Internet Romance Gone Horribly Wrong

Michael Roberts and Tracey Richter were one of the first "internet marriages."  It went horribly wrong.  Richter is now in prison after being convicted of murder.  Roberts runs Rexxfield.com while fending off smear campaigner Darren Meade, among other things.  Most important - Roberts is fighting for custody of his children.

From "60 MINUTES":

Part 1 of 2:
Part 2 of 2:

Like a classic cyberpath, Darren Meade befriended Roberts and when Roberts started to see who Meade truly was, Meade went on the attack. Our support group members will attest - Once you are wise to them: Cyberpaths start finding anyone and everyone who has a grudge against you to join in a group 'mobbing' or group 'smear campaign'. This is also known as proxy recruitment.

In proxy recruitment - people (such as cyberpaths) will find others who dislike or are angry with their target. Befriend them, often telling others what they believe or want to hear to get close to them - even if its false information, and add them to their effort of character assassination of the target.

Robert's relationship to Darren Meade, and Meade's involving himself with Tracey Richter's case explained:

ONE:
TWO:
THREE:


Readers, meeting someone on the internet is dangerous. The relationships that have success are outnumbered by those that end in heartbreak, financial ruin, trauma, death and lives permanently shattered. - EOPC 


"Telling the truth can be dangerous business" - unknown

Thank you to Michael Roberts

When Your Online Life is Hacked

By Rowenna Davis

(NEW ZEALAND) In a technology-driven society, when an account gets hacked, you're suddenly hit with an organisational bombshell as the realisation dawns that the email account is the nexus of the modern world.
For the past week, a hacker has been occupying my email account. And he or she may still be there. A disembodied intruder, this person has been stalking my inbox, replying to messages, signing off with my nickname and refusing to let me in. He or she has been going through my personal history and making judgments about my character.

In the weirdest twist, the hacker even started writing to me. If it wasn't so unsettling, it could be the plot of a black postmodern comedy.

It started when my phone went crazy in the middle of a crucial meeting. Some 5000 contacts received an email from my account saying that I'd been held up at gunpoint in Madrid. My internet-savvy friends sent texts to say I'd been hacked, while my elderly, migrant and more vulnerable friends wanted to know where to send the cash. According to the story, my mobile phone and credit cards had been taken and I was badly in need of money. There was a number to call to reach me at my hotel - presumably chargeable - and a Western Union account had been set up in my name to wire a transfer.

Suddenly you're hit with an organisational bombshell: drop what you're doing; freeze your bank account, answer anxious calls, lose crucial messages; miss work deadlines, irritate bosses, reset all email-based passwords, forget to pay e-bills, irritate friends who think you're ignoring them. The realisation dawns that the email account is the nexus of the modern world. It's connected to just about every part of our daily life and, if something goes wrong, it spreads.

But the biggest effect is psychological. On some level, your identity is being held hostage.

Out of sheer frustration, I fired off an email to my occupied address labelled "to those who hacked my account", laying out how I felt and asking for my contacts. Shockingly, I got an almost instantaneous reply. The hacker said my address book would be returned for £500 ($989). It was unreal. Whoever it was must have been watching my account and responding. Who else was this person replying to in the same way?

I wrote back straight away, saying that I didn't have those kind of finances and pointing out that I had no reason to believe the deal would be kept even if I did send the money. I couldn't help but end with a rhetorical: "Do you ever feel even slightly bad about what you are doing?"

Just for a minute, the hacker seemed anxious to prove that he or she had any sense of morality. The reply: it "didn't feel great" to be a hacker, but they didn't have a choice. Why? They said their life "wasn't as nice and sweet" as mine. In what I guess was supposed to be a gesture of magnanimity, the hacker promised to release my contacts for just £300, and even offered to send me 20 contacts upfront as a sign of "goodwill".

I could tell this person thought this was being reasonable - that these actions weren't as bad as robbing people on the streets.

What I wanted to reply, but found difficult to articulate at the time, was that hacking can be worse than that. When someone holds you up in the street, you lose a set of isolated possessions and then get to walk away. But if someone colonises one of your chief platforms of interaction with the world, there's always a feeling of "what next?" They can read your most intimate emails and potentially pass them on. A simple search would allow them to find out not just my address, but also those of my friends and family.


Apparently around 3000 people reported such scams last year, but too few of these are brought to justice. When I did eventually get access to my account through Gmail a week later, I found that the hacker had written to more than 30 people who had asked about my problems in Madrid. The intruder said I'd had a "terrible experience" and signed off with my nickname, "Row". That someone could be so callous to people who cared about me - in my name - left me furious.

