INTERNET PROVIDERS & REVENGE BOARDS MAY BE LIABLE FOR PREDATORS & HARASSERS

by Jonathan Bick

The economic difficulty of pursuing individuals for bad acts has led injured parties to seek legal remedies from the companies that facilitate the platform upon which the bad acts occur. In the past, internet facilitators could avoid contributory and vicarious liability by claiming users' bad acts were beyond the facilitator's ken and control. Now, widely available, low cost e-commerce technology diminishes the viability of said defenses.

Previously, passive internet service facilitators successfully argued that they do not "collaborate" with internet users to undertake bad acts because they were either unaware of the bad acts or could not act to prevent such bad acts in a timely fashion. Advances in internet technology, however, have increased the internet facilitator's capacity for ameliorating internet bad acts automatically. Failure to employ such technology may result in an increase in the facilitator's liability for not preventing bad acts on the internet.

Internet facilitators include service providers, hosting services, blogging platforms, 'gripe' sites and social network sites, to name just a few. These internet service suppliers allow email, instant messaging, peer-to-peer communications, blogs, broad internet access, chat rooms, intranets, interactive websites, and other electronic communications. They also allow various goods and services transactions.

These transactions may result in a myriad of bad internet acts, ranging from defamation, copyright infringement, failure to protect trade secrets, harassment (including hostile work-environment issues), to criminal accountability and loss of attorney-client privilege.

The nature and extent of internet bad acts is exacerbated by the fact that internet sites are accessible beyond national borders, and no international code of internet behavior exists. Additionally, user-generated content may be a substantial portion of an internet facilitator's site content and the international legal community has yet to standardize intellectual property rights; international intellectual property standards are governed by multilateral treaties.

In the past, internet facilitators could avoid secondary liability for not stopping bad acts by showing one of two types of defenses. First, if charged with vicarious liability, facilitators could show that they did not possess the ability to supervise those who engaged in bad acts using the facilitator's Internet assets. Second, if charged with contributory liability, they could show they did not have knowledge of the bad act involving the facilitator's internet assets. See MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

However, as internet technology increasingly allowed automated action to enable internet facilitators to prevent bad acts by third parties on their sites, the United States implemented a statute that provided a "safe harbor" provision protecting websites and web providers from secondary liability for certain bad acts, such as copyright violations performed by users on a facilitator's internet asset. The most wide-ranging safe-harbor provision is offered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (codified at 17 § U.S.C. 101 et seq.) (DMCA).

Though the question of interpreting this part of the statute has yet to reach the Supreme Court, lower courts have been consistent in interpreting it broadly and have applied it to any entity that provides access to the internet. In particular, the court in ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Cmtys., Inc., 239 F.3d 619, 626 (4th Cir. 2001), found that a newsgroup website would fall under the definition of an internet facilitator. The court in Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F.Supp. 2d 1090, 1100 (W.D. Wash. 2004), found that Amazon.com fits within the definition as well.

However, the safe harbor also requires that the internet facilitator who is eligible for indemnification from secondary liability not have "actual knowledge" of the infringing material. The near universal use of internet technology, which provides actual knowledge of the content of the facilitator's site and the site's related transactions, may be used by plaintiffs to pierce the safe-harbor provision and require the internet facilitator to forfeit the protections of the safe harbor.

Internet technology that allows a facilitator to limit an internet user's bad acts is available. The three most important technologies are: automatic internet user monitoring systems, "net nannies," and internet tracking software.

Automatic internet user monitoring systems, such as screen capture utilities and key logger software, record all information that is sent to an internet facilitator's site. These monitoring systems can feed captured data to software tools which will prevent internet users from taking certain action to facilitate bad acts, such as installing malware and distributing unlawful spam, among other activities.

For more than 10 years net-nanny software has been providing internet facilitators with a secure means to web filter to avoid the use of its site for purposes deemed inappropriate. Net nannies may be used to stop the distribution of images of an unlawful nature, deny access to internet users whom the internet facilitator deems to be undesirable, and generally censor unacceptable behavior automatically on behalf of the internet facilitator.

Existing internet user-tracking software can usually narrow the radius of geographical location of an internet user within several hundred feet, without requiring the user's permission. This is done by sending a message to the target, and using the time it takes to bounce back, the internet user's IP address and Google Map software. Knowing the likely geographic location of an internet user can allow the internet facilitator to prevent internet bad acts, such as allowing a site user to send goods into a state which has deemed such goods to be contraband.

