Turning to the Net for Revenge

EOPC wants to remind all members and readers: 

• We are NOT a REVENGE site. 
• We do not follow around our exposed predators and harass them.  
• We do not hack.
• We are not legal or police help. 
• We purposely do not take any personal interest in anyone. 

Postings come from those who contact us and we make clear this site is not about personal revenge. We simply give victims a platform.

We are about reporting, education, safe internet use and treating others honestly -- even online.
We do these stories to show the patterns and pathology of net abusers as well as the downside of looking for love, friendship or money online.

REVENGE hurts everyone... and here's a good (bad) example:

By Beth Hale

(U.K.)When Richard Bradford suspected his nurse girlfriend of having an affair he subjected her to the ultimate revenge.

Furious that Shivanthi Panchalingam had allegedly cheated on him, he sent a naked picture of the ward sister to everyone in her email address book.

Miss Panchalingam, who works at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, in Reading, only learned of the humiliating betrayal when a friend called to say he had seen one of the photographs.

The couple had taken the risque photographs of one and other to spice up their love life after becoming a couple in August last year but Bradford used them against the nurse after their relationship broke down.

The nurse spoke of her distress as George faced court charged with harassment.

In a statement, read out by the prosecution, she said:

'My friend Steven received a picture of me naked. You could see my front and the photos were detailed. I have not seen any of the others.

'I find it very distressing and cannot bear to look at them. He sent them to my whole address book.'

'I am embarrassed to say the least. I am a ward sister; people work below me and I am worried about my career credibility.

'I have been unable to cope with this anymore.'

As well as the photographs, Reading Magistrates' Court heard how Bradford, 37, had called Miss Panchalingam up to 40 times a week at work.

Bradford, of Glynde Road, Brighton, East Sussex, initially denied harassing Miss Panchalingam, but later changed his plea.

Simon Hammudi, defending, said: 'My client is sorry about his behaviour and says it was unreasonable and has not had any contact with the victim since the allegation.'

Valerie Boddington, presiding magistrate, handed him a one-year community order, a supervision order of nine months and ordered him pay the victim £200 in compensation and £100 costs.

Bradford also had a restraining order placed on him to have no contact directly or indirectly with Miss Panchalingam and prohibited him from going within 200 yards of the hospital unless for a medical appointment or emergency.

It's not the first time that e-mail has been used to enact revenge, nor the first time that naked photographs have come back to haunt the person posing for them. Four years ago a jilted boyfriend was jailed after setting up a website with naked pictures and film of his former lover.

He then printed business cards giving the web address and handed them out at her 21st birthday party, posted them through her neighbours' letterboxes and gave them to her work colleagues.

It is not just men who use humiliation as revenge. A survey found that eight out of ten women would take revenge on a partner who dumped them - with most using the internet and email to get even.

SOURCE

Court Protects Anonymity

By Evan Brown

ShareSandals Resorts Intern. Ltd. v. Google, Inc., — N.Y.S.2d —, 2011 WL 1885939, (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., May 19, 2011)

(U.S.A.) Some unknown person sent an email to a number of undisclosed recipients containing information that was critical of the hiring and other business practices of the Caribbean resort Sandals. Irritated by this communication, Sandals filed an action in New York state court seeking a subpoena to compel Google to identify the owner of the offending Gmail account.

The trial court denied the petition seeking discovery. Sandals sought review with the appellate court. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the petition for discovery.

Under New York law, a person or entity can learn the identity of an unknown possible defendant only when it demonstrates that it has “a meritorious cause of action and that the information sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong.” In this case, the court held that the petition failed to demonstrate that Sandals had a meritorious cause of action.

The court found that nothing in the petition identified specific assertions of fact as false. It also found that the lower court did not err in reasoning that the failure to allege the nature of the injuries caused by the statements in the email were fatal to the petition.

It went on to find that even if the petition had sufficiently alleged the email injured Sandals’ business reputation or damaged its credit standing, it would still deny the application for disclosure of the account holder’s identification on the ground that the subject email was constitutionally protected opinion.

In discussing this portion of its decision, the court said some interesting things about the nature of internet communications, apparently allowing a certain characterization of online speech to affect its rationale:

The culture of Internet communications, as distinct from that of print media such a newspapers and magazines, has been characterized as encouraging a “freewheeling, anything-goes writing style.” [...] [T]he e-mail at issue here . . . bears some similarity to the type of handbills and pamphlets whose anonymity is protected when their publication is prompted by the desire to question, challenge and criticize the practices of those in power without incurring adverse consequences such as economic or official retaliation. [...] Indeed, the anonymity of the e-mail makes it more likely that a reasonable reader would view its assertions with some skepticism and tend to treat its contents as opinion rather than as fact.

