Court Orders Blog Taken Completely Offline For 'Harassing' Posts

from the does-that-meet-first-amendment-scrutiny dept

While we had one court say that harassing speech on Twitter was protected by the First Amendment, another court felt quite differently about harassing speech on a blog. As both Eric Goldman and Kash Hill have discussed, a court ordered Andrew John Arlotta to delete his entire harassing blog about his ex-girlfriend, and also basically to not do anything that he intends to upset her. Goldman highlights a few of the problems of this, in rather understated tones:
The court rejected a constitutional challenge to the HRO, basically treating harassing speech as a class of content categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. I'm not sure about this approach. It seems like this was more appropriately treated as a situation where speech is also conduct, and the HRO (harassment restraining order) regulated his conduct. I believe treating harassing speech as outside the First Amendment invites more mischief than playing with the speech/conduct divide.
I think Goldman underplays the problems here. I think we all agree that what Arlotta did was ridiculous, creepy and vindictive. But that doesn't mean it's not protected under the First Amendment. As Goldman notes, there were ways to stop Arlotta's conduct without taking away his First Amendment rights and carving out an exception to the First Amendment for being a jerk. I think this ruling is really questionable.

Goldman also highlights the consequences of such a bizarre and comprehensive ruling against Arlotta:
This ruling leaves open a key question. Even under the prior HRO, could Arlotta have blogged about his dealings with Johnson if he did not try to bring it to the attention of others? After all, if his statements are true and not based on restricted information, Arlotta should be able to tell his story. Then again, a blog will show up in the search results, so a blog could be a passive-aggressive way of getting back to Johnson, and just as (if not more) effective as affirmatively reaching out to call attention to the blog. So try a different hypothetical: could Arlotta write and publish a book telling his story? I think the answer should be yes, so long as he lacked malicious intent (recall the initial HRO restricted him from intending to hurt Johnson's privacy).
Of course, I'm not sure a judge would see it that way. That's part of the problem with this ruling. Clearly, the court was troubled by what Arlotta did, and found a way to stop him. So if he were to do as Goldman describes above, I wouldn't be surprised to see them merely assume that it was more of the same, and continue to block his speech. And that brings up one of the clear problems of the ruling. Could you really be barred completely from publicly speaking about an ex because you once harassed her?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    I think the answer is pretty simple: If he went to her house and set up signs in front of the door with the same messages, would they have been taken down as harassing her? If he stood in front of her house with a megaphone and read the blog posts over and over again, would he have been arrested for harassment? If the answer is yes, they it is no different to have his blog taken down.

    You should not be allowed to do online what you cannot legally do in the real world (when it comes to this type of speech).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:49am

    Re:

    A-

    Quite good, could be better. Spoken with belief.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:51am

    Re:

    The problem isn't that he shouldn't have been doing that, it's how the court stopped him from doing that.

    There are laws already in place for harrassment, however the court instead decided to bypass the first ammendment by citing this as being exempt from its protection, despite that not being the case. If they had done this right, they could have gone by that, let him keep his right, but then go on to say that yeah, the harassment restraining order was being violated or something and stop him that way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:01am

    Re:

    Wait, what?! I didn't realize that trespassing was similar to posting a blog. Or that posting a blog was similar to noise violations. I think this is more similar to him being on one side of a noisy loud club (the internet is full of crap that masks more crap, yes?) and her on the other while he is talking horribly about her to whoever will listen, even though she knows it's going on and she may not like it, she has the choice to not wade through crowds of conversations and noise to go listen to him. Just because it exists on the internet does not mean your eyes have to be assaulted. If he spammed her links or copies of the posts of the blog, that's harassing and that should be made to stop, but I don't care if it's on the front page of whatever blog collection as the top read blog, he has the right to say whatever asshat things he wants as well as everyone has the right to say they think he's an asshat and use social norms and not the law show acceptable behavior.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:04am

    Re: Re:

    " I didn't realize that trespassing was similar to posting a blog. Or that posting a blog was similar to noise violations"

    I didn't suggest trespassing, nor do I think the police would stop him for noise alone. If the judge ordered an end to harrassment, and the guy continues, do you not think it would be stopped? A blog is an ongoing harassment, plain and simple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:04am

    Re:

    Fire! Fire! There's a fire! In the Techdirt comments on this post! Fire! Everybody trample everybody else trying to escape the fire!