In combination, automatic internet user monitoring systems, net nannies, and internet tracking software are capable of removing unlawful or unacceptable content and sending an electronic message to the bad actor informing that person of the violation that has been committed. Internet technology may also mete out sanctions automatically. In particular, certain internet technology may automatically bar a bad actor's access after determining that a violation of the terms of use agreement associated with the internet facilitator's sites has occurred.

While changes in internet technology may change internet facilitators' liability in the United States, such changes may be blunted in Europe due to the implementation of local law. The European Union has attempted to deal with the liability of internet facilitators by issuing a series of directives.

These directives are known as the E-Commerce Directive, and it grants liability exemptions to passive internet facilitators. See Directive 2000/31/EC, arts. 40-58, 2000 O.J. (L 178) 1 (EC). The E-Commerce Directive exemptions only apply if the internet facilitators do not "collaborate" with a user to undertake illegal acts and must act expeditiously to remove access to any illegal information upon receiving notice of such illegal activities.

While the directive is binding on member states as to the effect to be achieved, it allows the implementation process to be designed by each member state for implementation in its sovereign jurisdiction. The directive does not address internet technology, thus the use or failure to use such technology is not a factor in assessing internet facilitator liability.

Even if the use of monitoring and control technology were integrated into the E-Commerce Directive, the result is not clear, as evidenced by the three cases considering YouTube's liability for user copyright infringement that parallel Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., in Spain, Germany, and Italy.

All three countries are members of the European Union and thus subject to the E-Commerce Directive. Yet the cases have resulted in a YouTube victory in Spain, but losses for YouTube in Germany and Italy.

original article found here

HOW CAN YOU TELL IF THEY ARE LYING?

Did you know that Online Dating is the top moneymaker on the Web? Chances are good that you have joined a site or two yourself. If so, you've probably asked the top three questions my CyberRomance clients all do:

"Why don't they answer my emails?"
"How do I tell them about ___?" - you fill in the blank.
"How can you tell if they are lying?"

"Why don't they answer my emails?" You'll never know, but rudeness is a pretty good guess. Say "Thank you" to cyberspace for weeding out inconsiderate candidates so quickly!

"How do I tell them about ___?" Just about everyone has something they are ashamed of others knowing and worried about how to break the news. This question takes time and finesse for the best solution -- and usually there IS a good solution! A Romance Coach could help if you are really stumped.

Much of the problem of Internet lying is media over hype. What kind of interest would there be in a story about all the honest people who are on the Net?

But of course some people do lie, and being concerned about who is and who isn't lying makes a heck of a lot of sense.

"How can you tell if they are lying?" Count the ways:

Reasons people lie:
To avoid conflict.
To avoid the consequences of their behavior.
To postpone having to make changes in lifestyle.
To hide something they did or did not do.
To avoid rejection.
To be in control of a situation.
To avoid being embarrassed.
To make themselves appear more successful, good, or talented than they really are.
All make terrific reasons for people to lie online.

How to detect lying:
A truthful person will be "congruent." That means that all the information they give out -- their words, body language, they way they live and dress, everything -- fits together and contains no contradictions. People who lie will be incongruent in some way.

Here's what to watch out for:
1. How they use words, written, on the phone, or in person:
Talking faster or slower.

Changes in voice pitch.

Taking charge of conversation, attempts to distract you.

Continual denying of accusations.

Unusual voice fluctuations, word choice, sentence structure.

Stalling the conversation by repetitive use of pauses and comments like "um" or "you know."

Lack of use of contractions.

Prefers emphasizing "not" when talking.

Being extremely defensive.

Saying "Trust me" or "this is a True Story"


2. How they behave or the attitudes they exhibit:
Being hesitant.

Nervous laughter.

Smugness.

Uncommon calmness.

Providing more information and specifics than is necessary or was asked for.

Inconsistencies in what is being shared.

3. In-person behavior clues:
Touching chin, covering the mouth, or rubbing brows.

Crossed arms or legs.

Pupils narrow.

Playing with hair.

Body language and facial expressions don't match what is being said such as saying "no", but nodding head up and down.

Avoidance of eye contact, eyes glancing to the right, staring past you or down, or turning away from you while they are talking.

Rigid or fidgeting.

Slouching posture.

Unnatural or limited arm and hand movements.

Partial shrug.

Lack of finger pointing.

May place a barrier such as a desk or chair in front of self.

Sweating, even if it isn't a warm day.

Saying "no" several times.

