a predator. No parent, however well prepared can entirely protect his or her children when a predator attacks. We all have a stake. We must stop these predators on as many fronts as we can.

Of the litany of shameful acts here, perhaps the vilest is the continued vicious assault on the victim and her surviving family. The post-mortem defamation of the murdered child is repulsive. The attempt to make excuses for the predator is shocking. It is inexcusable. Apologists suggest that the parents should have done more. They suggest the child was somehow at fault, or defective. This is false. Any young girl could be vulnerable to such a thing. Any parent, no matter how vigilant, could have been the victim of such an act. By all accounts, the murdered child’s mother did everything in her power to prevent this. She is without blame by any standard of measure. This was a brutal act of sex-related violence on a child. Attempting to minimize or justify this by laying a shred of blame at the feet of the grieving family is disgusting. It is disgusting because it is wrong. It is doubly disgusting because they know it is wrong. It is trebly disgusting that they promote these lies for their own benefit at the expense of the victims. This family has already paid the ultimate price. Every single adult in that entire community should be ashamed that they allow this injustice to continue. Clearly, those blaming the victims are beyond shame. Nothing can redeem them. Perhaps, though, a few others have a sense of shame. They were complicit in making the family no longer able to defend themselves. Will they finally, FINALLY after more than a YEAR, stand and defend this stricken child and her broken family? I will not hold my breath.

What have any of them done to heal this family? It breaks my heart to think of that poor man sitting in his darling daughter’s room alone. I am a father, and I am simply unable to imagine it fully. My mind will not allow itself to go there. Without aid, he will likely come to even further harm. What has the community done about this? All that seems to come from that community is more self-serving excuses. They have not even the human decency to apologize. I challenge the other fathers in that community to reach out and help that grieving father. I challenge the mothers in that community to reach out and help that grieving mother. I challenge clergy, social workers and other ‘helping professions’ to reach out and help heal what is left of that shattered family. I challenge that community to stand up, take care of its own and show a little backbone and dignity to the world outside their doors.

Apologists seem to think that it was to be expected. It was not.
They seem to expect it to happen again. It should not.
They feel no sense that they should even TRY to prevent it in the future. Any future event like this is doubly on their heads.

• Who allows an adult to stalk a child and drive them to their death?
• Who deals with such an event after the fact by attempting to minimize their responsibility?
• Who, when subjected to public scrutiny for such disgrace, attempts to escape by trying to vilify and further injure the victims? We are talking about a dead CHILD here.
• What kind of monster attempts to blame a child for her own murder at the hands of a predatory adult? It is disturbing to see someone attempt to gain a tiny advantage when it comes at a great expense from another.

Surely, there must be SOMEONE with moral courage in that community. If they exist, they should champion real action to right this wrong and prevent it in the future.

Here is a hint: Step number one would be to FINALLY admit that it was wrong and accept your share of responsibility. Most would have been unaware before the fact, in the days, weeks, or even months (!) after the fact. Can anyone in that community claim to be unaware NOW?

Proposing to make a similar thing a misdemeanor insults the memory of this child and shames the community all the more. The sex-related murder of a child is not a misdemeanor. Claiming that they, meantime, cannot prosecute the existing murderer is just smarmy damage control. It does not play well with me. I doubt it plays well with anyone in the rest of the world either. I pray for the sake of that community that it sounds discordant to at least a few of those that reside there.

The people there that are responsible for law enforcement lack the skill and moral rectitude to make this right. They have amply demonstrated that. The community should replace them. They should do so before anyone else gets hurt. These incumbents can do nothing about the sex-related homicide of a child. They are not likely much use for anything else. Get rid of them right now. Whoever was sitting at those desks are plainly not as good as empty desks. Even if you do not replace them, you will be better off.

Precious few in that community seem to have any moral compass. Perhaps they can take a hint from the torrent of outrage in the larger community. What happened was wrong both during and after the fact. It continues to be wrong now. Each day they fail to act takes them further in the wrong direction.

I pray that everyone in that community with a shred of decency will DEMAND that this be resolved respectably and that they will back their demands by action.

The furor will die down, but some have indelibly etched their shame on the memory of the Internet. Anyone with the name of that community attached to their names should be able to point to effective action they have taken to correct this injustice. Otherwise, they will carry this stain with them forever. Making amends at some point is better than doing nothing. However, the longer they continue to deny their part and fail to act, the harder it will be to cleanse them of shame.

