THE RAGE OF A CYBERPATH WHEN CAUGHT

BE CAREFUL!!

ONCE YOU EXPOSE THEM YOU WILL MOST CERTAINLY BE SUBJECT TO NARCISSISTIC RAGE. THE CYBERPATH MAY/WILL DO THE FOLLOWING:

- smear you to everyone they can
- harrass you by phone or email (by sure to BLOCK their emails and instant messages or DO NOT REPLY - just save them. If they threaten you, go immediately to the authorities.)
- minimize or twist the truth about what happened to their friends, family, spouse, partners, co-workers
- do everything they can to make YOU look like the sick, mentally ill, distrubed ("scorned) or not credible person
- post you on every exposure site, revenge site or blog about you (often including 'information' on you that is completely false and made-up)
- use their 'proxies' (friends/ spouses in denial, other predators, etc) to help them discredit and smear you
- hire an attorney and give the attorney selective information to sue you for defamation and/or slander. (REMEMBER: the TRUTH is a 100% defense to this. Do not harass but 'stay the course'!)
- go to law enforcement, again with selective information, to have you charged with cyberstalking or cyber-harrassment or worse. (again, stay strong - don't go out of control - and stay the course)

We can assure you that some of the cyberpaths profiled here come to this site many times a day, send us threatening email demanding to know who exposed them (we have YET to have to do this... and doubt we ever will; which is why we ask you to sign a release binding you to tell only the truth and provide proof)

They threaten to sue EOPC, click the "report this blog" button a number of times and even pretend to be other people or send their friends (proxies) to this site to try to covertly get information from us. The people running this site are adults, some who know quite a bit about the law and crime investigation. We are not all in the same country, either.

To the Victims - "exercise caution. And expect to find yourself under attack. Be sure to tell everyone close to you what you are doing. And we support and congratulate you for telling the truth and embracing reality."

To the Cyberpaths - "Lie to everyone you can, if you must - but the truth remains - HERE! We know it, you know it and you can twist in the winds of your twisted realities but a lie is a lie."

The narcissistically injured on the other hand, cannot rest until he has blotted out a vaguely experienced offender who dared to oppose him, to disagree with him, or to outshine him.

It can never find rest because it can never wipe out the evidence that has contradicted its conviction it is unique and perfect. This archaic rage goes on and on and on.
-Group Helplessness and Rage -- Ernest S. Wolf, MD

Exposure: Is it an Intervention? or Revenge?

Mistaken by a cyberpath as an attack.

A predator/ narcissistic cyberpath is complicated but simultaneously transparent when confronted with exposure of their motives.
They are always about the next fix, so if a situation becomes difficult and they find that it is not making them feel good they will blame shift and start looking for the next target. They can never admit and are incapable of realizing that 110% they did it to themselves!

...it was never, ever about you. It was always about them. All about their relentless and all-consuming pursuit of the nectar of supply. You simply made yourself available for feeding upon. You were an means to an end. Nothing more. Yeah, that smarts.

...They don't see you. It's not about you. It will never be about you. You didn't exist for them as a fully feeling and sentient human being. They can not properly assess your value as a person. You are only as good as the nectar of attention you can give them. No matter how great the quality, at some point they get bored. All you'll get for thanks is a door in your face and a big kiss off. They are nothing more than big children who play with their toy for days, weeks, months. Then one day they lose all interest in the toy and kick it aside for another... you've been drastically and catastrophically demoted. All in a moment, a twinkling of the narcissist's eye.

They've moved on to another source and leave you to the licking of your wounds. Lick your wounds, but don't work on that too long. You have reason to be thankful. You are no longer being used. You are no longer someone's sycophant, slave or fall-back supply source. Been dumped by a narcissist? Thank the God in Heaven for your new lease on life and resolve to not again be taken in by a parasitic narcissist.

They are not worth the tears you're shedding for them. You are weeping over the relationship you thought you had, but never did. - SOURCE

Next time they will be more careful not to get caught or figured out. And the next target gets to be on the receiving end of the heightened game.

But what if they have been EXPOSED?

The script has to change now. What does that mean?

Effort. Now they have to work harder to keep up the lie. Reputation, ego, image, humiliation. 


Now their avenues for prey have been depleted downward.

Now the blame shifting has become their only weapon. Make it the other person's fault, but don't stop there. Do it up big. Make themselves the victim . Turn it around and play the "poor me" card.


They will attack you, smear you, turn you into the enemy, lie about you, defame you and even engage others in helping to 'bring you down.'

Always notice that at no point do they think about who they hurt, stop to feel bad about the pain they caused someone else. At no point can they see that they need to STOP and realize that if it has gotten this bad, it is time to reevaluate themselves and get help. No, narcissists are incapable of this moment of self awareness. They don't have the internal mechanisms for this sort of deep introspection. They can SAY they do - but they do NOT.


Even though its time to wake up... They Can't. They simply CAN NOT.

This doesn't happen because of their entrenched belief that they are superior to everyone. Oh, they may apologize to the wife/husband/partner; go to counseling for a few weeks and bamboozle the counselor; even tell a minimized, white-washed, spun story of "what really happened" according to them - but those they preyed on? Well, its THE PREY'S fault isn't it?

NOT!