4. Your own inner cues:
You sense something is not right. Explanations do not feel enough for you. You feel confused, you find yourself squinting or angling your head. You feel a block or a wall between you and the other.

In Internet dating, or any kind of dating for that matter, keep your anxiety down, your head attached, and LISTEN to everything your date tells you in every way. People tell you about themselves constantly, from the very first second of contact. You just have to be willing to hear it. Not only do they tell you by what they do say, they tell you by what they don't say.

Many of these cues can come from simple distraction or nervousness, not deceit. New daters have plenty of reasons to be anxious. Signs of lying differ from one person to another. Don't let your own nervousness force a jump to wrong conclusions. Give your date a break and take some time.

Often, Cyber daters move too quickly to the phone and/or a face to face meeting. Gone is the golden opportunity to safely ask questions and study answers slowly and over time. Moving to face-to-face or skin-to-skin vastly increases tension and anxiety, which complicate clear thinking and judgment. (Some Cyber-players try to avoid a face to face meeting all together!)

With online dating, you have a tremendous advantage over meeting immediately flesh-to-flesh: You have a written record of what the other tells you. Make use of it!

http://www.kathrynblord.com/

Top 5 Technologies used to Cyberbully

Cyberbullying is a growing problem in the United States and throughout the world. The act of Cyberbullying occurs when individuals use the Internet to harass or embarrass other people.

But what are the tools of cyberbullies that allow them to hold such sway over their peers? The following is a list of five technologies currently employed by cyberbullies to intimidate other kids.

1. MySpace, Facebook and other social networking sites - Currently the leading medium for cyberbullying incidents around the United States, social networking sites have become the instrument of choice for those kids and teens who look to humiliate other young people. These sites provide a means for individuals to post embarrassing photos, conduct mean-spirited online polls and other forms of cyberbullying. Another growing concern in this area is the theft of user IDs and passwords. When one individual steals another’s login information, they can go into their account and make statements in that person’s name. The results can be socially devastating to a teenager or adolescent.

2. Instant messaging - Instant messaging is a staple of major Internet companies such as AOL, Yahoo, Google (through its Gmail service) and MSN. Unfortunately, it is also used as a means of harassment. Many have adopted fake screen names and then used these account to “ping” their enemies with profanity and threats of violence.

3. Email – Email is a relatively anonymous act, especially if an individual goes by a screen name that bears no resemblance to their actual name. Email is used to send threatening letters and images, and can be the delivery device for rumors and falsehoods about an individual. Although many have moved on to social network sites as a means for their cyberbullying, email remains an “old school” way of performing this hateful act.

4. PhotoShop – Surprisingly, the world’s most popular photo editing software is also a device used in many cyberbullying cases. In most cases, one individual will take a photo of another person and alter it so that the victim appears to be in a compromising position, or doing something they should not be doing. Digital camera and camera phones in general have been a problem in Cyberbullying cases – as they give individuals the power to take hidden or unwanted photos of another person, and then spread them instantly across the Internet.

5. Blogs – Many have gone so far as to create entire blogs focusing on their rivals or enemies. These blogs invite user participation via comment posts and create a permanent entity that intimidates the individual in question. Blogs are easy to set up and can be created anonymously, which only serves to make the problem that much worse. With little accountability, the bully is free to let loose a stream of destructive and hurtful language.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

TO FIND OUT HOW TO IMMEDIATELY DOCUMENT & REPORT A CYBERBULLY - CLICK HERE

Puppetmaster Cyberpath Coerces Victims into Webcam 'Acts'

CANADA -- An Ottawa man who pleaded guilty to blackmailing girls and young women into performing degrading acts in front of a computer like a "puppeteer pulling strings" was handed an eight-year-sentence on Friday.

Ontario Court Justice Celynne Dorval said Ryan Earl McCann, 20, committed "premeditated torture" on his young victims, and used his youth to manipulate them into doing what he wanted.

McCann used nearly a dozen phoney online personas to manipulate women and girls as young as 14 into committing "demeaning" acts under the threat of physical violence or the release of the webcam videos on the Internet.

"When manipulation failed, his weapons of choice were threats which rendered the complainants powerless and unable to control their own lives," said Dorval. "Contrary to his fictional characters, each one of these young women is a 'real' person. He leaves behind a trail of scarred and emotionally fragile teenagers and young women."

McCann pleaded guilty earlier this month to 26 charges, including extorting young girls and women to make pornographic videos, producing child pornography, invitation to sexual touching, harassment and uttering death threats against 22 victims.