The court made clear that these observations were “in no way intended to immunize e-mails the focus and purpose of which are to disseminate injurious falsehoods about their subjects.” The real cause for concern, and the thing to protect against, in the court’s view, was “the use of subpoenas by corporations and plaintiffs with business interests to enlist the help of ISPs via court orders to silence their online critics, which threatens to stifle the free exchange of ideas.”



original post here

Smear Campaign Lands Man in Court

Homebuyer 'launched smear campaign' against estate agents

after being gazumped

By James Tozer

(U.K., 2010) Martin Frostick is alleged to have sent out faxes falsely claiming the estate agent had gone bust

A gazumped homeowner took drastic revenge by launching a smear campaign to try to drive the estate agency he blamed out of business, a court heard today.

Martin Frostick, 53, was so aggrieved at losing the house that he circulated bogus bankruptcy petitions falsely claiming the Ryder & Dutton chain was going bust, it was alleged.

As a result, the agency was 'deluged' with inquires from clients worried about its financial state, the court heard.

It had to issue urgent public statements dismissing the notices as a 'malicious rumour' to save its reputation from being fatally damaged, it was claimed.

Frostick allegedly walked into a branch of the agency - based in Oldham, Greater Manchester - last June demanding information about a house sale back in 1997.

The complaint related to a house he had owned which had been repossessed, and he had later been gazumped in a sale, the court was told.

Staff said they didn't keep records that far back and Frostick left, slamming the door.

The following day he sent an email to Richard Powell, one of the directors, said Roderick Priestley, prosecuting at Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester.

'It was some sort of grievance the defendant had with the firm over a repossession of a house which Mr Frostick owned in Oldham. He seemed to have been gazumped in a sale.'

Mr Powell then received 'abusive and threatening' faxes followed by a document purporting be a petition regarding the winding up of Ryder & Dutton, the court heard.

Mr Priestley said the notice was a fictitious one drawn up by Frostick. 'It was made by the defendant to damage the company,' he added.

The firm called the police after receiving a further email from Frostick containing 31 pages of names and numbers of companies to which he allegedly planned to send the fax.
Ryder & Dutton estate agents in Royton near Oldham

In addition, Frostick allegedly circulated a copy of an article from the London Gazette - which carries insolvency notices - altered to suggest Ryder & Dutton had gone bust.

He is also accused of sending a newspaper article about the collapse of Northern Rock which had been manipulated to carry the firm's name instead.

'The firm was deluged with enquires about the financial health of the company,' Mr Priestley said.

One leasing firm actually terminating a contract as a result of the rumours.

'What this man did caused significant inconvenience, stress and time,' Mr Priestley told the jury.

'So in order to protect their reputation they issued an urgent statement where they made it very clear that this was a dishonest and malicious rumour.

'What is clear is that Mr Frostick perceives that he has been wronged and 11 years later has decided to proceed with a complaint.

'But he, in effect, says because they wouldn't respond successfully to him, he then embarked upon this campaign.'

Frostick of Delph, near Oldham, was arrested two weeks later. Told about the cancelling of the lease agreement, he allegedly retorted: 'Good, I'm delighted.'

The trial heard Frostick admits coming up with the idea but denies fraud by making false representations.



ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Someone can only be DEFAMED if what you are saying about them is FALSE, NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE, ASSUMED FROM SCANT INFORMATION or UNTRUE.

If it IS TRUE - it is not: defamation, slander and/or libel. And you'd best be able to PROVE IN A COURT OF LAW that it is true. (Information that might possibly indicate something or you are assuming it indicates something is usually non-admissible.)

EOPC is held legally harmless - all claims of posted misinformation must be pursued THROUGH THE PERSON THAT SIGNED THE RELEASE TO US AND SUBMITTED IT IN THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN.

Ex Boyfriend Blogs, Breaks Restraining Order - Goes to Court

A man who subjected his ex-girlfriend to a terrifying internet hate campaign has broken his restraining order just two months later – by writing about her in a blog.

Stephen Andreassen, 37, pleaded guilty to harassment in June after bombarding her with Facebook messages and setting up 35 websites about her when she dumped him.

He was ordered not to create any more sites about his ex, or contact her.

But on August 15, the woman’s sister found an entry on his blog detailing the court case and calling the woman involved a ‘liar’ and ‘sociopath’.

He even threatened to write a book about their relationship – adding that August 11 last year, when he first asked the woman to go out with him, was ‘the day that ruined my life’.

The blog did not name the woman – but police believed it contained enough detail to identify her.

Andreassen pleaded guilty to breaching the restraining order at Manchester magistrates court yesterday and was given a 14-week prison term, suspended for one year, and a 9pm to 7am curfew.