Then they keep finding outlets, ways to escape reality. New identities, new websites, new emails. Putting you on exposure sites. Even if they say they do - they don't stop. Ever.
Being Exposed is an Intervention. Our Intervention for them. And they will only see it as a full frontal attack. So don't stop. DO THE INTERVENTION... but do it for you and others.
The ways they respond confirms its the real truth which they exposed - ALL BY THEMSELVES.

Psychological Projection A.K.A. Projection Bias – A Common Denominator In Serial Defamation Antagonists

by Michael Roberts

As a professional observer of Serial Cyber Smear Campaigners, I am compelled to maintain ongoing research into the cause and effect of this boisterous minority who have a capacity to destroy and harass limited only by the hours in their day. Recently, I began correlating the psychological illness of “psychological projection” as an risk indicator for serial smear campaigners. My initial observations are quite chilling.

Psychological Projection or Projection Bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them. An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self-failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or projecting those same faults onto another person or object.

In one specific case study, a team of researchers including private investigators, social forensics and forensic linguistics are researching the history, and observing the current activities of one “Darren Mitchell Meade”. This case is very disturbing to me emotionally because I am currently one of his targets for defamation. Meade was able to convince a Fox news journalist named Perry Chiaramonte that I am a criminal hacker; these allegations were posted on the front page of Foxnews.com in early 2012 and have subsequently been syndicated through thousands of websites, the effect on my business as been noticeable. The initial observations of this individual’s history are helping us better understand some of the indicators for the subculture that is fueled by the destruction they wreak on others by attacking the character. It appears, that “psychological projection” plays a large part in their motivation. In the case of Darren Meade, his very own words give some insight into the symptom which seems to manifest as a perpetual cycle of blaming others for his own shortcomings or problems in life. Take for example the following interview which is located here:

http://www.trulyhuge.com/darren-meade.html

It seems that the purpose of this interview was to discuss nutrition as it relates to the bodybuilding sport for which Meade was awarded the title of “Mr. North America” for the middleweight category in the early 90s. Despite the obvious intent of the interview, Mr. Meade struggles to stay on track and repeatedly leads the interview into discussions about the difficulties he has faced because of what he perceives as the duplicity and disloyalty of others. Here are a few examples:

“The hardest part of the sport is trying to discern who your friends truly are. In one moment a person is saying hi and excited to see you and then a week later you learn what they have said or are saying behind your back. Usually it is someone less talented than yourself who is merely trying to impede your progress because they know you are better than them. The easy part is once you realize this they become insignificant in your life.….”

and

“…as you know during my MET-Rx days I was surrounded by people in the sport who I thought were my friends. ……. they simply pretended to be my friends because they wanted a contract or were trying to keep the one they had. The funniest story would be after I left MET-Rx …… and ran into a group of “acquaintances who I thought were my friends. These were people I cared about, had lent money to, had them over to my house for dinner and told me they would do anything for me -- as I approached they nervously scattered. …… The people I traveled with and cared about turned their backs when I was no longer in a situation to help them. I also had a marriage dissolve because the money wasn’t as free flowing, …."

The interviewer in this case attempted to inject some levity into the exchange by simply asking Mr. Meade to “Tell me a joke”. The victimhood position immediately came to light with the following response:

“WHO is a joke?Ahh, I wish I could tell you my truthful response. However I signed a settlement agreement and would be liable for damages if I discuss it.”

When the journalist confronted Meade about negative health side effects associated with nutritional products that had been recommended by Meade, the response appears humble but is another deflective projection of blame and responsibility:

“The bottom line is I met this guy and his wife and was 100% conned into believing that they were quality people. Quickly let me tell anyone who is reading this that if anyone ever tells you that they “don’t have any true friends in town…and that from their heart of hearts they are good people” run; there’s a reason they have no friends. Okay back to the story. I meet Trevor and his wife who had a fledgling company. They proceed tell me a story of how they were screwed over by their ex-business partner. Since I knew what this felt like I wanted to try and help them. Before long they offer me a percentage of their company in exchange for my help. ….. I begin to see that these two need allot of help. …….. However I struck up a conversation with a distributor and told him about the concept of GEAR U.Z.R. and that we would give him a free page of advertising in exchange for buying a few thousand dollars of product. Basically he bought 5 times as much as Nuclear sold during the show. Let me tell you I wish I had never spoken to this poor guy. He was an honest guy and at this point I didn’t know I was involved with Satan and people who would simply be incapable of honoring their word or doing what is right.”

In closing the journalist asked Mr. Mead “what did we forget”, the response is for the most part just more excuses:

“… I would like to simply state that a little over a year ago when I ended a relationship with a shoddy so called nutritional company some negative comments about myself were levied and also statements about my finances as well. What happened is some one I trusted and had living with me forged numerous checks cashed them and then took my car and puppy. …… I realized to just what extreme people would go and that I deserved better than this. Today I live in my new home which looks at the ocean. I’ve been working with a new company and have been approached to write two new books about my life and nutritional philosophy. The best thing is I truly have the most beautiful women by my side and a lovely daughter. Life is truly great.”

THANK YOU TO MICHAEL ROBERTS FOR THIS GREAT ARTICLE

HAS YOUR CYBERPATH PROJECTED 

THEIR SICKNESS ON TO YOU, READERS?

TELL US ABOUT IT. 