One of McCann's victims left the courtroom in tears as the judge outlined the crimes committed against her.

Dorval said McCann's nearly two dozen young women suffered "significant consequences" while McCann was "callous and uncaring" to the harm he was causing.

"Shame, self-loathing and loss of confidence are common to all," said Dorval, adding some now suffer nightmares, sleeplessness and a constant concern for the safety of their families.

Dorval said McCann's videos, including one in which the webcam captured stuffed animals on the headboard of a bed behind a young girl performing explicit acts, provided a "very graphic image of the sexualizing of children."

Wearing wire-rimmed glasses and a white hooded sweatshirt, McCann occasionally hung his head as he sat silently in the prisoner's box. He briefly acknowledged his family, who sat in the front row.

"Bye Ryan, I love you," one of his sisters called out as he was being led out of court.

With two-for-one credit for 13 months of time served, he now has five years and 10 months of his sentence to serve.

Dorval said a 2007 psychiatrist's report turned out to be "prophetic" when it found McCann had the capacity to inflict "significant emotional and psychological harm" in situations where he perceives he is in power. The doctor also concluded McCann, who apologized in court last week, lacked the capacity to feel guilt or remorse.

McCann confessed to developing an elaborate scheme to recruit girls and women between the ages of 14 and 21 to perform sexually explicit acts for money by portraying his purported company, Talen's Playground, as a legitimate business.

McCann, who was 18 at the time, would initially chat with his victims on Facebook or MSN Messenger. Then he would encourage the young women to take on "clients" who would instruct them to perform in exchange for huge sums of money, depending on the explicitness and number of sexual acts they performed.

But instead of paying, McCann blackmailed the girls and young women into committing more degrading acts by threatening to expose the videos or to recruit their friends by using the victims' own online identities, which he had hacked. McCann also had two 15-year-old girls perform sex acts on him.

McCann assumed 11 different personas to further the ruse and intimidate his victims, including threatening physical violence and death. Many of them didn't realize he was the only person involved until after his plea.

Although the victims were told they were performing for clients, McCann admitted to police he had the victims do the shows "for his own personal pleasure" and because he enjoyed the thrill of being a predator.

In the videos, the young women removed clothing, danced in front of the camera, touched themselves, simulated sex acts on the handles of flashlights or hairbrushes and carried out more explicit acts. At other times, they wrote degrading messages on their bodies. Some cried throughout their performances. One threatened suicide.

In addition to prison time, McCann was ordered to provide a DNA sample to the national databank, was added to the sex offender registry and prohibited from possessing weapons for 10 years.

He was also ordered to stay away from parks, playgrounds, schools, daycares or any other place children under the age of 16 may be present for life. That order also bans him from using computers to communicate with children under 16.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE HEARTBREAKING VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS

original story here

Obsessive CyberStalker Terrorizes Woman - Ignores Lifetime Restraining Order

One of Britain’s most obsessive cyber stalkers terrorised a girl on the internet for almost two years because she refused to go out with him.
Jason Smith bombarded Alexandra Scarlett with up to 30 threatening messages a day on her Facebook and MySpace accounts.

In a series of vicious rants, Smith, 23, vowed to slash the 20-year old student's face, said he would rape her mother and aunt and also threatened to shoot her father.

Miss Scarlett, who had given Smith her phone number after meeting him at a Manchester nightclub, repeatedly shut down her accounts and opened up new ones - but he always managed to track them down and hound her again.

She tried to block his Facebook page 40 times but he set up new ones and posted further terrifying messages, including threatening to kill her.

Today Smith was under a lifetime restraining order banning him from contacting Miss Scarlett after a judge said he needed treatment for an ‘erotic mania’ psychological disorder.

He was also given a 12-month prison term suspended for two years after he admitted harassment.

Sentencing him at Manchester Crown Court, the judge, Mr Recorder Stephen Bedford, described Smith’s actions as ‘chilling’.

He told the offender: ‘You had just one meeting with Alaxandra Scarlett and she made what she probably regrets as one of the biggest mistakes of her life.

‘It seems you think you are God’s gift to women and when they do not respond to you cannot accept it.’

He added: ‘You appear to have no idea of the impact that messages like that could have. ‘Although she changed address, you continued… this must have been quite chilling for her.’

The victim was too upset to talk about her ordeal. But in statement read to court she said:

‘I was petrified that he might find me.

‘I felt like I could not go out into Manchester as much anymore and I felt harassed and controlled. I resent the fact that I have been forced to change my lifestyle.’