Good luck with that.

My heart goes out to that family. What happened to them is the unthinkable. They deserve help and healing. Fortunately, they have an enormous ‘mind-share’ in the world now. They can use it to get aid, even if the local community continues to resist it. Literally millions of people are aware of this now. I can find no credible evidence of anyone in the real world that does not see the mother, father and child here as blameless victims. For their daughter’s memory, I hope that mother and father can find the strength to heal and carry on. It would be the best way to honor their daughter’s memory and keep it alive.

As trite as it sounds, true healing cannot happen without forgiveness. The entire community of perpetrators does not deserve forgiveness. They are beneath it. However, the family deserves the healing they will get by taking the moral high ground ...That goes for thee and me. This is not a call for the mob to descend. It is not a call for revenge. It is a call for justice to aid in the healing. Justice helps us to forgive...

Justice calls for punishment that acts as a deterrent and sends a message. What happened was very wrong. We should acknowledge that with vigor. However, vengeance, per se, is an empty thing. It always does more harm than good. I hope the family will try to turn their hearts away from thoughts of revenge. No action they can take will be mightier than the storm that swirls around the villains now. All of those creepy people were nearly as diminished as creatures could be before this began. The people in that community that turned their backs on the injured family will not likely give comfort to the perpetrators and their supporters. They all began small, went down from there and the world diminished them even further. They are just so many insects now. There is no comfort to get from these miserable creatures. Let justice take its course, if it will. The family should cast attention to healing and honoring the memory of their beautiful child.

The world would be a better place if the people in that community were to make amends through action. That action should show genuine contrition for (to be charitable) a job poorly done. As huge a tidal shift as such a thing is, I sincerely hope that the mother and father can find forgiveness in their heart for one another and heal the rift in their marriage. They will not find more than a decade of shared love and care for their beautiful child with any other partner. They owe themselves and each other a second chance.

Finally, though it might seem that such a thing is beyond the power of prayer, I say a prayer for the mother, the father and the child and I hope anyone reading this will join me in that. Even if you do not believe in the power of prayer, the gesture has meaning

POSTED BY DEEPNORTH at BLUEMERLE

SOME PEOPLE ARE BORN EVIL

YOU ARE A TARGET

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

Virtual Relationships and Online Betrayals

Do you tell total strangers your most intimate secrets and desires? Do you share details about yourself that you wouldn't even tell your spouse when you know nothing about the person you are telling those details to? Would you have phone sex with someone whose number was carved on the wall of a subway restroom?

You might ask "who would do things?" and wonder how I could ask such silly questions. But, if you've ever entered into an online relationship, you may have done all of that and more.

The virtual world can be a very dangerous place. It is the only place I know that anyone, anywhere, can be anyone they want to be. Who's to know if "Mr Perfect" is a truly sensitive guy or if he's on death row and having fun with trusting strangers?

SET UP FOR ONLINE BETRAYALS

Betrayal is devastating when it happens in real life, when our husband or wife does the unthinkable. Regaining trust after a spouse betrays us can take years, if ever. And, yet, we think nothing of trusting someone we "meet" online, exposing our deepest secrets, and becoming emotionally involved even before we've met them in real life.

In real life, we're able to put a face and personality together, and, while we certainly don't know everything we may need to know to form a friendship or relationship, we have quite a bit. In a first meeting we can tell whether or not there's a "spark" that might grow to a flame or more.

In the virtual world, we use our imagination to "flesh out" the other person, giving him or her all the characteristics that we "need" him or her to have.

A skillful manipulator is able to use just the right words to draw us into an emotional and/or sexual relationship, all without stepping away from his or her computer.

Photo exchanges are no guarantee of who you're sending email to, IMing or chatting with. It's very easy for someone to "lift" a photo of another person from any number of sources online and pass it off as their own.

Not every online encounter is going to be dangerous or deceptive but do you know which ones are honest and which aren't? When you're in a support group sharing details of your marriage, don't assume that everyone in the group is there for the same reason.

THE POWER OF THE WRITTEN WORD

Do you have an online friend with whom you feel comfortable talking about everything including very intimate personal issues even though you've never met in real life? Do you feel that honesty is an integral part of this relationship? Do you feel that this person may be or is your soul mate?