DARREN M. MEADE DEFEATED IN LEGAL CHALLENGE.. AGAIN

Today, Michael Roberts of Rexxfield.com announced that his Internet harassment whistle-blowing team has prevailed for the fourth consecutive time in Copyright legal challenges issued by Darren M. Meade who is a featured contributor for RipOffReport.com.   [Case References: Kairos-Meade vs Roberts: #1013232163,#1071357104,#1145332165, #1132706080] Orange County CA.]

According to documents associated with the copyright challenge, the YouTube videos in question depict leaked videos of Darren M. Meade describing how he "punished" a renowned physician through a systematic Internet smear campaign.

Roberts said that he plans on drawing on his experiences in these cases and publishing a self-help guide to combating fallacious copyright challenges issued by subjects of Internet videos who use the provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to chill free speech and whistle-blowing.

Roberts filed a lawsuit in January 2012 against both Google and RipOffReport.com, according to court documents Roberts alleged that Google has what he calls a "humiliation algorithm" which elevates negative sentiment. Roberts published his findings and hypothesis “RipOffReport.com and Google’s Humiliation Algorithm” via YouTube.com recently and it was an instant hit. Roberts said “I posted the video thinking that maybe few hundred people, over a span of several years, might find some understanding about the relentless battering their reputation receives if they are unfortunate enough to be listed on RipOffReport.com”. He said “the fact that a boring video about such a narrow subject has had almost 5,000 views in the last few months speaks volumes about the severity of the problem”

According to court documents Roberts alleged that Google has what he calls a "humiliation algorithm" which elevates negative sentiment. [Case# 30–2012–00557149 Orange County CA]. Roberts’ video exposé titled "Why RipOffReport.com & Negative Results Appear on Page 1 of Google" consistently ranks at the top of the search results for “RipOffReport.com” from more than one million possible results, according to current Google video searches.

According to court documents, Roberts’ alleged further that the favor RipOffReport.com receives from Google is likely influenced by the fact that RipOffReport.com is an affiliate partner of Google’s powerful online AdWords platform. He said “it stands to reason that both Google & RipOffReport.com enjoy financial gain at the expense of the businesses that have unverified complaints filed against them when visitors click on Google Ads displayed in any of the 1.13 Million RipOffReport.com pages currently indexed by Google.com”.


While EOPC doesn't usually do defamation cases - this is important  because often cyberpaths turn around and defame their victims using the internet

Thanks to Michael Roberts for This Article

DEFINING SPIN

by Michael Roberts of Rexxfield

(Watch Michael's story on 60 Minutes)

Victims of Internet smear campaigns must understand the sociopath's or narcissist's expert employment of “SPIN” in their online smear campaigns. This is singularly the best way to begin to understand the way I and many others have found ourselves so frequently gasping in their wake of carnage.

When executing their anti-social agendas, their modus operandi is to sprinkle enough truth in any given lie to add credence to their deceptions.  

Alternatively, sometimes they will “kitchen sink it”, that is to say, they overdose the performance with too much information; the end result is very muddy waters in which no reasonable person can navigate. The kitchen-sink approach is often reserved as a "last stand" when the sociopath's make-believe walls begin to crumble bolstered only by charm, persuasion, sophistry and divide/conquer tactics.

If a lawsuit for Internet libel is to ensue, it is important to put the "spin" on the back burner and build your case around the clear statements of fact that can be proven to be deceptive, thus making for a stronger case. As for the spin, you will need to persuade the judge or jury that the statements were woven in a way so as to cast a false light on the facts. You would need to show that the spin would reasonably be understood to be an expression which would attack a person's integrity or moral character and/or expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule and /or deprive the person of the benefits of public confidence and social dealings and /or injure the plaintiff in the maintenance of his or her business.

Read Also: How to avoid dismissal of libel lawsuit under Anti-SLAPP legislation.

THE PRACTICAL DEFINITION OF “SPIN”:
The most common referents for spin are:

• a form of deception which tries to redirect the way (or whether) one thinks about an issue and / 
• or; a way of giving a positive or negative cast to a story.

Spin at its best:

• Cannot be factually disproved. 
• Looks like it is addressing an issue directly but is not.

In early 2009, I was told by a libel victim who read these pages that he almost cried with relief because he had found others who know exactly what they are going through. 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY LIED OR TWISTED THE FACTS?

"The NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) illusion of superiority is a facet of a generalized disdain for reality. These individuals feel unconstrained by rules, customs, limits, and discipline.

Their world is filled with self-fiction in which conflicts are dismissed, failures redeemed, and self-pride is effortlessly maintained. They easily devise plausible reasons to justify self-centered and inconsiderate behavior. Their memories of past relationships are often illusory and changing.

If rationalizations and self-deception fail, individuals with NPD are vulnerable to dejection, shame, and a sense of emptiness. Then they have little recourse other than fantasy. They have an uninhibited imagination and engage in self-glorifying fantasies. What is unmanageable through fantasy is repressed and kept from awareness.

As they consistently devalue others, they do not question the correctness of their own beliefs; they assume that others are wrong.

The characteristic difficulties of individuals with NPD almost all stem from their lack of solid contact with reality. If the false image of self becomes substantive enough, their thinking will become peculiar and deviant. Then their defensive maneuvers become increasingly transparent to others (Millon & Davis, 1996, pp. 405-423).