    Fire!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:05am

    Re:

    You really do deserve some sort of award for your terrible analogies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:05am

    Re:

    you should not be allowed to use analogies when you clearly lack the skill to make proper ones

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:13am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    What if he did it from his house?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:15am

    I don't know if I agree with that. If you're harassing someone to the point a court tells you to stop, then you go make a blog to continue to harass them?. That's just hiding behind the First Amendment to continue to commit a crime. Harassment is illegal online and off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:15am

    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    Same thing - if the judge said "no harassment", and this was deemed to be harassing, then boom, it gets stopped by court order.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:19am

    Re:

    Interesting analogy, although possible flawed. For one, the aggressiveness of the actions you describe, and the physical proximity of the defendant add a further unsettling aspect, which make it difficult to compare to the actual events.

    Further, you seem to be missing the point of the article. It's not "is this ok?" It's not ok, no one is suggesting it is. Rather, the article posits essentially "should the speech itself be ruled as unprotected (i.e. a possible contraction of first amendment protections) or should the defendant be prosecuted based on conduct with malicious intent?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:19am

    Re: Re: Re:

    How is the blog itself harassment? Saying mean things about someone in itself is not harassment, it's opinion. The existance of the blog does not go out of it's way to assault her, pester her, or disturb her, it is quite possible for her to go throughout life without ever having bother with it. If it's defemation of her that's libel and that's different, but him writing trash isn't itself harassment, it's harassment if he does something to her with it, in which case you stop what he is doing TO her, not TO a blog, if there's any harassment in writing a blog it is harassment to the blog itself, which hasn't complained from what I can tell.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:26am

    The point

    Isn't the point here that the judge said flat out that harrassing speech is not protected by the 1st Amendmant therefore take it down rather than saying he was in violation of the restraining order.

    Now even pick signs are not protected if they can be seen as harrassing. Think pro-lifers, OWS types.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:28am

    Re: Re:

    Trails, the speech is "unprotected" by the nature of the court order - that is to say that the speech was / is harassment, and by court order must be stopped. The first amendment isn't a trump card to override anything at any time.

    The two options they offer up ignores the third option, which is that the speech itself may be of a somewhat protected nature, but that as part of an overall situation, and as part of a court order specifically saying not to do it, the defendant did it anyway.

    Restraining orders are an attempt by the court to balance (at least in the short term) the rights of the two parties.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    AJ (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:28am

    Easy....

    Post on a blog not hosted in/by a U.S. company, or using a U.S. domain.

    Blog away!

    I do find it ironic that you would have to go outside the U.S. to exercise your First Amendment rights...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    tracker1 (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:34am

    Like Facebook

    There is a difference between posting on someone else's wall and posting on your own.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:39am

    Re: Easy....

    Until SOPA/PIPA pass..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    bordy (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:41am

    Re:

    The issue that those of you defending this order are missing is that the "victim" here is claiming "harassment" by virtue of her hurt feelings.

    The speech may be petty and vindictive, but that in and of itself isn't - err, shouldn't be - legally sanctionable behavior. Both parties probably need to grow up, but I'll take his sort of douchebaggery over her censorious brand of entitlement anyday.

    I'll close here by exercising my 1st Amendment right to state unequivocally that this self-righteous harlot needs to develop a sense of humor and get over herself.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    wsuschmitt (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:45am

    And if these were Facebook posts...

    ... would the court order all of Facebook taken down because of this man's speech?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:51am

    Re:

    maybe his ex should just not read the blog, eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:53am

    Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    At which point many people point out the judge was wrong and should not be allowed to do that, boom, it gets repealed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 8:54am

    Re: Re: Easy....

    ..and all the children are attacked and everyone is addicted to drugs by the government putting things in our water... and of course, vaccines are bad!

    You guys never top!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:18am

    Re: Re: Re:

    If a blog by its existence and content can be a form of harassment, then there's grounds to take down any blog that opposes any other perspective. Techdirt could be ordered down for "harassing" IP maximalists. A pro-Apple website could be taken down for "harassing" Microsoft or Google.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    bordy (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:25am

    Re: Re:

    This, of course, would have been her most prudent choice, but that would be putting our right to speak freely before the legally venerable doctrine that protects this broad's poor self-esteem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re:

    Did you read TFA?

    They split up, he harassed her, she got a restraining order. 2 days after the restraining order he created a blog about her.

    This, in of itself, is not a bad thing, imho. It's his right.

    However, keep reading.....