Here's how one woman described an online relationship:

"We talked about everything and he was so honest about how he felt and he offered me the support none of my family -- and certainly not my husband -- had ever offered. He didn't push for anything more than what I was willing to give; he was the ultimate gentleman. He even said he understood when I told him I was emailing other men, and he didn't object. He said there was no rush, that he'd take a cue from my needs. There was no pressure like the other guys I'd met in chat.

I was emotionally hooked by the time we arranged a meeting and I really thought it went well, no awkward pauses, and we seemed to 'click' in a physical way although I didn't go back to his room with him.

He was only in town for one day and when we parted he said he missed me already and promised to call as soon as he got home.

I expected to get an email the next day but there was nothing and he wasn't in chat and he didn't log onto IM. I waited until the second day to send an email which he never responded to. By the end of a week I felt emotionally raw. I've never heard from him again. What did I do wrong?"

She, as so many others before her, trusted the written words of a virtual stranger. With those words, she created a "real" person, one who filled all of her needs. She "fleshed out" his words to create her soul mate.

Never underestimate the power of the imagination. When he says he has dark hair, you imagine he looks like your favorite movie star. You give him a sexy voice, a beautiful smile, a winning personality. He becomes the perfect man, the man with all the right words at all the right times.

He becomes the one person who can brighten your day just by emailing "Hello, beautiful!" or IMing a smile. He's the first person you think about when you wake up in the morning, the last person you think of as you fall asleep at night. He fills in the emotional blanks within your life.

The two of you grow closer. You become dependent upon him and distance yourself from your real life relationships.

Would he be as wonderful, as comforting, as perfect, in real life? We'll never know how many women have pushed for an off-line meeting only to have their cyber soul mate disappear forever. Other women meet their dream man to find that he isn't single or separated but married and looking only for a lover. Words are easy, reality isn't.

ASSUME ONE PERSON IS A PREDATOR

In the virtual world, assume that at least one person in a chat room or a forum is a predator and act accordingly:

Don't post personal details in an open forum; don't assume that a private forum is any safer. On the Internet, there is no 100% safe place.

Don't email personal details to strangers no matter how understanding and solicitous they may appear.

Don't give out personal details when you're using chat or Instant Message programs even if the other person gives these details to you. They may have given you false information in an attempt to build up your trust.

Even if you feel you can trust the person you've been chatting or emailing, don't give out your address, phone number, or last name. With internet searches, someone with even one personal detail can probably find out where you live and more.

If you're planning to meet someone you've met online, make your first meeting in a fairly busy public place and take a friend along.

Be SURE to take someone with you, at least give them details of who you're meeting, where you're meeting, and when you'll be back to work or home.

No matter how the sparks fly at that first meeting, don't invite him or her back to your place.

No matter how comfortable you feel at that first meeting, don't take a drive with them or let them drop you off at your house.

Trust your "gut." There is no need to force yourself to like someone. That's exactly the point of meeting face-to-face: to see if the "bond" you feel for this person is real or illusion.

Have you been betrayed by your spouse? Have you come to the Web for comfort and support? Have you trusted in virtual friends and been hurt when they've betrayed you? After being betrayed in real life, why would you think a virtual relationship would be any safer from betrayal? Behind that keyboard, all those many miles away, is a real person, not a perfect person.

Remember Ted Bundy? He was a real charmer. I'm not implying that your online friend is another Ted Bundy but until you are absolutely certain he or she isn't, play it smart and safe.

Red Flags!

1. Be wary of the guy who is busier than the President of the United States. Doesn't have the time to see you. Has too much work to do.
- Volunteers for additional assignments.
- Needs to wind down-with his buddies in a bar-rather than spend time with you.
- Doesn't know if he can "control" himself with you.
- Must spend more time with his children. Must do laundry. Must pay his bills.
- And the best one of all, must have "time for himself."

If he can't manage a few hours with you on a regular basis, his priorities are questionable. Chances are he is only paying lip service to how important you are in his life.

2. Be wary of the guy who can't be with you on important occasions: your birthday, Valentine's Day, when you need some emotional support, etc. (things even a GOOD FRIEND would do for you).
- If he can't rearrange his schedule to put you on top of his list, at least occasionally, you will always take a back seat to the rest of his life.