Sharon C. Ekleberry, Dual Diagnosis and the Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY ARE LYING OR TWISTED THE FACTS?

from this site

(EOPC believes Cyberpathy is probably an expression of Destructive Narcissism and/or Sociopathy)

We work to try to understand the essence of the narcissist. When I was trying to explain the N to a friend, she understood an N as someone not "able to face the pain of imagining they did something wrong". I wasn't sure about this so did a quick internet search on narcissists and admitting wrong and accepting fault, and got these quotes:

- The narcissist sometimes notices that something is wrong with him and with his life -- but he never admits it.

- ... the narcissist is incapable of admitting that something is wrong with THEM

- They will never admit fault, they will never say they are sorry. If something goes wrong, they will play the victim. They will concoct conspiracy theories against them that do not exist.  They will always blame others.
- Remember they will never admit they are wrong, they will never debase themselves with an real apology. They will never laugh at themselves.

"[I suspect my husband is a narcissist]... He tries to place blame on anyone and everyone but himself."

- Narcissists ...live for themselves, they think they can do no wrong and will not admit to wrongdoing [re: traits common to 6 year olds and adult narcissists]  They often fabricate 'facts' to suit them and have a persecution complex when caught.


- [For the narcissist] to admit to one failing, to acknowledge a mistake, even a simple human error of judgment, would be to open the door to the deep internal lack within. ... Such feelings of worthlessness are like an ocean being held back by a fragile dyke. The illusion of perfection, maintained by projecting faults onto someone else, is a barrier to be constantly tended, mended and shored up. To admit any feelings of deficiency would be the equivalent of poking a hole in the dyke, an event to be feared as a total disaster.

Narcissists blame all problems on the "all-bad." It's never the narcissist's fault; it's always someone else's.

The last paragraph speaks truly from a narcissist's perspective. It's the victim's fault.

If the two of you have a conflict, they'll tweak the facts as much and as often as they have to to make it all your fault. (And if you EXPOSE the Narcissistic Cyberpath? Expect the SAME treatment as well as a full-tilt hate & smear-campaign!)

"His perverse way of turning everything into my fault and his blaming left me battered and exhausted."

Narcissists
Externalization of Blame -- The child cannot allow the bad feelings of being at fault for anything. He/ she/ they/ YOU are the problem!

He avoids feeling vulnerable by blaming others. The fragile self esteem cannot be punctured by taking responsibility for behavior. His script is "Do not expose me to those intolerable feelings inside. I can't handle it."

For making a change (whether great or small) implies that the narcissist has been two things they "cannot stand": imperfect (something is actually wrong with "them") and at fault ("they" actually were wrong, weak, or inferior somehow).

It can't be THEIR fault - THEY are perfect.

The narcissist says in effect, "Something doesn't feel right. I'm too special to be the cause, therefore it must be your fault."

EOPC is loaded with examples of this, here's our sampling:
(scroll over content to find embedded links)

BRAD DORSKY - According to him his victim supposedly 'led him on.' Dorsky not only tried to rage at his victim, he sent a "friend" to EOPC to find out who exposed him.

Obviously, DORSKY thought we were a bunch of barely legal kids on a social networking site; his favorite sort of target!

Dorsky said the relationship was 'consensual.' This is a common one! A relationship can not possibly be consentual when the victim does not know the truthful facts to make an appropriate decision.

• Lying to her
• Telling her she's the only one
• Playing mind games with her
• Moving in on her when she & her husband/ partner/ family are having a hard time
• Moving in when she's vulnerable
• Having a 'hidden agenda'

...does not make for consensual.
It does make for predatory exploitation!

CHARLES "ED" HICKS aka CHARLES GREENE - This guy's a piece of work. Said in court, to a judge, after 2 of his 7 known wives were questioned and hard, clear legal documentation was researched and presented by an Assistant D.A.: "It's false, all false." Guess that orange jumpsuit should have been a straightjacket.

Has recently gone back on dating sites under various nicknames using CHARLES HICKS or CHARLES GREENE to try to defuse people googling ED HICKS and finding out he's the 'Dr. Phil Bigamist.'

Tells people he's retired from a government job (he was fired and his security clearance revoked).

Additionally is not always honest about his criminal record on the numerous dating sites he's on now. This includes his using new names or versions of names on the dating sites.

On the Dating Sites he states his age as 56 LOL! (Shaves off about 9+ years)

(Here's the best one EOPC's heard!) Rumor has it that HICKS tells new prey he is shopping for a publisher for his book where he will tell the truth (he means his version of it a.k.a. complete fiction) and show how two of his wives 'set him up just to get on T.V. (EOPC is sure they had a great time telling the world how naive & used they were by Mr. Hicks) and have lied about him as well as them being 'mean' to his children (a.k.a. feeding, clothing, housing and taking care of his kids during their marriages while these kids sponged everything they could off them and various girlfriends of Mr. Hicks' simultaneously - just like Daddy!).

Additionally he says he plans to 'take legal action" against the producers of "Dr. Phil" and the WE show VERY BAD MEN who profiled him and showed him a bad light and ruined his good name!

Good luck with that, Mr. Hicks... Maybe now that O.J.'s in jail Hicks can help keep on looking for that illusive "real killer."