Gareth Hughes, prosecuting, told the court that Andreassen’s former partner ‘just wanted to get on with her life’, but was now ‘very depressed that she was back on his mind’.

“It worries her because he is very unpredictable,” added Mr Hughes. “She drives everywhere in case she bumps into him and just wants this to come to an end.”

The court heard that Andreassen and the woman had been out on dates last year. They split up at the woman’s request – and the harassment began.

Andreassen, of Ellesmere Road, Chorlton, set up a string of websites, including blogs and fake Facebook profiles for the woman and people she knew.

He posted so many messages on her genuine Facebook page that she was forced to close it down and change her email address and phone number.

The terms of the restraining order were also extended to prevent him writing a book ‘or any other material’ about his former partner.

David Philpotts, defending, said Andreassen had been ‘exceedingly foolish’ in writing the blog.

But he said the material had not been posted on any social networking site or emailed to his former partner, and suggested it could only be found using a search engine.

Andreassen was warned that if he was brought before the court again, he would go to prison.

original article here

Mississippi Hospice Director Goes to Trial for Cyberstalking & Threats

Sound familiar? Exposed medical director then CYBERSTALKS & THREATENS the people who turned him in!! Sounds like Yidwithlid, Jacoby to name a few. Attack those who tell the truth. It's almost a fait-accompli that a guilty party will attack those who tell the truth about them! At least this guy's being brought trial over these cyberthreats, though of course, he has a lame 'excuse.' - Fighter

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

Esther Lee Evans was suffering from diabetes and breathing problems before she died in a north Mississippi hospice in 2006, and her family had no reason to think her death was anything but natural.

So her daughters were stunned when authorities told them they were investigating Evans’ death and numerous others at the Sanctuary Hospice House in Tupelo.

“It was like somebody playing a bad prank on you,” said Evans’ daughter, Rebecca Dillard. “It was unbelievable. It just tore us apart.”

The hospice’s clinical director — charged with 11 counts of administering narcotics without a license — had been scheduled for trial Monday in Lee County Circuit Court, but a judge postponed it until next year.

Dr. Paul White, the facility’s medical director, and Marilyn Lehman, the clinical director, were charged in a 33-count indictment in April. White has pleaded guilty.

Lehman’s trial was postponed until February because her lawyer, Ronald Michael, had a scheduling conflict. Michael did not respond to messages this week, but has said Lehman is innocent.

Authorities, however, say the doctor allowed Lehman to determine doses and administer narcotics and then backdated the orders she had written.

Evans, 88, was admitted to the hospice in September 2006 suffering from diabetes and smoking related breathing problems. She had not been in the facility long when a nurse gave her medication to “help her relax,” Dillard said. The next day she couldn’t function. In a few days, she was dead.

The hospice’s attorney has repeatedly said that Evans’ death is not surprising or suspicious because she was terminally ill just like other hospice patients. The attorney, L.F. “Sandy” Sams, is emphatic that hospice employees did not hasten patients’ deaths.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood was not convinced.

Hood, whose office handled the investigation, has said some patients were “prematurely dying” because they were given such massive doses of morphine that “it was like a poison on the body.”

Hood would not comment this week because of the pending trial. He has told The Associated Press in the past that a grand jury was presented with several options, including that the hospice deaths were deliberate. They settled on misdemeanor charges of neglect, practicing medicine without a license and aiding and abetting.

It’s not clear if White will testify against his former employee. He struck a deal with prosecutors in June and pleaded guilty to six counts of aiding and abetting the practice of medicine without a license and one felony count of cyberstalking on the day his trial was to begin. He was sentenced to two years of probation and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

The cyberstalking charge was for sending obscene computer messages to people he thought caused the investigation, and included a threat to “disembowel” the facility’s former chaplain.

He blamed the messages on sleeping pills and alcohol.

Still, the relatives of some people who died at the hospice are angry that Lehman and White were not charged with more serious crimes. Some of them believe White and Lehman are directly responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. That allegation has been repeated in at least one federal lawsuit.

“This has devastated us. It has torn our family apart,” Dillard said. “You just stop and think if it was your mother or your dad. How you would feel? Do you understand what I’m saying. It’s just like a horror story that came off television or something.”

Other people who lost loved ones in the facility were angry, too, but for different reasons.

Relatives of several people whose loved ones were named as victims in the indictment were outraged, saying the hospice provided excellent care. And accusations of euthanasia polarized the community.

The nonprofit hospice opened in 2005 as a pilot project to provide affordable care to rural areas and was intended as a model for other communities. Millions have been donated to the facility and some of the most prominent people in north Mississippi have worked on its behalf.

Dozens of people packed the courtroom for White’s trial, with several people standing because they refused to sit among the families of the alleged victims.