WOMAN LIES ABOUT RAPE BY ONLINE DATE

(U.S.A.) A Tennessee woman was charged with filing a false rape claim after she admitted to police that she only did so because she 'didn't enjoy' their date.

Twenty-seven-year-old Lynette Lee told detectives in Clarksville, Tennessee that the unidentified man never actually raped her, and that she made the whole story up to get back at him for what she thought was a bad date.   Lee was charged with filing a false police report and held on a $2,000 bond.

Lee initially told police officers from a hospital that she was raped by a man she met on the online dating site Meetme.com.  Per her story, the two had agreed to meet up.

She then told authorities that the two of them went to an unknown location, where the man then removed his clothes and forced her to have sex with him, despite her desire not to.

Investigating the story, police interviewed the man, who promptly told them that the allegations against him were not true. He said that he did indeed meet with Lee and on the second date they had consensual sex. The man also said that they had a good time and made further arrangements to meet again.

Police then called in Lee who again told officers the same story as before. But shortly after, she asked them to drop the case and admitted that the incident had been completely fabricated.

Police said Lee told them she made up the story 'because she did not enjoy it and it was bad.'

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

TIPS FOR DEALING WITH A CYBERPATH

(excerpted from ALBERT J. BERNSTEIN, Ph.D's work on EMOTIONAL VAMPIRES)

1. KNOW THEM, KNOW THEIR HISTORY, AND KNOW YOUR GOAL
The way to anticipate a cyberpath is by knowing how they've acted in the past. Chances are pretty good that they'll do the same thing in the future. The big mistake you can make with cyberpaths is assuming, without evidence, that though their record has been bad in the past, that they have learned their lesson, and will do better this time. When you deal with cyberpaths, always ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish and why. If you're not sure, don't do anything until you've thought about it carefully.

2. GET OUTSIDE VERIFICATION
Cyberpaths want you to listen to them alone. To control you, they'll try to isolate you from your usual sources of information. Always check out what they say with a trusted friend or other resources, especially when you'd rather not. Cyberpaths, like vampires, can't operate in the "light of day." (Be aware: Once you check them out a Cyberpath will accuse you of "stalking." Ignore the accusation and find out everything you can about them!)

3. DO WHAT THEY DON'T
To prevail over Cyberpaths you must rush in where they fear to tread. Your greatest strengths lie in doing the things you can do that Cyberpaths can't. (Like telling the truth or doing a background check when they asked you not to)

4. PAY ATTENTION TO ACTIONS, NOT WORDS
What cyberpaths say is often very different from what they do. To avoid being drained, always focus on what they do NOT what they say!

5. IDENTIFY HYPNOTIC STRATEGY
Cyberpaths are consummate hypnotists. When you see through the smoke and mirrors, their illusions don't work nearly so well.

6. PICK YOUR BATTLES
To be an effective Cyberpath fighter, you have to be able to pick the important battles and ignore the rest. You also have to avoid fighting battles you can't possibly win (such as getting them to admit the truth or trying 'force' them to apologize or praying they will change!)

7. LET CONTINGENCIES DO THE WORK
A contingency is an if-then situation. If someone does a particular thing, then certain consequences will follow.

The only way Cyberpaths learn anything is by experiencing the consequences of their own behavior.

If you're ever tempted to rescue a Cyberpath, think about what you're teaching him or her about how the game of life is really played.

8. CHOOSE YOUR WORDS AS CAREFULLY AS YOU PICK YOUR BATTLES
With Cyberpaths what you say, how you say it, and when you say it are all crucial to the outcomes you are likely to achieve.

9. IGNORE TANTRUMS (Attacks, Idol Threats)
When Cyberpaths don't get their way, they throw tantrums. They can explode into all sorts of emotional outbursts or attacks/ threats whose only purpose is to get you to give in or hurt you so you do something against your better judgment for THEM. Don't.

10. KNOW YOUR OWN LIMITS
Dealing with Cyberpaths requires a lot of effort. Stay Strong.

CYBERPATHS: PROJECTING & HURLING ACCUSATIONS

After the relationship is over
or When they are Exposed

Cyberpaths project their faults and failings onto their victims (bad character flaws/deeds) , but they also project their feelings, and beliefs onto the victim also.