3. Keep a record, however brief, of his stories, missed appointments, too tired to chat, says GTG and yet you still see him online and all excuses. Save all chats even if he asks you to delete them!
- Pay attention to the details. A liar eventually trips up over his own lies.
- Has trouble remembering what he said the last time he spoke to you. Has trouble juggling his lies.
- If his responses sound vague or hesitant, something is wrong.
- If his stories, dates, or excuses change from day to day, something is wrong.
- If he tells you NOT to tell people about you & he, or to talk about your relationship with people you both know: WARNING. He needs to keep you and his other targets apart so you don't compare notes and catch him lying.

4. If his stories are too fantastic to be believable, they probably are not to be believed.
-Tales of exploits that are more appropriate for the pages of a Tom Clancy novel are especially suspect. (like William Michael Barber)
-Also, be wary of stories designed to elicit sympathy, i.e., dramatic or morbid deaths in his history, unusual or unexplained illnesses, or marital unhappiness etc.

5. Be wary of the guy who equates truthfulness with confrontation. Turns the tables on you. Makes you feel guilty about asking questions. Accuses you of doing things he is actually doing (PROJECTION).
- If he backs away from your inquiries, it's probably because he is less than truthful himself, and his life cannot bear close scrutiny.


6. Neither a lender nor a borrower be. Keep what is yours yours until the signing of the nuptials. (and even then!)
- Loaning money to a lover can upset the balance in a romantic relationship. No matter how noble or unselfish your intentions, he feels emasculated. Or he's using you as an ATM.
- Don't waste your efforts; if he is in the least insecure (a likely possibility), he will resent you for your actions.

7. Be wary of the guy who uses his children as an excuse not to see you (like Robert Darden). He may say it's too soon to meet his children; he doesn't want them to develop a fondness for you and then get hurt if things don't work out.
- That may be a legitimate concern in the beginning of a relationship - after all, no one wants a steady stream of lovers in their children's lives.
- Something is definitely wrong, however, if after several months, no attempt is made to involve you in their lives. More likely, the problem is not with the children but with the father.

8. Be concerned if you don't meet his friends.
- Either he doesn't have any, a sure sign of problems, or he doesn't want you to meet them perhaps because you may find out something you shouldn't.

9. Be suspicious if he won't introduce you to his family.
- The reason may be that he is not as serious about you as he claims to be or that he is afraid you will find out something you shouldn't. (like Yidwithlid)

10. Be suspicious of the guy who is unreachable. His cell phone is turned off for long periods of time. Or he doesn't return your calls until hours later. Or he is afraid to give you the number.
- If he claims he didn't get your calls or repeatedly blames the workmanship of his cell phone, recognize that for what it is: an excuse.
- He doesn't care about you enough to give you the number - something he'd give to a business acquaintance. Time for you to leave.

11. If he doesn't show up when he says he will, and worse yet, doesn't call with one heck of a good excuse, cross him off your Christmas card list.
- Standing up a woman is a sign of disrespect. If you excuse the behavior once, twice, thinking you are being understanding, you are just asking for more of the same.

12. Be VERY wary of the guy that runs hot and cold.
- First, he can't get enough of you; then all you get is days or weeks of total silence. Play the game by your rules, not his; your schedule, not his. Get on with your life; don't wait for his change in mood or affection. He may be 'grooming' you (seducing) to use & abuse later. (like Beckstead)
- His controlling behavior only serves to make you a victim of his mercurial and thoughtless whims.

13. Listen to your friends. Ask them what they think.
-They have your best interests at heart and are not likely to be blinded by your friend's charms. Hopefully, they will think enough of you to be truthful. If no one sees in him what you see, there is something wrong.
- Again, if he tells you NOT to tell your friends about you & he and/or doesn't want to meet them... drop him.