I was lucky. The only reason I was able to regain access to my account was through chance - a friend of a friend works at Google. Until then, my hacker had given me better feedback than Gmail and Google, following my attempts to get in touch with them. The company that presents itself as the friendly face of the web doesn't have a single human to talk to in these circumstances. The office just cut me off and, after a friend waited on hold for 20 minutes to ask if there was anything that could be done to help, the reply was a simple "nope".

When someone did bother to look into my problem, it took only five minutes to fix. The hacker had doubled the verification process on my password so I couldn't get in. Once Google disabled it from the inside, I was able to reset all my security checks without a problem.

Even now, I'm not sure it's over. In one last message, addressed from myself just two days ago, the hacker wrote: "I see you got the account back. Sorry for the trouble." I never replied, so I guess I'll never know what this individual's circumstances were. But I feel the need to understand them. Perhaps we believe that if we find reasons for things, we'll feel safer. Perhaps it's about restoring faith in human nature.

However, my hacker seems to have disappeared back into the ether. Of course, they could be reading this now.

Chatting with a hacker

Tuesday, 8.33am
From: Rowenna Davis
Hi, I can't believe you would do this. The poorest, most vulnerable of my contacts are the most worried about me and most likely to send you money. The most educated people with resources know it's a scam. I also find it difficult to make ends meet, but without access to this account I can't work because all my contacts are stored in the account you have taken over. I am totally paralysed. If there is any way you can send me my address book, I would be willing to pay for it. It's horrible to be forwarded messages that have been sent in your own name. I honestly don't know how you justify this to yourself.

8.42am
From: the hacker
Can you send me 500 quid?

10.33am
From: Rowenna Davis
1) I literally don't have 500 quid to give you. I can't make any more money until I have access to my account back - I work freelance and all my work contacts are being held by you. 2) How would I know if I gave you any money that you'd actually send me my contacts? 3) Do you ever feel even slightly bad about what you're doing?

10.38am
From: the hacker
Sure I don't feel great, but I don't seem to have a choice, it's way better than robbing you on the streets. I give you my word, if you send me money, I will give you back access to you account with all your emails and contacts intact. If you can't send 500 quid at least 300 quid will do. Send money by Western Union to Rowenna Davis Madrid Spain. Waiting

10.40am
From: Rowenna Davis
Why don't you have a choice?

10.44am
From: the hacker
You don't wanna the kinda life I am living. You think it's as nice and sweet as your life? But at least I don't rob on the streets

10.56am
From: Rowenna Davis
I'm not making judgments about your life - you are making judgments about mine. If you read some of those emails you'll know it gets pretty shit at this end too. And even if my life was really happy, I don't see why that justifies you taking over my emails. But I wonder why you feel that you have no choice.

10.58am
From: the hacker
Are you sending money?

11.17am
From: Rowenna Davis
I don't have £300. I have asked some of my friends if they can help, but they think it's a stupid idea because you can't be trusted to return the details.

11.23am
From: the hacker
I don't need your details for anything, to show some good will I could give you about 20 contacts, then when you send money, I give you the rest of it.

Thursday, 11.04pm
From: the hacker
I see you got back your account. Sorry for the trouble.

original article found here

ONLINE ATTACKS

by Robin M.

Why So Many Feel Big When They Hide Behind A Screen

I’ve often joked that the internet is the last place that beating up women in public is still considered acceptable. Ask any woman who writes online, be it politics, women’s rights, often even parenting and more mundane social issues, and you will hear a nearly universal admittance that she has at some point been attacked for her views by at least one anonymous commenter. Not an “I disagree with you because x, y,z…” response, but a “You stupid bitch, why do you think you can write what you write.”

I used to be amazed by the vitriol. Then I was saddened. Eventually, though, I saw that as just another part of the territory when you open yourself up as a writer online.

I accepted it. We all pretty much accept it. That is the part that should make us all angry — our now inherent acceptance of the idea that if you write online, you will be harassed, especially if you are a woman.

As Nina Funell explains in this piece in the Australian, “The internet has absolutely changed the nature of public debate. The anonymity and the immediacy it gives people who want to indulge in abuse and hate… I don’t know if it actually makes it more or less dangerous [to have a public profile] but when you’re seeing a whole heap of hate speech written about you in separate forums, targeting you via email or in comments, I do know that it has a profound impact on your sense of safety…”

I’ve always been lucky to feel safe, despite opening a great deal of my private life online because of my writing about infertility and reproductive health. Although I have had my own share of comments, both with real names (I assume) attached or sent anonymously, I have learned to ignore them as simply a part of my work. I never stop to question why it should ever be a part of anyone’s “work” to deal with online harassment.