These beliefs the Cyberpath hold could be about themselves, the victim or others.

You can think of "projection" as the Cyberpath posing in the image of your face, they are projecting (throwing) all those bad flaws, deeds and beliefs about themselves unto you.

These feelings or beliefs might be positive ones or negative ones.

Positive Projection

Projecting positive things onto the victim he is using her as a mirror so the good deeds are "reflected" back unto him. Making him appear as the one who is marvellous, grand, worthy etc (his grandiose false image)

Negative Projection

Same thing - The Cyberpath projects his bad deeds, habits, thoughts and belief onto the mirror (The Victim) in order to make her appear that she is at fault and these "Negative things" are hers and not his.


Whilst doing this, the Cyberpath is in effect using the victim as a dumping ground. (Almost everything that has happened to the Cyberpath, including his own mistakes - is blamed on the victim.)

Slandering The Victim

When Cyberpaths slander their victims , they have two objectives. One is projection and the other is to "dirty a bright spot in your character" with whatever slander they are projecting at you. It's as though any shine on your image diminishes the glow of their glory.

This is of course the mentality of the rapist, who must tear others "down off that pedestal"

Projection and smearing at the same time isn't hard for the Cyberpath, in fact it's uncanny how Cyberpaths manage to accomplish it. It's all in the way they word their "line" on you. They are glib and amazingly adept at "killing two birds with one stone"

They not only ditch one of their faults, they muddy one of your virtues in the process.

Note: In doing this, the Cyberpath isn't attacking your faults and shortcomings, he is attacking your virtues and accomplishments. Consequently when he is conducting a campaign of character assassination against someone, the arrows he shoots never hit one of that person's real flaws

The Cyberpaths False image contains the virtuous qualities in other people's characters , and their images have had those virtuous qualities replaces with the flaws in the Cyberpaths character. In other words, the Cyberpath steals your virtues and dumps on you his faults.

In doing so, the Cyberpath is stealing your identity, pulling an identity switch with you, piecemeal.

It's kind of magical , an illusion created with nothing but words, which can warp perceptions by making anything of anything. For example: let's say that the Cyberpath is stingy and that one of your virtues is that you are outstanding for you generosity. He hates the glow of that shiny spot in your character, because it serves as foil to his stinginess, making it more noticeable by contrast. So he muddies your image and glorifies his image by misappropriating your generosity to himself and misappropriating his stinginess in you.

How? he goes around lying about how much she gives to charity and about helping people out all the time. More important (since one must be careful and subtle about boasting) , he just makes everything she does sound generous. He also goes around telling lying stories about you , stories that you are "stingy". More important, he makes everything you do sound stingy, however generous it manifestly is.

Normal people do not project. They may sometimes smear, but not in such a calculated , manipulative fashion.


Normal People Vs The Cyberpath

Normal people - Project when put on the defensive

Cyberpaths - Project in unprovoked attacks


Normal people don't smear themselves off on just anyone. They wouldn't dream of harming those near and dear. Or those they 'need'.

Cyberpaths see people as objects and nothing more, so they smear people off to anyone who will listen as thoughtlessly as we smear ourselves on a towel. For no other reason than to cause pain.


Normal people are likely to shake themselves off on whoever happens to be near at the moment. So they sometimes project a flaw off onto someone who actually has it.

Cyberpaths project ironically, accusing those with the corresponding virtue of a vice


Normal people stick to slander (which has some degree of truth to it) rarely engaging in calumny (lies) when they do calumniate someone, they at least have a natural reason for animosity toward the target.

Cyberpaths are perverted, there is no natural reason for what they do, they do it because they want to and because they can.


Normal people who do calumniate someone, they don't go hog-wild and calumniate that person so badly and so widely as to destroy them and ruin their whole lives.

Cyberpaths go hog wild , they are mental children and therefore as dangerous with their mouths as an angry five-year old with an assault weapon. Often, once exposed, they will often publish blogs or make posts on sites about how bad or dangerous the victim is. They accomplish this by rewriting and tweaking history to view them as the victim.