14. Check out your lover.
- Run his name, nicknames, and email addresses through a couple online search engines. Read EVERY PAGE.
- Hire a detective to establish the basics. Be observant.
- If you get a chance to visit his home, carefully examine your surroundings. Study photos on the wall. Certificates. Look at albums. Anything to establish he is who he says he is.
- If you know where he works, see if his company has a website. Make sure his description of what he does for a living tallies with what you learn. Cross check the work number that he gives you to the number that is listed in the phone book.
- Ask him to go to lunch. Meet him at his office. If there is any resistance to this suggestion, be wary. Why doesn't he want people to know he knows you??
- If a divorce is in his background (a likely possibility for those of us over 50) and he is from your area, spend time at the local courthouse. Some public records are available to the public. While you should not believe everything that is said by warring partners, you will get a sense of what you might have to face yourself. (If he's not from your area - again, try an internet search!)
- And while you are at it, check to see if there are any criminal or civil proceedings lodged against him.

15. Invest in a phone with caller ID. Screening your calls is not the only purpose for this useful function; you will also get a pretty good idea of where your guy is when he calls.

16. Learn to recognize inappropriate behavior for what it really is: behavior that you really don't want in your life on a permanent basis.
- Trust in your own common sense. You are a valuable person and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity; if you don't get that, move on. There are others who will appreciate your value.


"Never Too Late to Learn"
(56) Bethesda, Maryland

FROM DateSmart.com

(this article uses the male gender, yours may be female)

Cyberstalker Invited Men to Woman's Home

By MARK MORRIS

As Shawn D. Memarian remembered it Wednesday, his relationship with a woman he met online in 2006 “ended in a sour way.”

Classic understatement.

Memarian, 29, of Kansas City, pleaded guilty to a federal cyberstalking charge for relentlessly harassing the woman through threatening and intimidating e-mails and by posting bogus Web ads inviting men to her home. Many men appeared — expecting sex.

Memarian, who faces up to five years in prison, said he understood that he went way over the line.

“I know what I did was wrong,” he told a federal judge before pleading guilty. “I did cause her distress, and I’m very sorry for what I did.”

The two met in mid-June 2006, while he was working as a civilian contractor at Fort Leavenworth. By July 15, the relationship had cooled. In court records, Memarian agreed that he wanted her to return some personal items and reimburse him $76 for the cost of one of their dates. He later wanted her to pay half of his lawyer’s fee for defending him against an order of protection she had filed.

In court Wednesday, Memarian said he also was upset that someone had scratched his vehicle, and he suspected it was her.

“Oh and I don’t make threats, I get even,” he wrote on July 27.

When his victim told him she was saving his e-mails for police, Memarian reminded her of claims he had made earlier that he once had dated a woman related to a Kansas City organized-crime family.

Subsequently, the woman received threatening e-mails from an alias — “Sal Civella” — created on Memarian’s computer at the Army post.

Memarian ramped up the harassment in August and began posing as the woman, creating two online personal ads on MySpace.com and Craigslist.com. He posted her phone number and home address in the ads and described her as a “sex freak” seeking sexual encounters.

She received phone calls and visits at her home from about 30 unknown men in August and September 2006.

“She did, in fact, have men knocking on her door at all hours of the day, thinking they were about to have sex with her,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney John Cowles.

Memarian also posted personal ads on Facebook.com and created a Web site on GeoCities.com to threaten the woman. Prosecutors said that between August 2006 and May 9, 2008, the date of his arrest, he sent more than 75 threatening e-mails to the woman, who since has moved out of state.

“Since his arrest there have been no more communications,” Cowles said.

Most people who face federal charges on computer-related offenses are unaware of just how well their computers preserve evidence for investigators. Memarian would appear to be the exception.

He holds a bachelor’s degree in information systems and worked as an applications developer while at Fort Leavenworth. His resume shows skills in 11 computer languages and technologies.

Still, when the FBI and police went knocking, Army criminal investigators willingly provided a copy of the hard drive from Memarian’s government computer. That revealed evidence of the e-mail accounts he used to threaten the victim and showed how he used Facebook.com to intimidate her.

ORIGINAL

One of our exposed Predators DID THIS SAME THING and got away with it!

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

READING RED FLAG BEHAVIORS IN INTERNET DATING

by Mary Jo Fay, RN, MSN

So you’re single again and the concept of Internet dating seems new and exciting! Upon your first glimpse, you feel like a kid in a candy store! New partners by the hundreds! People just like you – divorced, or otherwise broken relationships, hurt feelings, wounded souls – just looking to be loved by someone like YOU! Right??