WILLIAM MICHAEL BARBER - back in jail after leaving the State in which he was incarcerated without permission and found having a false Social Security Card & Number and falsified identity papers on him. (After his wives and victims repeatedly told probation officers he would do it again and he was let out of jail early anyway!)..

BARBER was also profiled on the WE show VERY BAD MEN. He was released October 2007 so be careful! Spread the word about this serial predator! Don't you think these people would be thrilled they are so famous?

Jeff Dunetz/ YIDWITHLID - Where to begin with this one?
1. EOPC ran his expose for the third time in June 2007. This time he became of aware of it and he attacked one of his victims as the sole person causing him "public embarrassment." He gave no acknowledgment that his real name and location were not used by us on this site, at this same victim's request.

No mention that his new nickname and website are now linked to yet another 'false personna and location' made up by him.

No thank you for the consideration one of the victims he decided to bully showed his family. Typical of the backwards reactions of pathological persons!


2. Sammy Benoit/ Jeff Dunetz/ Yidwithlid blames just one person for all the postings about him despite her trying to get them taken down in March of 2007. (Now which one of EOPC's victims really controls the internet? All our Cyberpaths swear its THEIR victim!)

Note: SHE WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO HAD POSTED HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

All Cyberpaths have this "because THEY say it's so - has to be REALITY!" trait... please re-read the paragraph at the top of this article for our take on this pervasive trait of Cyberpaths

IF she (or anyone) had done something that heinous and he has hard proof -- Why isn't she in jail or doing community service? Why hasn't he sued her? (Our guess? Because then the REAL TRUTH about him and his escapades would come out!)
3. Dunetz swears it was 'consensual', but also neglects to mention that none of his targets knew they:

• had online casual sex partner-wanted ads since 2000 (he started up with the first victim we know of in 2002)
• downloaded one of his victims AOL buddy list and sent filthy messages to all the females on it - all of them on file with NYPDCI and the FBI
• was seeing sexual escorts at brothels (two brothels are now closed in part to him threatening this same victim, her going to the police and the police finding out that he was posting online about his exploits at this brothel. [By the way, Yidwithlid -- this Madam is BACK IN BUSINESS! But you probably know that already] Good going, Jeff Dunetz / YidwithLid!)
• the police reverse traced his computer to be full of porn and his credit cards traced back to phone sex lines from 1999/ 2000.  He got rid of that computer as soon as possible and has had a series of laptops since then.

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

1. Did any of his targets know this?
2. Did he tell any of his targets he was lying and it was 'just a game' to him?
3. Did his targets know he was playing with their emotions, trust & using them for freebies?
4. Did we mention he's tried to erase it all and say it never existed or was planted? (His excuse is that its "hurting his wife" - since he was doing this since 1999; according to police - why didn't he think about that the years PRIOR to victimizing these women?)
5. And what do these targets have to do with HIS sex addiction?

Sound familiar?

Again -

A relationship cannot possibly be consentual when the victim does not know the truthful facts to make an appropriate decision.

• Lying,
• telling her she's the only one and you've never done this before,
• playing mind games with her,
• moving in quickly on her when she & her husband/ partner are separating,
• not supporting her when her husband/partner finds out about their online affair and abuses her worse,
• knowing she's mentally & emotionally vulnerable,
• as well as having a 'hidden agenda' does not make for consensual.

It makes for predatory exploitation.

According to these predators their victims aren't allowed be hurt, complain or look for support either. And they just deny, deny, deny. How's that for 'nice guys'?


DOUG BECKSTEAD - an "investigator" from the Air Force Base which Beckstead's associated wrote us and subsequently one of his victims trying to find out who she was, get her to phone them, etc etc. How much should we bet that it was one of Beckstead's buddies trying to be sure which of his online victims blew the whistle on his online predation so Beckstead could attack her?

Beckstead came here and ALSO tried to say it was "all a game" and his victims "knew what they were getting into." Incredible gall, but familiar. Again, Beckstead neglects to factor in that:

• Lying,
• telling her she's the only one,
• playing mind games with her, moving in on her when she & her husband are having problems,
• lying to other targets about your numerous online affairs & porn addiction,
• while knowing she's emotionally vulnerable,
• as well as having a 'hidden agenda'

DOES NOT MAKE FOR CONSENSUAL.
IT DOES MAKE FOR PREDATORY EXPLOITATION.

Again:
A relationship cannot possibly be consentual when the victim does not know the truthful facts to make an appropriate decision.

Guess what! Beckstead was mentioned in the same Air Force Base's newspaper so - he must have been looking to clean up his image before they added to his overblown ego. Rumor has it he's got another victim 'on the hook' already. Watch out, he likes to portray those used-up sources of his as MENTALLY ILL - when in fact these cyberpaths appear to be the ones with 'mental issues.'

He's even tried to tell people that her exposure of him only HELPED HIM... and hurt his victims! LOL - too much protesting, huh? Don't we already know what he's telling his latest victim?

All the stuff he's posted (and continues to post) all over the web - trying to drown out the truth and glorify his 'reputation' when he's really a predator!

JULIA BISH-JUDAH-HUNT-McGOVERN? Just look at her interview. That says it all about how 'innocent' she considers herself after meeting men online and marrying them without even meeting them in person, among other things.

Completely nuts and a serial predator!

PHIL HABERMAN - click here for an update on this story. Haberman continues to use the legal system against ANYONE who has his number and speaks out about it.