The Cyberpath is likely to smear off on someone he owes gratitude to, because needing help damages his image. He repays help as thought it were an insult , a threat. He must devalue it by devaluing the giver of it, as if such a contemptible person is incapable of really helping someone as grand as he.

Normal people don't do it because damaging others makes them feel good. In fact, doing this makes a normal person feel ashamed. But it makes a Cyberpath feel grand.

When it's fully conscious calumny a Cyberpath is spreading , he just thinks it's funny that people are such idiots that he can get away with it, feeding them ridiculous lines about others. Lines that are preposterous in the light of the target's known conduct. Cyberpaths will all let it be known at one time or another that they had nothing but contempt for the people who believed them. A Cyberpath views his success at lying as proof that he is brilliant and that all mere mortals are as stupid as sticks.

Cyberpaths are not projecting guilt so much as they're projecting shame. In fact, it may well be that they have no concept of guilt and have it confused with shame. Which is pain. So this wicked behaviour is a way to ditch their pain onto you. It's a psychological painkiller, a drug, and that's why causing you pain makes him feel good.


Here is an example of a famous smear that illustrates how it works.

The first thing people noticed about Jesus of Nazareth was that, unlike the other prophets, he spoke on his own authority, appealing only to logic, and never prefaced his teaching with "God says...." This is but one of many example of his exceptional care to avoid blasphemy. He went way beyond custom in this regards. His tremendous reverence for the name of God was his most glaring virtue, but he put everyone , including the prophets, to shame in this.

Okay, so , if you or I wanted to smear Jesus, blasphemy would be the last thing we'd accuse him of, right? Because that accusation would be laughed at as a joke.

Or would it?

Well, whether people would get the joke or not, we're normal, so we'd accuse him of something believable, like being a drunk or something. But that isn't the way a Cyberpath thinks.

The narcissistic in the Sanhedrin who plotted against Jesus went right for that greatest shining virtue of his in leveling the charge of blasphemy against him. They just had to muddy it o'er.

Unbelievable. Yet the people believed it!

And consider the source of this accusation. Look who's accusing him of blasphemy. The Sanhedrin, blasphemously acting in the name of God.

In other words, in the very act, they were projecting the blot of their sin onto his outstanding virtue.

Unbelievable. Yet the people believed it.

Near the beginning of the Spanish Inquisition, a Spanish archbishop or cardinal (whose name I forget) remarked that the accusations leveled by the Inquisition were so widely believed because people are much readier to believe the unbelievable than the obvious. He said a mouthful.

Cyberpaths are projection machines, I am convinced that projection is a knee -jerk reflex in them. That is, whenever a moment of self-awareness threatens to let them know a flaw in their character they're revealing or some bad deed they are doing, they instantly go into denial about it (Repressing conscience of shame) by projecting the semblance of that flaw or misdeed off onto the handiest scapegoat- usually the very victim of whatever abuse they are dishing out.

How's that for maximum irony? Hence, while hurling a hailstorm of wild accusations at you, you can count off one of them being that you are hurling wild accusations at them. Every single time. They can't help it. I think they have been twisting their thinking for so long (since early childhood) that twisted thinking is hard-wired into their brains. I think projection is such an ingrained habit in them that often they're unaware they are doing it at times.

Projection is such a reflex in them that they give themselves away by some of the accusation they hurl. For example, if a Cyberpath says he fear you might attack him physically, look out" he is at least pondering whether to attack you physically. If he says he fears you might get into his bank account or spend his money, know that he is at least pondering getting into yours and spending your money. Every single time!

Cyberpaths are not the only people who project. But they are different in that they have done it so much for so long that they do it like a machine - automatically, every single time. They rarely hit one of target's real faults. Instead the accusation is a joke, smearing one of that person's virtues as a vice.

taken from the work of Kathy Krajco

(written in about the male-gender your Cyberpath may well be female)

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ACCUSE OTHERS OF DOING ONLINE

Have you accused someone of doing something on the internet you only 'know' about through internet searches?

Have you accused someone of hacking, spamming or running a website that someone else told you and you don't REALLY know for sure?

Have you accused someone of watching porn, online shopping or online postings just through checking their IP or by assuming?

Are you really sure?

BE CAREFUL AND THINK AGAIN!