Once, things escalated beyond just comments and insults. It was a shocking realization of not just how exposed you actually do leave yourself online, but how free those who disagree with you feel it is allowable to step beyond the normal bounds of public and private life in order to “teach you a lesson” about how wrong you are about the things you believe.

I learned my lesson well. I learned that to allow someone to silence you online is to lose your power, and that when your personal life goes on line, you don’t go quiet, you identify it for what it is — an attack by someone who wants to intimidate you from acting on your beliefs. You must learn to change that attack into something that can become a positive for you, a chance to show your strength, expand your audience, whatever it is that they are trying to stop you from accomplishing.

The internet may always be the last place for attacks, especially attacks on women, to thrive. But we don’t have to accept it, we have to fight it.

original article here

Should Victims Embrace Docile Victimhood? Or Fight Back?

For all victims & those who tell them to "get over it" and "move on":


by writer Kathy Kracjo

I am death on people telling the victim that it's a sin to fight back. They are pressuring the victim to do the very thing that causes victims to suffer terrible shame in the aftermath of abuse -- give themselves up to it.

That shame we feel at doing so is an infallible indicator that it's wrong. No one needs a book or a preacher to tell them what's right and wrong. We KNOW that's wrong. Deep down inside we feel how wrong it is to give ourselves up to abuse. Doing so makes us feel like a worm. A doormat. We know it's lack of backbone. We sense the prostitution in it. We feel utterly degraded by it.

The only excuse for it is being subjected to overwhelming force so that we haven't the power to resist. Which is rape. Which is why we feel deeply violated by it. Whether it's sexual rape or any other kind.

So, we know that we must resist when we can. If only for the sake of our self respect.

And anyone who tells us that we shouldn't fight the aggressor might as well order us to be a self masochist who injures himself.

They are pressuring the victim to prostitute themselves to abuse. How degrading! They are pressuring the victim to do what causes a human being unbearable shame. How cruel! They are pressuring the victim to do what goes against the laws of nature, our instinct for self preservation. They are pressuring the victim to commit the worst breech of faith, the worst betrayal, there is -- treason against your very self by delivering yourself up to abuse.

That's what Joan of Arc called it -- "treason," "wretched treason." She preferred the stake.

If it would be wrong to surrender another person for abuse, why should it be right to surrender yourself to abuse?

Trying to force the victim to do that is what the narcissist does! It's bad enough to abuse someone, but when you become so sadistic that you make them bend over for it on top of it all, you have crossed the line into extreme perversity, the Sin of Sodom.

Docile victimhood is NOT a virtue, and people who think it is are devoid of moral sense. They are people who don't think about what they say any more than a parrot does. Nothing proves that easier than to just then ask them, "Well what if the abuse happenes to be sexual rape? Do you say the victim should bend over for it?"

Certainly not! These are the same folks who would say that a woman who bent over for it liked it and was a whore. They would say she must fight tooth and nail.

And that's just as stupid, because sometimes she doesn't dare fight. If she did, she'd get killed.

There are few ways that the victim of narcissistic abuse can fight back, especially when the victim is a child.

And whenever the victim does find a way to put up a resistance, there is always some holier-than-thou around to tell him or her that it's a sin.

You can't do that to people. That puts them in an impossible situation. That's what breaks minds.

Horrifying example. A kid is getting bullied at school. He periodically gets his head flushed in a toilet, while the "innocent" bystanders watch and laugh. He gets his lunch money stolen daily.

Now, would you willingly walk into a place where you know that someone is waiting for you to abuse you? Of course not. But we expect him to. So, when he skips school, he gets punished. We thus force him to present himself there daily for abuse. If he doesn't it's a sin.

So he punches the bully. Oh-oh. Now he committed another sin. He gets punished for that too, because "violence" (which force used in self defense ain't) is a sin.

So, he resorts to the last resort, the really stupid thing: he tells the counsellors about the abuse. They have "a talk" with the bully. Now the bully punishes him for that by escalating the abuse.

What is that kid going to do? We are forcing him to offer himself up for abuse like a sacrificial vicitm every single day.

Something's gotta give. He will decide to kill himself, and he may well decide to take others with him.

You can't force people to docilely submit to abuse. That's the most odious thing you can do to a human being. You are subjecting him to a slavery more odious and profound than that of the slaves, a kind of slavery we haven't seen since the macabre executions of the Middle Ages = slavery as someone else's property for the purpose of vicitimization.