Well, beware. Just as you need to be careful when you meet people in the bar scene, the Internet is chock full of predators as well. However, there are lots of "Red Flags" to look for to protect yourself, IF you know how to read the signs.

I’m tempted to write a book just on Internet dating "smarts." You know – things like what to say and not to say to appear to be kind, generous, and all those things that make the writer appear to be a perfect catch. And yet, how would the unsuspecting know then? The red flags would all be hidden and booby traps would be walked into by unsuspecting victims by the score!

Naw – I think it’s best to warn you – the recipient, what to look for and let the narcissistic Don Juan’s (or their female counterparts) show their true colors for what they are!

Here are a few actual statements from profiles of men currently on the Internet dating scene …

"I’m one of those individuals that is looking for a attractive, well kept, female…"

On his description of himself, he claims to be "very attractive."(Big red flag!)Hmmmm… has he looked in the mirror lately? Balding, slightly overweight, posed in three pictures on his Harley need I say more?

"Seeking smart, funny, sexy, balanced, introspective, well read, credible, flexible, independent, complete woman with a fine ass. If her ass is other than fine, I’ll guess we’ll have to focus on her brains and personality. If you’re not smiling right now, then my sense of humor either didn’t translate or you’ll not think me charming."

Was that supposed to be cute and endear him to me? I’ll pass…

Then of course, there are the guys who list their income, ($100,000 -$200,000!) and absolutely nothing else about themselves! Guess they figure that with their money they can get anyone they want. If you fall for that, it’s important to realize up front that money is the only thing important to them. There will not be depth of character, an interesting, empathetic personality, an interest in YOU.

"I dress my women in the finest clothes." (MY WOMEN?!)

This actual statement came from the same $200,000 income gentleman who sent me this quick email that said, "Meet me at Jake’s Bar tomorrow night at 7. You won’t be disappointed!" That’s it. No info on him except about his money and how he "dressed HIS women in the finest clothes."

Hmmmmm… when I opened up his photos, there he was with a woman who looked just like me! Talk about CREEPY!

I wrote him back and said "No thank you," that I didn’t think our profiles showed much in common. He wrote back livid … "What? You’re refusing to meet with me?" In essence … his ego screamed back over email, (never a pretty site) and I blocked any further communication with this demigod with all his money and fine clothes!

Another man (age 64), "winked" at me (I’m 48) to show me that he was interested. I guess he thought he was saving himself time and trouble with a bio that said something like this:

"I have retired here in Texas where it is warm and I can spend lots of time on my boat. Seeking a wonderful, attractive, intelligent woman companion to do the same with me. No fatties please."

NO FATTIES, PLEASE?!

Does he think that only overweight women will then leave him alone? Is he so blind not to understand that ANY woman with a brain will see that and say "What a jerk!"

Then of course, there are those mid life crisis statements that send me running the other way… Things like "Seeking someone age 25 – 35" when they themselves are 45 or beyond. (What, do they want to date their daughter? Will she even know what he’s talking about when he mentions the Kennedy asassination?) Or even weirder, the guy is age 45 but he’s looking for someone up to age 44. Now what’s up with that?

Of course, the other side of that is someone who is middle aged but has to be sure to tell readers in the first paragraph that "I look and act much younger than my age." PLEEAAASSEEEE!!!

Of course, if you do meet with one that seems like Mr. (or Ms.) Right, don’t be surprised if the person who arrives for your date looks 10 or 15 years older than the person in the photos … posting pics from the "younger years" seems to be a common behavior as well!

If someone seems too good to be true … they probably are!

SOURCE

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

Online Gossip: Entertainment? or Harassing Smear?

By Kianga Kelley

To some it's entertainment, but to others it's just down right cruel. Have internet gossip blogs and message boards gone too far?

You might remember Lori Drew, the recently convicted Missouri mom accused of harassing a teenager on MySpace to the point where she committed suicide. Well, there's a young lady in Baton Rouge looking to prevent these types of tragedies.

Many people enjoy a little gossip every now and then, but what happens when those gossip blogs are about you? Kavon Davis, a senior at Southern University, knows first hand how it feels.

Davis says she was shocked when her name appeared more than once next to what some would consider vulgar and harassing information on a Facebook group called "The Questions."

"It really hurt because I didn't know him and I didn't know why he wanted to do that to me."