• Elaine Buckley, 50, was fired from her £19,000-a-year job for using the internet for personal use at work
• Her employer accused her of watching hard-core porn but she denied the claims and tried to appeal
• She was unsuccessful and so took her case to the employment tribunal
• No evidence was found to suggest that Mrs Buckley had viewed porn
• The court heard that sites could have been accessed by pop-up sites that Elaine did not know were there or by other people
• Mrs Buckley went through a ‘dark time’ and had to receive counselling

By Sarah Johnson

A churchgoing mother has won a £20,000 unfair dismissal case after she was wrongfully accused of viewing hardcore porn at work.

Elaine Buckley, 50, has been married for almost 30 years and regularly fundraises in her local community. But in 2010 the finance manager was called into her boss’s office to explain why she had been looking at porn sites during working hours.

She strenuously denied the claims but her employers at Waters Edge Ceramics, a dental laboratory in Oldham, fired her for gross misconduct.

The mother-of-two said: ‘The whole experience has been so humiliating. I was just horrified when they first told me of the allegations. I am a normal 50-year-old mum. I like walking my dog, spending time with my children and friends and generally being a mum - not looking at pornography. I believe that what happens between a woman and a man or a man and a man or two women in their bedroom should be kept private between them.'

Mrs Buckley said that in November 2010 the company announced that redundancies would take place. A week later she exchanged cross words with Gemma Taylor, her boss’s daughter, who had been brought in as her line manager after finishing university.

The next day she was invited for a disciplinary meeting at which it was revealed that her computer had been used to view hardcore pornography. IT consultant Paul Burton printed off a report of her computer use - which revealed that the machine had been used to view hard-core pornography. Elaine said: ‘They kept using the words "obscene" and "pornographic" websites.

‘If it was a cooking website then that might make sense because I could be looking up a recipe for a colleague but not a pornography site. I kept denying it. I couldn’t understand why they thought I had been on the sites. I had been working with the company for ten years, they knew me. My computer was used by other people too and the site could have been a pop up site where the cookies saved to the machine. But they didn’t believe me. It was such a dark, dark time for me.’

On November 11, Elaine was handed with two letters announcing her suspension. On 17 December, she was sacked from her role by a further letter. It stated that she had ‘accessed inappropriate and obscene websites’, spent a ‘wholly unacceptable’ amount of time on personal sites and failed to follow an order not to do so. Elaine tried to appeal within the company but was unsuccessful and so took Waters Edge Ceramics to employment tribunal in February 2011.

Manchester Alexandra House heard that the sites could have been accessed by pop-up sites that Elaine did not know were there or other people who used the computer. The hearing was told the company had no evidence that Elaine had viewed pornography.

On November 2, 2011, Employment Judge Diana Kloss recorded that Mrs Buckley was ‘unfairly dismissed’ under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Mrs Buckley, who has undergone counselling as a result of the ordeal, said: ‘Going to the tribunal was nerve wracking. After I had taken to the stand, I was literally shaking all over.

‘I never drink but my husband took me to a pub just down the road and ordered me a Grand Marnier on the rocks. The court accepted that I wasn’t to blame and I was innocent. But my boss has never apologised, he fought it to the death. The money was not an apology, it was for a loss of earnings. I had to have counselling for eight months, up to three times a week.’

Elaine now works as a book keeper for the RSPCA, earning £8.50 an hour.

original article found here

Defamation in the Internet Age

With the proliferation of the Internet, communication is fast, easy and convenient. Within the past few years, social networking has grown at an astonishing rate. Sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter allow us to share our thoughts and ideas with the masses. But, what if those thoughts are not so nice?

Can you bring a defamation suit against others who have made negative public postings about you? It depends on what is said and to whom.

Defamation comes in two types: spoken statements (called slander) and written statements (called libel). On the Internet, I would submit that it is possible to encounter both types. For example, a YouTube video could contain spoken statements (such as from a person's webcam) that would constitute slander. On the other hand, Twitter or Facebook posts are typed statements and would be examples of libel.

The key to establishing a defamation case is to prove someone made false statements with a degree of fault to one or more third parties. There also has to be some type of harm.

Falsity is a must. Basic trash talk or calling people names does not count. Opinions do not constitute defamation either.