Indeed, the victim isn't his own property if you deny his free will to the the extent that you deny him the right even to self preservation.

Those who think the Bible demands this had better re-read it. And study what the scholars have found and Church authorities have admitted -- how long after the events it was written, whom it was really written by, and how much it's been edited and added to since.

And applying a little common sense doesn't hurt either. For example, if Jesus thought defending yourself is a sin, why does scripture mention in several places that the apostles were armed? Duh, they were his bodyguards. And of course he told the three of them with him to put up their swords when he was captured -- because they were vastly outnumbered and just would have gotten killed. Interpreting that action as some sort of general prohibition again the use the use of force is absurd.

Common sense, common sense, common sense. There is nothing more dangerous than words of scripture in a mouth with its brain turned off.

Very often the victim can't fight back. At least not without that resistence resulting in greater harm to himself. But whenever he can, he has every right to. Indeed, the only morality a bully knows is a punch in the nose. It does work.

And the victims of a narcissist's abuse through character asssination have every right to accuse their accuser, to point the accusing finger right back at the narcissist to show that it's all projection. That's the victim's only defense! He or she should not be treated as though they are the attacker.

Character assassination is not nothing. It is character ASSASSINATION. I call it the abuse that keeps on abusing for the rest of that person's life. A crime in progress for the rest of that person's life, because that bad reputation pursues and continually damages the victim for the rest of their life. The victim has every right to defend himself from this ongoing abuse in whatever way he can.

SOURCE

NOTE: When other website owners find the need to participate in a smear campaign about a victim of someone else on their site -- members need to think twice. Especially support & recovery sites.

Especially when they elevate that predator to special status. How hateful.

Now ask yourself, why is it SO IMPORTANT to smear and attack someone for speaking their truth? If it really was all B.S. you'd let things stand because it would be so important. And to those who fall away because they are afraid to still be friends with the victims? Shame on you.

Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.
~ Whittaker Chambers

GARY STONE: Still Crazy After All These Years

Obviously, Gary Stone can't read. He didn't read the release form he rushed to sign when he wanted us to "expose" his victim -- we were in the process of checking all information when we learned the truth.

We have exposed Stone's latest helper here - and he continues to think he knows who we are, who is doing what - all of it crazy nonsense (as well as INCORRECT!!) Click here for his new blog which makes ZERO sense!!

STONE'S LATEST LOONY-EMAIL:

from Gary Stone date Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:57 PM subject pixies

Pixies signed that contract on both sides of the atlantic, I don't know any vic 1 or 2,
why are my pics on your website
Take down your silly blog, and I will take down mine(we did - for 2 1/2 years. Stone never took his down - just created new ones and kept harassing us for not being able to control google)

--
http://www.thetoylanderstpi.com

http://www.ilike.com/artist/The+Toylanders

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Additionally, before we ever said yes to his expose... he started FLOODING our email with long, rambling, incongruent emails about his victim... wanting this or that tweeked... as if he could simply use EOPC as a platform for his blathering. Huge Red Flag.

Stone's said he would "stop" or he would "take down his sites" MANY MANY MANY times before. We didn't post about him (we don't without the victim's o.k. or request) for years but he KEPT ON. Blogs kept being recreated and reposted... screams about EOPC being criminals, delusions that we were stalking him & somehow involved in his life going downhill... he didn't stop. He won't because he probably can't due to his disordered mind.
Our releases hold EOPC legally harmless. We haven't threatened Stone (though we have hard copies of threats HE has sent and posted) ; everything we post about anyone is either 100% verifiable fact or opinion - as it relates to the ongoing psychopathy education this site does; we haven't posted anything that could be used in identity theft and we haven't posted any obscenity.
Mr. Stone dreams on:

Domain Name oem.net ? (Network)
IP Address 209.113.176.# (Conversent Communications)
ISP Conversent Communications (Putnam Valley, NY)
Location - Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Massachusetts
City : Natick
Lat/Long : 41.4043, -73.8265 (Map)
Distance : 514 miles
Language English (U.K.)
en-gb
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 7.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor
Resolution : 1024 x 768
Color Depth : 32 bits
Time of Visit Oct 18 2008 2:48:00 pm
Last Page View Oct 18 2008 2:48:48 pm
Visit Length 48 seconds
Page Views 3
Referring URL http://www.google.co...pb_enus274us275&sa=2/
Search Engine google.co.uk
Search Words
character assassination by fighter,
lawsuit,
cyberpath.com sued

Stone was deeply distressed to find EOPC has never been sued. Never.