A friend said: ‘Alexandra was in fear of her life. She didn’t know what this man was capable of.’

The internet hate campaign took place between November 2007 and March 2009 after Smith, of Newall Green, Manchester met Miss Scarlett in Pure nightclub in the city centre.

Louise Brandon, prosecuting, said: ‘Miss Scarlet gave him her telephone number. That was the last the pair saw of each other.

‘Following that night the defendant began calling and sending text messages to Miss Scarlet.

'In the follow week he began calling frequently, this could be up to 30 times in one day.

‘After a week or two she asked him to stop calling her. After that she started to receive text messages saying that he was going to shoot her father.’

Miss Scarlett went to police but Smith then began posting 30 messages a week on her My Space page saying she was a ‘slag.’

Miss Brandon added: ‘He was saying he loved her and then calling her unkind names in the next message.

‘He had sent her a message saying that if he found her he would slash her face, and that he was going to find her and kill her.

‘She became frightened, she cancelled the MySpace and set up a new account but he found it. She shut it down again and made another and again he found it.

‘He got hold of her new mobile number through a friend or family member on MySpace. He had begun speaking to them pretending to be her boyfriend.

‘He also pretended to be her and sent her friends messages say that she was going to smash them up.

‘She has blocked him from Facebook 40 times, but each time he has set up a new Facebook page and continued to contact her.

‘In some messages he said that he loved her, she was convinced that they were all from the defendant and he was sending her text messages up to 30 times a day - some were violent.

‘Through Facebook he sent messages threatening to rape her mother and her aunt.

‘When Miss Scarlet moved out of the area he threatened to kill her. He called her a grass for telling the police and then said he was going to slash her face.’

When arrested in March 2009 Smith said he thought he had ‘fallen in love’ with Miss Scarlett and claimed she had been calling him too.

Alexander Leach, defending, said: ‘The defendant has difficulty in grasping the full facts of this case.

‘This was obviously a frightening and distressing period of the complainant’s life.

‘On the other hand Mr Smith is wrestling with the reality of what took place and his understanding of what took at the time. He saw what he thought was the beginning of a relationship.’

original article here

FINAL THOUGHTS ON JOHN GASH

From one of Gash's victims: Here is a brief summary of what happened at the end of this relationship (EOPC's comments in purple):

For several months I had noticed a change in his behavior. He was swinging between being utterly charming to downright mean. (the REAL him) He was saying and doing things that eroded my self esteem and confidence which cut through the heart of who I am as a person. He became unreliable about making our regular meetings online and although I would often see him online on my messenger he wouldn't answer my IM's. When challenged he would say it wasn't him but Yahoo. It just happened too often.

(Typical. Dorsky, Gridney/ Yidwithlid, Thomas, Clive, Jacoby - all did/ do the same thing. For Narcissists this is called the "DEGRADE & DISCARD" phase when they get bored with you, blame you, project all the bad onto you and leave - making you feel like crap in the process. This is who they really are. They were just using you for sex & an ego boost. To them people are just OBJECTS which is why the internet is such a fertile HUNTING GROUND for them!)

We had arranged a holiday in Spain to visit some friends of mine. He left his beaten up old address book on the bedside table, I had bought him a new one the previous Christmas and was curious as to why he wasn't using it. I opened it up, took a look and found names, phone numbers and internet id's of ladies. I wrote a couple of the phone numbers down and then challenged him but he denied everything saying these were women he had called before he met me. I had also given him a cellphone to use in Europe and I noticed he was getting lots of voicemails... he always left the room to listen to them which was a big red flag. (Nathan Thomas did this too. A HUGE red flag.)

I packed my bags, told him our relationship was over and left to return home. On arrival back in the UK I contacted a man I knew in the USA and he called the numbers listed in the address book pretending to be a friend of John Gash. The first call was to **** ***** an engineer who worked in the same company. She told him that they (Gash & she) "hooked up" as often as possible. This woman had been a bone of contention with me for some time as she was always leaving him messages when he was with me in the UK and I had seen emails from her. When questioned he told me she called to tell him about contracts they had won. It was strange to me that they always won these contracts when he was overseas with me, so the fact that she admitted they hooked up pretty much confirmed everything I believed.

I left John a voicemail telling him to come to Yahoo messenger as I needed to talk to him. I then confronted him with what I knew. He denied and denied until I told him I would let his child know what type of man their Father was. At that point his cover was about to be blown so he tried to buy my silence by telling me he loved me; that he didn't want this to end; that it had been my decision to end it, not his and he couldn't bear not talking to me again. (Gridney/ Yidwithlid did the same telling his victims he "couldn't lose them out of" his "life." Now 4 years later, this same person attacks his victims and threatens them.