Most of the cases I see, especially from the Internet, fall into this category. That's not to say that you have to sit and take it, but it is not defamation. Such statements still could constitute false light, invasion of privacy, infliction of emotional distress, harassment, etc., but those are potential topics for other columns.

If someone makes a false statement to your face, that is not defamation unless it is heard by someone else. The statements have to be made to a third party, but it is not necessary that you hear it firsthand. As long as you can prove the statement was made (such as a public forum), that is good enough.

Whether the statement is made or published to a third party is a tough element to prove in slander cases. It usually is a he-said, she-said case. Who is the jury going to believe? If there is some type of recording of the statement, that is the best proof of what was said. Obviously, written statements are easier to prove as to their content. (If it was said on a private forum or private email - it can not be considered defamation or libel)

You also must prove there was some sort of harm done. You do not have to show actual monetary loss. Damage to your reputation, humiliation, and mental anguish are examples of harm.

What about that "degree of fault" language I mentioned? Well, if you are a private citizen, you have to prove only that the false statements were made negligently by the offender. However, for public figures, it is harder to prove defamation because you must show the statements were made maliciously. If you are a public figure, you have placed yourself in a position of some important public controversy. You are willingly in the limelight. So, if you ever run for public office, make sure you have a thick skin.

There are other nuances to the law, but those are the highlights. If you believe you have been the victim of defamation, consult an attorney.

DISCLAIMER: Every situation is different. Nothing in this article should be considered specific legal advice.

Jonathan Schmidt is a partner with Benson & Schmidt LLP.

(this does not cover "False Light" when truthful statements can be made in a 'false light' to discredit another's reputation - which is actionable in many states in U.S.)

original article here

Man Rapes Girl, then Sets Up Facebook with Her Name

(U.S.A.) Travis Davis is facing stalking charges after he allegedly set up a Facebook account using the name of an ex-girlfriend he raped in Ohio to contact a more recent ex in Pennsylvania. He tried to force the woman he contacted to come back to him by threatening to distribute a secretly filmed sex tape.

The 23-year-old Indiana man was arrested Aug. 15 outside the second ex-girlfriend's home in Delmont, about 25 miles east of Pittsburgh, after someone called 911 to report a man sleeping in a suspicious vehicle outside, police said.

He had a .45-caliber pistol, three magazines of bullets and a box cutter, and the car had a stolen Pennsylvania license plate taped over the Indiana plate on his car, police said.

Davis had created a Facebook profile in the name of another ex-girlfriend, a woman he had raped in Preble County, Ohio, and used it to contact the Pennsylvania woman and her current boyfriend's family, police said.

A week before his arrest, police contend Davis sent the Pennsylvania woman a video of him having sex with her when both still lived in Indiana. The woman "never knew that this video was filmed in the first place and obviously never gave consent to send the video to anyone," a criminal complaint said.

Davis threatened in an e-mail to "send the video to everyone if she did not return to Indiana for him," a criminal complaint said.

A few days later, the Pennsylvania woman received a friend request from the Facebook page Davis created using the identity of his Ohio rape victim. Davis - pretending to be the Ohio woman - threatened to send the video to the Pennsylvania woman's current boyfriend if she did not move to Indiana, the complaint said.

Davis, still posing as the woman he raped, then messaged the Pennsylvania woman and told her he would keep the video a secret if she agreed to a "sexy video chat" with her ex-boyfriend over the Internet. Police say the Pennsylvania woman consented to the chat Aug. 12.

The next day, Davis called the woman claiming that his Facebook alter ego had sent him the video and "advised her, in sum and substance, that it may be in her best interest to return to Indiana," the complaint said.

On Aug. 14, nude images of the Pennsylvania woman were sent from the Facebook page to the woman and her boyfriend's mother, police said. Authorities said they have contacted Davis' accuser in Ohio, who confirmed the Facebook page wasn't hers.

Davis pleaded not guilty and faces charges of violating a protection from abuse order and stalking.

Davis remains in jail on $75,000 bail and his lawyer says he intends to prove his innocence.

original article here

UPDATE: Internet Terrorist: Betsy Ashby aka Guardian

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.