He has since lost that Internet Provider and now uses Comcast & proxies. Such as:

Number of Entries: 5 (3 this visit) Entry Page Time: 27 Apr 2011 09:03:58 PM Visit Length:5 mins 50 secs Browser:Firefox 4.0 OS:WinXP Resolution:1024x768

Total Visits: Location:Peabody, Massachusetts, United States IP Address:Comcast Cable (24.91.126.195) Referring URL: (No referring link) Entry Page: http://cyberpaths.blogspot.com/ Exit Page: http://cyberpaths.blogspot.com/

~~~~~~~~~~~

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION
A vicious personal verbal attack, especially one intended to destroy or damage a public figure's reputation.

From our research, only STONE has engaged in doing this -- we have presented checkable facts and educated opinion. Stone's reputation proceeds him. The only ones who are after him are the voices in his head and the only one who ruined his career - is HIM.

All our exposed Cyberpaths would be better served starting a support group to work on THEIR OWN ISSUES, including feeling all-powerful behind a keyboard and their delusions of grandeur and/or persecution.

MORE ON CHARACTER ASSASSINATION - CLICK HERE and HERE and HERE



Stone has been kind enough to promote EOPC on his own site: HERE (By the time you read this, Stone will probably have deleted, rewritten and re-worded as his mood swings move him. They all do the same things.)

Stone tries to SAY that we were shown THIS, that we "only saw" THAT, that we insinuate, that we are 'trying a legal case online', that we don't check facts and his favorite -- that we are lawbreaking criminals. Don't think we haven't heard this before. And we know its projection. Stone doesn't know what we have seen, what we were sent, what our 'motives' are ... and so. We'll tell you what our motives are and always have been --

to expose those who prey on, use, abuse, bully and attack other adults only for the shallow pathological people they really are; to validate & support victims and to provide education and support to those wishing to learn more about psychopathy, the after-effects and what can be done about it. Period.

Stone has a habit of reading a whole lot more into things than are really there. Stone, like all our exposed predators, likes to think he and his little world are a lot more important to us than they really are. We don't make anonymous phone calls, write anonymous emails or persecute anyone in their life. International calls can be expensive and we simply don't care or get THAT involved.

He even tried to say that 'Fox TV was on to us' because of THIS. HaHaHa -- if anything Fox TV and Dr. Ablow got in trouble for attacking us; not the other way around.

Stone says he's done his own research, which he fully believes - of who the Fighters are. He hasn't been right yet. So much for Stone's 'crack(ed) research' or listening to people who were purposely yanking his chain with PHONY INFORMATION just to make him look even nuttier than he already is!

Even the contact we had with his local police department revealed they all know who he is and would like nothing better than for him to be in jail or just gone somewhere else.

Stone erases and rewrites this stuff as fast as it goes up (like Jacoby & Dunetz/ Yidwithlid) -- and then rewrites history once again. Bizarre.

Here's more of his recent baseless craziness & attempt to provoke us as a 'fishing expedition'! (EOPC comments in dark blue)

Cyberpath's Fighter, threatened to "bury" me in August of 2008. (we didn't KNOW Stone in August 2008!) After I had written an article, a single page, on Elaine Smith's sex harassment at sound click. He emails anon and comments on a poll that I had about whether Soundlciick's treatment of me was fair. He says this below: But it gets much worse, as he intends to make his threat real.Here he is eventually pretending to be a nurse licensed in the state of Mass. (something we never did. ever.) For Google's benefit, we have the headers for these anon emails. (good for you... maybe Stone can find out who it really was because it wasn't us. he's not that important to us - we do an expose and we move forward) This group writes anon, emails anon, and operates a covert, and illegal smear blog. (if it was illegal why haven't we been shut down in 6 years? Actually, we receive support from law enforcement!) They are for hire Cyber Hitmen, and Mindgamers. And' extra legal cyber assassins'. (oh Stone made up new words! Goody!) Because I didn't yeild to their threats, they have propagated defamtion on twelve blogs. (12?? this is the main one along with our links blog - that's 2) This, is the most dangerous group online. We need an attorney to deal with them. (Stone's on attorney number 3 or 4, we hear - and he needs ANOTHER one?) Please write backbeatone@gmail.com, if you are willing to help. It is suggested you read posts in this order. Summary, soundclick sex harassment, XXXXXX's lies, and the posts related to obstruction of justice and child abuse on line. To criticize this group means they will diagnose you online, and do it anonymously. That poses a risk to us all. This story is all real. And its pretty scary. Defend me. (boo hoo... still doesn't realize he's been shown for the harasser & paper tiger he is) and you suffer their dark jourmalism, and smears, and diagnostic labels. When we tried to talk back to these jerks as they were defaming us at Zimbio, they had us shut down, Zimbio kept their defamation. (Really? how's that?) If you disagree with Fighter of cyberpath, he will contact people in your life, and try to smear you to them. He will stalk you everywhere you go. This is an organized left wing cult. (Is he KIDDING? Talk about psychotic & delusional!)