UPDATE: LORI DREW - the real "Josh Evans" and Tormentor of the Late Megan Meier - who not only sued the Meiers for a destroyed foosball table but when she ran into the Meiers told them to "give it a rest" about her CAUSING Megan's suicide. Sick beyond belief. Convicted on 3 misdemeanor counts, may face civil action.


DAN JACOBY - turns to his "old standby" of smearing his victim, saying she's 'crazy' and doesn't have the "love of God in her heart." Of course he owes his victim money for things she bought him (he told her he was divorced and broke - NOT!).

Jacoby? Mr. Nice Guy? 1. Well turns out this predator took webshots of his victims during chat sessions without telling them and threatens to post them online if they expose him. Then he changed and scrubbed everything and went to the police to say his victim was "harassing" him. Why would you need to do that Dan, if you were HONEST?

Guess what? These women LOVED you and you can't do anything wrong if you love someone. The scumbag liar? is YOU! Besides what kind of sicko-perv picks on vulnerable women trying to recover from prescription drugs??


The two things all our predators seem to universally hate:

1. being called an abuser
2. being called a PREDATOR

Ouch!! -- yet their victims are not allowed to feel hurt or pain? That's the cyberpath's sociopathic self - the real self with no empathy - coming out.

Do you think that when these predators behind a keyboard find out they are wrong about their assumptions they apology to us or their victims? go ahead and guess!

The "scorned woman" defense. The "they are lying/ making it all up/ obsessed with me/ stalkers/ just jealous/ never happened" defense. The "she had it coming" excuse!

You name it - you'll hear it with these people. Unfortunately sometimes their families or friends still believe them. Until its too late and they are caught doing it again.

Do we see a pattern here? As it says above: IT'S NEVER THEIR FAULT. MUST BE THE INVISIBLE PERSON OR THEIR VICTIM! NEVER THEM!

By the way, any Cyberpath who wants to write a full and accurate confession as well as an open, honest apology to any of the victims they have hurt, caused emotional & mental trauma, forced into counseling, caused rifts in their families, raged at, used and abused... we would be more than happy to publish it for you and see to it your victims get a copy of your healing words as well.

Anonymous Anger Rampant on Internet

by Todd Leopold

There's a whole world of people out there, and boy, are they pissed off.

On political blogs, the invective flies. Posters respond to the latest celebrity gossip with mockery or worse. Sports fans set up Web sites with names that begin with "fire," hoping coaches, athletic directors and sportscasters lose their jobs.

And though there are any number of bloggers and commenters who attempt to keep their postings and responses on a civil level, all too often interactive Web sites descend into ad hominem attacks, insults and plain old name-calling. Indeed, there are even whole sites devoted to venting, such as justrage.com (one screed there was titled, "I don't give a flying f***, so f*** you") and mybiggestcomplaint.com.

This is not a world Emily Post would want to be caught in after dark.

"The Internet can be a great tool," said Sara Black, a professor of health studies at St. Joseph's University who takes a particular interest in online bullying. "Like any tool, it can also be misused."

One reason for the vitriol that emerges on the Web, experts say, is the anonymity the Internet provides. Commenters seldom use their real names, and even if they do, the chance for retaliation is slim.

"In the [pre-Internet era], you had to take ownership [of your remarks]. Now there's a perception of anonymity," said Lesley Withers, a professor of communication at Central Michigan University. "People think what they say won't have repercussions, and they don't think they have to soften their comments."

Contrast that with a face-to-face conversation, or even a phone conversation, where you can judge people's moods from facial movements or vocal inflections, observes University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman. iReport.com: Second Life avatars grapple with reduced nonverbal communication

"It's hard to be aggressive when you're face to face," he said.

Moreover, he points out, aggression often carries a subtext of power.

"A lot of times, real anger is an attempt to get control over a situation where the person doesn't usually have it," he said. In that respect, comments to blog posts are attempts to strike back.

Those power games are innately grasped by children and teens, with schools serving as a perennial social laboratory.

Cheryl Dellasega, a Penn State women's studies professor, ticks off hypothetical examples that could have come straight from the scripts to "Mean Girls" or "Heathers."

"Girls who are getting teased come home and let their [aggressors] have it by putting something on their blog and starting a rumor campaign," she said. And instead of rumors simply making the rounds among peer groups -- which can be bad enough -- "they go out to a much bigger group, a worldwide group. The impact is devastating, and it's as easy as clicking a button."

"Kids don't realize that one post can destroy somebody's life forever," she added.

Indeed, such incidents have made headlines. In 2006, 13-year-old Megan Meier committed suicide after becoming attracted to a boy on MySpace who then turned on her. The boy turned out to be a hoax created by a neighbor family that included a former friend of Meier's.

In August, The New York Times Magazine did a story about trolls, some barely out of their teens, who antagonize others for the sake of "lulz": "Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh," one ex-troll told the publication.

Adults aren't immune by any means. A Japanese woman, angry at her online "husband," killed his avatar after he divorced her. A South Korean actress committed suicide after being harassed by online rumors following a divorce. Celebrity gossip sites are full of snarky comments about stars; reaction from readers is often brutal, turning the story into the online equivalent of a pile-on.

Markman is quick to observe that he doesn't believe there's more anger out there. But, he said, "there are more ways of expressing it on the Internet."