Davis isn't the only victim of this blog; the site also targets university officials as well as politicians. Fed up with the humiliation, Davis says she complained to the university urging them to put an end to the blog. She says a hearing was held last week and the student responsible was placed on probation, a decision Davis says isn't good enough.

"If you're not in school for higher learning or to prepare yourself for corporate America you shouldn't be here and this institution shouldn't allow him to be here."

We contacted Southern officials but were told by law the university cannot release any information regarding a student hearing.

And these types of message boards are not just happening in Baton Rouge. As a matter of fact there is a website called juicycampus.com where students nationwide post anonymous written attacks on anyone.

LSU freshman Alex Baynhan says, "Sometimes the stuff they say is just unnecessary. Not everything people do has to get out to the public."

Katherine Gordon, a senior at LSU, says,

"Freedom of speech I understand, but there comes a point you're crossing the line, you're starting to hurt people's feelings."

Not everyone is disappointed with the Facebook group; many students are backing up the site's creator. Kavon Davis says she came forward because she feels sites like these could turn some people to violence or even suicide and she wants them to stop.

She says she's working on finding an attorney.

ORIGINAL

ARE YOU A CYBERBULLY? - TAKE THE QUIZ

Often our cyberpaths, once found out and/or exposed turn into a cyberbully to silence their victims. We have had threats of lawsuits against victims. (No predator really wants their lies or cover-up exposed!)

Other predators have threatened their victims' families, children, friends, jobs, reputations. Two even started hate sites about their victims, blaming them for everything. Both were even so childish as to think she was US!! (They only see their exposes and not the slew of the rest of them!!)

Our very first exposed predator, Charles 'Ed' Hicks still claims its "all false" and is back online doing the same all over again as well as being WANTED for jumping probation! In fact he tells new potential victims he's suing his ex-wives, Very Bad Men, Dr. Phil and the court system in Virginia for their supposedly false accusations and writing a 'tell-all' book with the 'truth!' LOL. Don't hold your breath, readers.

Of course there's the old "SHE'S JUST A SCORNED WOMAN" or "HE'S A JILTED LOVER" excuses in cyber affairs. Real life affairs use them too when the predator wants to play victim and make everyone feel sorry for him - including new targets. It's a joke. (Our advice? The minute you hear that 'scorned woman' defense? Make it your business to contact this 'scorned woman' or 'jilted man'! Someone with no secrets or destructive agenda wouldn't care if you spoke to their ex! Same applies to women predators.)

So let's find out - did your online love or cyber-friend turn into a cyberbully? Or were they a cyberbully all along?
from: DEATH BY 1000 PAPERCUTS:

Cyber-harassment, cyber-stalking, cyber-group bully, cyber-Gossip: all of these categories fall under the tactics of a cyber-bully.

Here is a quiz, take it and see it you’re a cyber-bully or if you've ever pulled some other cyber-bullying tactics during your time on-line.

Have you ever done this?

1.Signed on with someone else’s nic and password to get information.
While this does not seem like cyber-bullying if this information was to be used for ill-will, then, yes, it is cyber-bullying.

2. Sent an email or online greeting card from someone else’s account.
Again, some may claim that this is not cyber-bullying, if the email or online greeting is used to stalk or harass someone, then it falls under cyber-bullying.

3. Forwarded a private IM or email without permission.
This could be construed as a “grey” area. After all, it’s merely passing on a private email or IM and some would argue as fairly innocuous.

It boils down to intent.

Was the private conversation/email sent to someone or others with the intent to spread gossip or do harm? While most likely the victim may never know their communication has been forwarded to others, this is still harmful to that person. This is not direct cyber-bullying, more like back-stabbing cyber-bullying tactics.

4. Hacked into someone’s PC, website or blog
Not only is this cyber-bullying but also cyber-stalking and illegal. A 33-yr-old man in Florida was just sentenced to prison for 110 years after being convicted of hacking into MySpace teenaged girl’s PC’s. He threatened to harm to them or their families if they didn’t send him lewd photos.

5. Sent a virus or Trojan Horse?
This is malicious behavior with intent to do harm.

6. Posted rude, nasty or vicious (untrue) comments about someone online
Back to intent. Some blogs or forums can get heated and contentious but if someone’s intent is to solely post rude, nasty or vicious comments about another poster then this is cyber-bullying and cyber-gossiping.