Nathan Thomas told one of his wives that it was "all her fault" because she didn't believe him & stand by him... when he'd BLATANTLY LIED to her. Can't these predators think of anything better? Like the TRUTH?)

I told him he had earned nothing from me and I would not promise him anything. He then admitted sleeping with AT LEAST three women simultaneously. When I told him it was still my intention to still notify his family he became angry, aggressive and ugly. I told him I would need to take an HIV test and advised him to do the same and that, if it was found to be positive I would sue the pants off him. He told me he would take an HIV test for HIS protection only. (Of course ALL about him)

One week later he emailed to say his HIV test was negative which was total BS as two tests are required with a time frame between them even then he was blatantly lying. (Yes, HIV tests require a lot of time. Campbell tried to do this to his victim, too) I am an R.N. and yet he was still trying to B.S. me!

I still have the whole of this conversation printed out and in safekeeping so, should he wish to challenge this expose or threaten a lawsuit he will need to first find the safe deposit box its kept in as it can be used in evidence.

Two years later I went into a Yahoo chatroom and noticed the id Wheelies03 talking in the room. I just knew it was him even though it wasn't an id I knew or had heard before. I got a friendgf to IM him and and he gave her his name and cellphone number. She emailed me the conversation and I sent it right back to him. Immediately the id Wheelies03 was deleted. (BUSTED!) I am certain he is still out there as this has become addictive behavior.

(These guys never change!

"Pathology Is The Inability To:

• change and sustain a change
• grow to any emotional depth and
• develop meaningful insight about one's own behavior and how it effects others."

- SANDRA BROWN, MA."

Let's take a look at some of our past predators:

• Ed Hicks is still trolling as Charles Hicks or someone else.
• William Barber was rearrested for leaving the state of his probation with false ID on him... on his way to do the same thing over!
• "Gridney" changed his nick to Yidwithlid, deleted all his posting about his romps with hookers; though they remain on archival searches, and he has a new political blog under that name as well as being on instant messengers under Yidwithlid 24/7 - despite saying he & his wife "worked it out," and saying he had deleted all his IM programs. ha!
• Beckstead and his proxies are still checking sites like this one and Beckstead tried to reel in his victim this past Christmas while probably working over other victims at the same time.
• Jacoby is now trying to paint his victim as a "whore" and a "crazy woman" (heard that before haven't we, reader?) and is attacking her after using her and taking her time, money and love; for standing up for herself. And he's most probably online now with at least 1 or 2 new targets!
  

These guys may try to delete things from the net or even wipe their hard drives but nothing ever really changes and they NEVER change their M.O.s This is why exposure is so vital:

1. to keep others from falling for their traps and
2. on the outside chance it will be a wake up call for them to get help!

While this rarely happens we can only hope these cyberpaths get help before they hurt more people and themselves & their families. Exposure, not 'get over it' or 'move on' is the first step in reclaiming yourself and healing. These predators need to be held accountable!)

I have had no contact with him since and acknowledge that this man has been doing this for years and getting away with it. I was just one of his many victims.

He once told me several times about a fellow employee at his job who attempted to bring a sexual harrassment case at work and he was required to make a deposition. The employee had to leave her job and was moved from California to another state by the company. I now recognise that the harrassment suit was probably against him and telling me about it was almost like bragging that he had won again.

With this expose I have done all I can to forewarn other women and shown him that he cannot treat me in the way he did and expect me not to stand up for myself. I have exposed him on behalf of all his previous victims and the lady who lost her job. I am much, much stronger than he will ever know.

Thank you Fighter for this website and for allowing us a voice to tell our stories.

Incidentally when I met John Gash for the first time in reality I met him sight unseen, not even a photo. My first reaction on seeing him was "There is noooooooo way anything is going to happen here." I am still to this day wondering how it did. I should have listened to my intuition. (Brainwashing. That's how. Subtle, covert NLP manipulation & brainwashing.)

Today I looked up the word GASH in the dictionary... the definition was:

gash (gsh)
tr.v. gashed, gash·ing, gash·es
To make a long deep cut in; slash deeply.

That about sums it up!

You're welcome! And KUDOS to you for exposing him and showing others the type of patterns and tricks that these predators use on vulnerable, trusting and good people online.