"We've all had interactions with unpleasant people, but we don't confront them. We take it out elsewhere," he said. "What the Internet has created is groups of people where there are no repercussions with being too aggressive."

Indeed, though electronically transmitted anger has parallels throughout human history -- the bitter letter, the village gossip -- the speed at which it travels, and the number of people who may come in contact with it, is something new, says St. Joseph's Black.

"[Electronic] media can increase potential for violence in a number of ways," she said in an e-mail interview. "First, it introduces ideas (good and bad) that people may not have come up with on their own. Second, it is easier to depersonalize the victim, facilitating perpetration. Third, aggressive behaviors may be reinforced with points, attention or status, especially in games."

Withers has seen that first hand. She teaches a course on the "dark side of communication" at Central Michigan, involving "the mean or evil things we do on a day-to-day basis," as she describes it: cheating, for example, or lying.

As part of the course, several of her students work on a collaborative project with students at other schools, and they come together in Second Life, the virtual reality environment. If someone isn't pulling his or her weight, says Withers, others can be harsh in their judgments -- harsher than in real life, because the anger is expressed at the person's avatar. Sidebar: Dealing with anger in Second Life

Which led at least one of Withers' students to forget that the avatar was attached to a real person.

"One student went off on another student and she was sitting in the classroom a few rows behind him," she said. "He knew she was there, but didn't -- there was that distancing."

Is there a way to restore civility to the Internet? Among children and teenagers, say Dellasega and Black, it's up to parents to exercise control.

"I think parents need to take responsibility," Dellasega said. "They give kids computers and leave them alone. ... When a child is 8 or 9, the computer should be in a public place. Kids should understand that using a computer is a privilege, not a right."

Schools can also play a role, she says.

Black adds that parents should set clear rules on behavior and build empathy in their kids by having them reach out to those who are different.

As for adults, human nature dictates that people will always lash out at others, whether it's over a perceived insult or simply because of a power differential. Web sites may ban the worst offenders, but they'll almost always pop up elsewhere, using a different name, e-mail address or even computer.

"Some people are just bitter and angry," said psychiatrist Dr. Terry Eagan, medical director of the Moonview Sanctuary in Santa Monica, California. "Sometimes, they're against everyone, other times against a specific group. That person can get really stimulated and can say all sorts of horrible things. But I don't think it's not like they didn't exist before."

Whether the problem will get control of us, or we will get control of the problem, is in the way we face up to it, he says. Anger, he says, is rolled up with anxiety and fear, and nothing creates more fear like a lack of understanding.

"I tell patients that I'd rather know everything about people; information is powerful," he said. "When the climate of the world is more fear-based, it permeates everything."



ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE


SITES BY VICTIMS OF CYBERPATHS
(we believe many of these people have a right to be upset and using writing as a healing & informational tool for them can be very empowering)

Cyberstalker: Felicity Jane Lowde

Marilyn McAboy

The Laura Knight-Jadczyk Fraud

Harassment is My Job

Nancy Lynne

Too Good To Be Real

Kim Stewart - Bink, Briesis, Allie

Victim of Gareth Rodger Speaks Out

Judy Lyman (?)
Jakob Maltese

One Victim of William Michael Barber Tells Their Story

Sandra Brown MA - No License 


(readers -- if you know of others, please tell us!  thanks to those who sent us these)

6 MONTHS FOR CRIMINAL CYBER HARASSMENT OF HIS EX

by Sam Pazzano

(CANADA) A Toronto osteopath who sought to ruin his former mistress' life by disseminating pornographic shots and videos to her family, friends and church pals was slapped Friday with a blended six-month conditional sentence.

Justice Peter Harris handed Oleg Korbut a mixture of house arrest to be served Monday through Friday -- which enables him to keep working and supporting his wife and six-month-old son -- plus 90 days of weekends in jail, starting next Friday night.

Harris was sentencing Korbut, 43, for criminal harassment plus stealing his now 30-year-old lover's cellphone and diary in January 2010.

While the judge said this sentence would signal that the "theft of one's most private and personal information will not be tolerated," he tempered the six-month sentence -- by making it conditional, instead of six months of straight jail time -- so that Korbut could keep supporting his family.

The victim's embarrassing videos on the internet cannot be retrieved, so her suffering and embarrassment may never end, the judge sadly noted.

"Unquestionably, Mr. Korbut's premeditated, escalating campaign in the form of deliberate, callous and vindictive harassment has had a profound and devastating impact on Ms. K's reputation, her integrity and her self-worth," the judge said. The victim cannot be legally identified.

Korbut -- who had taken sexual photos and videos of the victim during their two-year relationship which he ended in late 2009 -- stole her cell-phone and diary in January 2010 after she revealed she was seeing another man. Korbut had forbade her from doing so for a year or more.

The Ukrainian-educated medical doctor became enraged and then distributed those images to the e-mail addresses of her family, friends and church-going pals. He also started posting her on on-line dating websites between Feb. 16, and March 6 2010.

Korbut also dropped off a "Valentine's Day" gift of a sexually explicit DVD at the home of the woman's new boyfriend on Feb. 14, 2010.

Korbut "was unable to restrain his scornful attitude towards Ms. K., and referred to her as a ‘whore' and ‘f---ing scum' while testifying in his own defence," Harris noted. "He lacks insight and respect for others. . his unbalanced perspective on gender equality and sensitivity was apparent."