7. Teased or frightened someone during IM chats
Teasing that goes over the line, that is meant to chip away someone’s self-esteem. The victim cries foul, the perpetrator claims “teasing.” Boo! (Not that kind of fright) Frightening someone can mean making threats to do harm.

8. Joined in a clique on a blog, website or chatroom that enjoyed driving other posters offsite
Not often talked about are the “community” blogs or chatrooms where “like-minded” posters form cliques. Part of their activities are to single out other posters for the sole purpose of driving the target off the site. This is often done in the guise of “for the good of the blog or chatroom.”

9. Accused someone of a crime online without proof
The person who is unfairly accused of committing a crime online usually has nowhere to turn. The accusers are for the most part, anonymous, the “accusation” gets spread without proof.

10. Followed someone across the Web
Kept track of other online posters, following them from blog to blog, chatroom to chatroom, site to stie. This is a form of soft-core Cyber-stalking. Not the same as showing up at their door but enough to creep anyone out. (Cyberpaths do this to see if any of their victims are "talking about them" to anyone else and then raging on as "being the victim" themselves!)

(many of our victims feel that they need to find out if their cyberpath is "doing it again" or "harming anyone else." EOPC does NOT consider that cyberstalking but accountability as well as compulsory in order to stop these predators from throwing one life away to start destroying another)

Did you answer "yes" to any of these?

Only you know the answer to that question. If you did, maybe it was a one-time occurrence. Only you know the answer to that one, too.

If you were guilty of any of these actions, you should think about changing your behavior.

Unless you want to be a cyber-bully.

ORIGINAL (and more great posts!) HERE

IS IT LEGAL (redux)

We are reposting this article due to popular demand:
IS IT LEGAL (To Expose a Cheater or Abuser Online)? by Fighter

CLICK HERE TO READ

And an excerpt from a recent article along the same legal lines:

"Obviously, the men have the option of attempting to sue the women who post information about them, if they can figure out who they are. No one yet has been able to unmask a poster or sue an exposure website successfully. No one. "(Of course the women can then countersue for INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS and ALIENATION OF AFFECTION (if married). Since many women develop permanent PTSD [Emotional Rape Syndrome] adrenal fatigue and severe depression from Cyberpaths - these women's claims may be easier to prove. - Fighter)

If the Postings are False, Are They Defamatory?

....Moreover, "substantial truth" - truth in substance, but not in the details -- is a full defense to a defamation claim. So any man who is contesting a claim of infidelity, probably should never have been unfaithful.
(Which is why this site has such a rigorous standard of proof - Fighter)

"...The owner of DontDateHimGirl was threatened with a lawsuit, later sued and the court threw out the suit completely says:

"Most of them say that the [person] who posted [the profile] is crazy, that something is wrong with [the poster/target], that they're saints."

and

"If someone posted my picture/profile in a database and I learned of it but it wasn't true, then I probably wouldn't waste my time even rebutting it. Why? Because if I'm innocent, then the burden is not on me to prove such, at least not under American jurisprudence — legal or moral. And I don't use and abuse people online or off - so I am not afraid of scrutiny.

In short - its a catharsis the victims won't get anywhere else. What are the victims of these men and women to do with their anger, pain and hurt? Suck it up and allow the abuser to move on to another victim? Tell or not tell his spouse, partner or family? Stew in their feelings?"

and

"A former U.S. attorney Scott Christie was quoted in the New Jersey Star Ledger,

"Yes, it's all legal. If I were the owners of (such a) site, I wouldn't be concerned. They're providing an outlet for people to express their opinion.

It's much like hosting a bulletin board for people with a common interest,. People are giving their opinion about other people - they're entitled to it under the First Amendment."

And this from Canada.com:

According to a privacy lawyer from Halifax, (snip)

"If the person's reputation is in Canada, and they are in Canada, and likely the person who posted the information is in Canada, there's more than enough connection for Canadian defamation law to apply," says David T.S. Fraser, chair of the privacy practice group at McInnes Cooper. BUT he hastens to add the statements aren't considered defamatory if they're true.

"If you're a slug," says Mr. Fraser, "it's only appropriate people know you're a slug."

FOR THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL ARTICLE
CLICK HERE