ON EOPC:
They say they have FBI connections, I reported them to the FBI, and followed up three weeks later with a phone call to the Boston Office, the FBI doesnt not know who they are, and would not be connected to them. (Like the FBI would admit this to Stone! IC3 has a 7-8 year backlog of cases. The FBI deals with protected information, but they would just give it to Stone on the phone? ) There isn't anything they do, that isn't predicated on a lie, from their trumped up stories on predators, which they steal from other source, and regurgitate to make it appear they are on top of everything, to their personal rifts in relationships, where they assassinate their partners online. (what the heck is he talking about)They say they are from the Dominican Republic but they aren't they say that to avoid US tax, and juristiction, they are from LA, and NY. (not even close! avoiding tax? what tax?? is he for real? WOW he is truly out there!! Does his wife know he spends this much time online?)

This is for you Mr. Stone, and all our exposed cyberpaths - who have tried what you are trying... with zero success:


______________________
(Stone's Facebook page, sent to EOPC by his victims)

Letter to Board of Nurses

by Gary Stone
on Monday, April 25, 2011 at 10:58pm

Maybe I will see if I can email the board of nurses tommrow...it'd be simpler and faster
I could then attach a summary of the case.

To the Massachusetts Board of Registry
Nursing
The anonymous authors of the Cyberpath blog have invented a story for a british woman that was debunked in 2008.   (debunked by who? HIM?)
during this time, they tried to destroy my civil case with BHCHP.org, and finally succeeded in doing so.
And so, they say, I am wrong to write "retired" on my facebook page. That I should say fired. If you agree after you follow along with this argument cyberpaths.blogspot.com

vs this one, HERE
I will change my charactorization at facebook to fired and resign all rights to renew my license and practice nursing again. Your reponse on this issue, would be appreciated. Please accept no anon phone calls emails from anon individuals who will not put their names with their mouths are, and evaluate only this argument. And let me know if I am wrong to do this.
Thank You
Gary Stone
BSN MLT ASCAP
I will also remove health related articles at the hub
located here:
http://hubpages.com/profile/The+Toylanders

Ps: I will also foreward a summary of the case in question
and if you follow along, you will see how they destroyed it.

I am wondering if we should do everything these anon smear artists say, when the issue in the case was about, those who feel they can say anything and ruin a career doing it. If you agree we should asceed to these anonymous fuckwits, I will be happy to retire all rights to every practice in this state or anyone else again

• • 
    The above letter will be sent to Board of nurses certified mail by the end of the week, the ticket will be scanned and posted

_____________________

MORE LAUGHABLE EMAILS FROM STONE:

While the cyberpath blog has made Hay, of the letter to Dr. Bevan. I intend to hide it, within a few weeks, as the case has been made that it serves a purpose.

It will be held in reserve (a hidden file) available on request.

I wrote the letter because I believe Dr. Bevan already diagnosed XXXX with cushings signs....

by July 09. I wanted him to see the cause. And, I wanted to address and old allegation that - I manipulated her medicines, or gave her bad advice, and invite her doctor to consider my "actual" influence in 2007. They say I love to broadcast her disease, they actually used it hundreds of times as a perverse excuse for why I should let them smear me, Or why XXXX is immune from prosecution, or why should never be responsible. Not a factual concept at all, it is quite an enabling idea - a person who is subject to stress, unable to cope as others can - is instigating, baiting, me now, with them, filing false charges at doj/fbi, engaging in risky behavior with welfare, etc. This is something to take responsibility for....

The Addison's patient (another cortisol deficiency disease) can go to jail. Their arguments are sexual politics.

When I am sure, a reasonable amount of time has past, that her doctor should be aware, he will keep her safe, monitor as I argue with them ( so that - a repeat of 09, the direct result self medication when her testimony of 08 -09 was debunked from Jan 09 to April, does not occur again)

The file will be hidden within 3 weeks

and held in reserve. New information about welfare was sent when XXXX , with them, put up auntie XXXX. The purpose of Auntie XXXX with them, was to taunt, while pretending it was not her, when it was proved it was, it was stressful. The idea was to get me to falsely accuse her, to bolster their false case at the doj/fbi. Also, they say it is ridiculous to believe XXXX is under duress. It is actually ridiculous not to believe it. XXXX collaborated with them'