Korbut is a first-time offender who enjoys a solid reputation and solid support in the community and represents a low risk to re-offend, Harris said.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

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

SWAMPED BY COMPLAINTS OF WEB ABUSE & ONLINE HARASSMENT

(U.K.) Chief constables across the region are warning of being swamped by a rising tide of complaints of online harassment and abuse, with South Yorkshire Police alone recording a huge leap to 9,500 reports last year.

With resources increasingly strained and severe cuts being made across all four Yorkshire police forces, it marks an admission for the first time that officers will not be able to fully investigate the bulk of reports of offences on social media sites which barely existed a few years ago.

The warning comes as the Yorkshire Post today begins a three-day investigation into the online crime epidemic engulfing the country, which police forces admit they are struggling to keep a handle on. The Leeds MP Stuart Andrew, who lost a childhood friend to suicide after serious bullying, is also today calling for an urgent parliamentary debate on monitoring the use of the internet.

David Crompton, the chief constable of South Yorkshire Police which investigated accountant Paul Chambers over a supposedly “menacing” tweet to blow up Doncaster Airport that led to him being cleared this summer in the High Court, said the rising demand has prompted the force to look again at the way it responds to social media. Mr Crompton stressed serious complaints would always be investigated fully, though in many cases officers should now just be “giving advice” to victims in spite of national guidelines which say police will assist with any prosecution.

“This is one of the biggest changes that we have seen,” Mr Crompton added. “If you go back 10 years, hardly any of these 9,500 calls about what is being said on social media would have been rung through to the police at all. “When there is such rising demand we have to make a distinction between some of the really serious abuse which can be extremely upsetting. By the same token, a large chunk of this could just be the equivalent of a few remarks made from one person to another in a pub. But because it is in the written form, people take exception to it. I am not waiting for national guidance, we are more interested in what we ourselves need to do in South Yorkshire. There is ultimately going to be less resources out there and greater priorities for us in terms of real antisocial behaviour on the streets or more traditional crimes being committed.

“I am not going to say that 9,500 calls is the straw that breaks the camel’s back in any way, but it does raise the question of us looking at the range of things we are trying to do and ask what our bigger priorities.”

There are currently more than 10 million Twitter users in the UK, while around 30 million are believed to be on Facebook. The surge in activity has led to officers complaining of being asked to police the “digital space” despite a reluctance in the courts to convict. A log of all crimes and hate incidents reported to Humberside Police regarding Facebook and Twitter over the past three years, which has been obtained by the Yorkshire Post, reveals that only a quarter of investigations resulted in a charge.

Offenders behind alleged cases such as fraud, racially aggravated harassment, perverting the course of justice and sexual offences have all gone undetected. Mr Crompton’s comments have been echoed by Tim Madgwick, the acting chief constable of North Yorkshire Police.

“We have got to strike the balance because we could become swamped very easily with complaints,” Mr Madgwick said. “What becomes a policing investigation for me would be the more serious complaints where clearly there is ongoing harassment or racism. Where it is more about just inappropriate use of language and more like an argument online, I don’t think that is the place for the police to interfere. I liken it to the change of tolerance in schools – children always have fights as far as I can remember but at a certain level it needs to be dealt with by the police, and quite rightly. “But we haven’t got an infinite pot, we have got a reducing pot.”

ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE

(NOTE: In the U.S.A. IC3 of the FBI reports a minimum 7-9 year backlog of genuine complaints to their internet reporting site.)

Jealousy Behind CyberAttacks & Smears

(MUMBAI, India) Cybercrime is usually perceived as the province of depraved men. But a disturbing trend has come to light of late. Increasingly, women are resorting to online tactics to achieve some nefarious end.

Recently, the woman CEO of a multinational corporation's India operations was detained by the police for cyber-harassment of a co-worker in HR - also a woman.

The CEO, aged 43, posted derogatory remarks about the HR executive, aged 39, on a consumer website to malign her. She described the victim as a sex pest who eyed newly recruited young men and was also "having a good time with a former employee", said an officer with the police's cyber crime investigation cell. The CEO was traced through the IP address from where the posts were made.

"In her police complaint, the victim, who is unmarried, told us that someone was posting comments about her character, or lack thereof, and that she was described as someone who frequently slept with her colleagues and 'spoiled' them," said a police officer.

"She said it all started when she found a change in the way her colleagues perceived her, so much so that she found it difficult to work with them. It was only when her friends and well-wishers asked her about the online posts that she realized what the matter was. She told us she was taken aback and did not know how to react." The police sought from the website the IP address from where the posts were submitted. "It was found to originate from an apartment in a residential complex in Goregaon. When we reached there, we were shocked to find that the house belonged to the CEO of the firm where the victim worked," the officer said. "Initially, the CEO was not cooperating. She accused us of harassing her. But we had technical proof. When we confronted her with it and emphasized that the IP address belonged to her own PC, she surrendered."

The CEO broke down at the police station. "She found herself in front of the victim, who she could not look in the eye. She even had tears," the officer said. "In a written apology, she said she was jealous as the victim was getting quick promotions. So, she started writing online posts, the website being one that is visited by private companies, to do background checks on potential recruits. She wanted the management to take note of the posts and initiate action against the victim." She was later let off.

original article can be found here

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