she knows every thing they did in 08 - 09. She is also aware Sandra Brown, a LSW is one of them. She is aware she impersonated a licensed nurse. And that they contacted my employer. So , XXX is in a difficult anxiety provoking situation - stress - which does not help her illness, incidentally. XXXX appeared at facebook and said she did not want to do this...she can't stop XXXX. Could XXXX have a reason to be angry with me? Yes...welfare and immigration. Could he have a vendetta? Yes. Could he be pressuring XXXX with his perceived threat, that they could call people and reveal XXXX's complicity and his....yes.

Let me be clear, I am very aware of this, from my end XXXX is absolved. This group is my focus. And, in particularSandra Brown. When my blog is finished. I am sending it to her the state of new jersey licensing for social workers her LSW status.

Calling for investigation of Sandra brown for her endorsement of this group. And for her membership. Scott Powers (a former PI who lost his license!) said "Sandra Brown is a fighter"

If she is, her license is gone. What the group doesn't say, is ....I wrote doctor bevan to stop this last year.. I also wrote her brother. I also wrote you. XXXX told this group, she was hospitalized in 08. If that is the case, it was related to the welfare issue. If is not true Bevan would know it, and he would see that this group believes everything, and checks nothing. This argument is about those who feel they can "say" anything. And get away with it. Eventually, this group will come down, if Brown is censured by her board, as she will set the example for other smear sites. My interest is not XXXX, I want her safe, it is this group.

I would like people to look at them and see all that they dare do. When they see all that they do, they will realize they are a threat to everyone.

Thanks

Gary Stone

-------------------------

Stone refuses to realize that Powers guy was toying with him and bull*****ing him... and that a respected doctor (Bevan) in the U.K. disbelieves all of his nonsense...
(Stone says Powers 'ordered this blog down' - Scott Powers had no jurisdiction or say over this blog ever. Powers had no business ordering anyone to do anything and lying about doing so. He didn't work for us and we wanted nothing to do with him. Powers eventually lost his P.I. license in part for his illegal bullying. He's on Facebook now, trolling for women)

Man speaks out about libelous internet posts

Gene Cooley says untrue internet posts amounted to "character assassination" and cost him his job and home in Blairsville. Now he's pushing to make such libelous posts illegal.

SOURCE

Should IPs Lead in Curbing Internet Defamation?

A friend once said to me, “the internet is good for two things: slander and porn.” For those who have been the target of electronic harassment and bullying, that sentiment could not ring truer.


Too often, individuals and groups on the Internet abuse the free flow of thoughts that is the promise of the Web to turn around and attack or demean others. Oftentimes, those affected can do little to protect themselves, and find themselves on the short end of the stick.

Why does this occur? Simply put, the US has made it easy for ISPs to skirt any responsibility when it comes to what is posted on their servers. Thus some providers will turn a blind eye when a victim comes a-complaining.

It’s a shame. Take for example Google: they will only remove information when it contains personal or copyrighted data, but it is quite difficult to get them to act otherwise. While I can understand Google’s position not to get involved, in the same token most times its pretty easy to discern a malicious site from a legitimate one.

These sites will often abuse Google’s ranking algorithms to gain higher prominence in results — such as the good ‘ol Googlebomb — which is hit or miss as whether the search giant will deal with it.

Other ISPs will provide lip service to the fact that they’ll deal with this type of content, then dance around the fact when you contact them. I’ve had slanderous content written about me, and I’ve contacted the ISP whose servers hosted the content in an attempt to hold them to their policies.

What I found was a “pass the buck” mentality. This particular ISP said that since they were only leasing an IP from them, their terms of use did not apply. Strange: the traffic is still passing through you, so why would you not enforce your own policies?

Kind of like saying, “oh, this website that uses one of our IPs is a piracy site which we specifically prohibit, but we’ll let them go since they aren’t on one of our servers.” Yeah, I think the RIAA or MPAA would buy that one!

In the end, why are we so powerless against defamation in many cases? It’s all thanks to Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, basically. That reads:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Essentially, ISPs don’t have to do anything, thanks to this clause. In our effort to protect the rights of everyone, we’re indirectly protecting hurtful speech as well. That’s just great.

Other countries have begun to clamp down on online defamation. For example, in Canada, the courts are now increasingly more apt to compel websites to reveal the identities of anonymous posters when defamation is involved.

These same countries are also beginning to force ISPs to identify who’s behind websites that are defamatory. While I am a strong supporter of staying anonymous in most cases (journalism depends heavily on those types of sources), when its for malicious purposes, you shouldn’t be getting any protection.

While I am not saying the ISP should tell the defamed who’s writing about them without the courts, the threat of disclosure may stop many from writing purposely hurtful missives about their victims.

Neither am I coming at this solely because this has happened to me. I’ve always been kind of disturbed by the fact that a lot of speech that people couldn’t get away with in real life seems to be free game on the Web. It doesn’t make sense.

It is a First Amendment right to be able to say what you want. So I can understand some people’s wariness of control over what people say. But can’t those of us who are subject to the malicious words of others get some relief?

What’s so wrong with dealing with stuff like this out of a court room, that’s what I want to know?

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Internet Harrasser Identified in Federal Lawsuit

Two female students at Yale Law School who say anonymous, defamatory comments were made about them on the Internet identified one of the defendants yesterday in their federal lawsuit.


The women filed new documents in US District Court naming Mathew C. Ryan of Austin, Texas. Through subpoenas to Internet service providers, the women have learned the identities of several other defendants but are trying to resolve their claims against those people before deciding whether to name them, according to court papers.

The move threatens to expose law students and

renews debate about whether anonymous Internet scribes should be identified - and held legally responsible - for malicious postings.

The case is not unprecedented, but it is a reminder that anonymous postings on the freewheeling Internet can be traced, legal analysts say.

"A lot of people don't really think about that," said Daniel Solove, a professor at George Washington University Law School. "I do think it's going to have an effect on what people say. It's one of the most prominent cases of its type."

The women's lawsuit, filed last year, charges that they were defamed by repeated postings they considered sexually harassing and threatening.

The postings were made to AutoAdmit, an Internet discussion board about colleges and law schools that draws 800,000 to 1 million visitors per month, according to court papers.

The women say Ryan made sexually charged slurs about them on the Web, including a false claim that one of the them had a sexually transmitted disease. The lawsuit also says Ryan encouraged further attacks on the other woman and used anti-Semitic language.

A telephone message and e-mail seeking comment were left for Ryan yesterday.

Ryan attended the University of Texas, according to Mark Lemley, attorney for the Yale students. Most of the other defendants are law students, he said.

Posts by other defendants included remarks about one plaintiff's breasts and a claim that women with the same first names "should be raped." Some postings discussed the women's family backgrounds and supposed sexual exploits while invoking racially and sexually charged slurs.

Some people who posted the Web items threatened to rape one of the women and attempted to start rumors that one of the women had died or committed suicide, according to the lawsuit.

The anonymous posters also started a website devoted to "rating" female law students from around the country. Some participants in the contest sent photos of one of the women without her permission, according to the lawsuit.

The judge overseeing the women's lawsuit has agreed to let them proceed under pseudonyms because of their fears of further harassment. No trial date has been set.

The lawsuit sparked a countersuit from a University of Pennsylvania law graduate who lost a lucrative job offer after he was linked to websites that crudely discussed the female law students.

Anthony Ciolli's libel lawsuit charges that the Yale students sued him although they knew he did not control the message boards at either AutoAdmit.com, where he was an editor, or at a now-defunct site that ranked the looks of top women law students.

The women dropped Ciolli as a defendant in November.

In sworn affidavits, the women say the stress caused their work to suffer at school and on the job and one took a leave of absence from school.

Their classmates and job supervisors were aware of the salacious postings, they said.


The person accused of writing the rape comment fought a subpoena to have his Internet provider disclose his identity. In a motion filed under his online name, "John Doe 21," he argued that the rape remark did not specifically harm or threaten either woman since millions of women share their first names.

He calls the online postings "unsavory but legally innocuous" - and argues that his free-speech rights outweigh the women's right to seek redress.

"Few courts have considered this question, but it is becoming a crucial one, particularly in light of the increasing number of cases where those who have been criticized on the Internet seek to use the machinery of the courts to unmask, intimidate, and silence their online critics," he wrote earlier this year.
A judge, however, ruled in June that the women had shown enough evidence to support a libel case.

CLICK HERE FOR THE WHOLE ARTICLE

NOTE: Please be aware if you enter “Matthew C. Ryan” and “Austin, Texas” into Google, links to Matthew C. Ryan and his firm come up first. This is NOT the same Matthew C. Ryan mentioned in this article. They are two separate and different persons.