    1. sending electronic messages to Johnson's relatives, friends, and others, and posting links to the blog on other websites

    2. He used fake Facebook identities (“Dana Russel” and “Pekin Ilanis”) to post the blog to other Facebook users.

    3. He contacted the bio father of the woman 9 times.

    4. He calls the woman's grandmother saying things like “seems to have been abused,” and “was either molested or abused as a child or witnessed domestic violence.”.

    5. sent messages publicizing the blog to members of Johnson's high school graduating class, a local television news anchor, and other organizations unrelated to the woman.

    6. sent an email to one of the woman's coworkers, claiming she was connected to hard core criminals which got her reported and called to the office.


    If he would have just blogged, and left it be, that would be one thing.

    It's one thing to troll each other, it's a total other story when you start really fking with someone's income and family.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    AJ (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Easy....

    SOPA/PIPA is already obsolete. Below is an example of how anw why. This is one of hundreds of tools on the way. I'm sure they will make these workarounds illegal, but unless we plan on declaring war on Sweden, not much anyone can do but stomp their feet...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    hothmonster, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:37am

    Re: Re:

    I see what you did there, and I like it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    identicon
    Bengie, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:37am

    Re:

    "make a blog to continue to harass them"

    Is it even possible to harass someone via a blog? That's the whole question.

    The whole issue is that blogs are passively communicated.

    Harassment is actively communicated.

    If I could claim that someone is constantly passively communicating to me, I could claim that any webpage on the internet is attempting to communicated with me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:38am

    Re: Re: Re:

    This tells me none of you RTFA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    icon
    McCrea (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:39am

    Okay to me.

    There is a harassment restraining order, and the just ruled he cannot do anything that he intends to upset her. Seems logical to me. (But I don't mean to infer the legal system is logical.) Some of his rights were taken away when the HRO was put in place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    then BOOM we throw a little cayenne on it

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    and religious nuts can still scream about how god hates fags at funerals, sounds fair

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Easy....

    "You guys never top!"

    correct we are untopable

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:43am

    Re: Re:

    It is passive and should be protected, up until he did all of the actions following the publishing of the blog.

    I am not for taking down blogs, in a general sense. It's wrong, it should be protected speech.

    However, all of the other things he did AFTER creating the blog put the blog at risk of going from being protected free speech to being used as a tool for harassment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:44am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Well, now that he can't blog, I guess he lost his means contact the woman or her family/friends/work.

    The problem isn't the blog which removing and preventing doesn't remedy any of his actual harassing actions. If he can't control himself when using a phone or a computer, then banning his access to them would provide a real impact to his harassment, rather than attributing the problem to the blog. For example banning computer access for any use other explicitly required by his job,he would still have the right to make one even though he physically could not if he was not allowed to use a computer to do it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:45am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Easy....

    Like a weeble wobble?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: Re:

    What?

    So if I go to the front of Sarah Palins house that would be harassment?

    The internet is not the front of your house, the internet is not in your neighborhood and people should be able to say anything they want no matter how bad it is, the alternative is to have somebody else decide what is good and what is bad, which should be responsibility of society not you or anybody else alone to dictate to nobody who can say what and where.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    icon
    A Guy (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:50am

    If the girl wasn't a public figure, there is precedent for limiting his speech. I don't completely agree with the reasoning here though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:50am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Yes it is and if it is not it should be, the first amendment is one of the foundations of any democracy.

    Its benefits are larger than the problems with it and you wanting to let the government decide what is or not allowed is just repugnant.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    The courts order is the government meddling where it shouldn't.

    No government should decide what is or not protected speech, period.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42.  
    icon
    bordy (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Eh, I considered your list . . . and I'd still rather abuse my 1st Amendment right so to offset what I consider to be an incursion on the same.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    That is just ridiculous. He was passively saying stupid things about someone, he wasn't imposing his speech into his ex's personal life. The ex could have gone her whole life not even being aware of it and none the worse for it. That is not harassment. Harassment requires the one party imposing their presence or message into the recipient's life causing an unavoidable disturbance that disrupts that persons peace. Nothing he did even comes close to that. This is clearly a problem with a judge overstepping his bounds. This doesn't "balance" anybody's rights. It strips one persons rights wholesale for the benefit of another. It's using a sledge to crack a walnut when a nutcracker would have done just fine.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Yeah, sure. Whatever you say.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  45.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ahh. True. It's even a harsher form of punishment, imho.

    So really, the guy got off lucky.

    I'm sure he could say that he requires computer access to pay bills and what not to get out of it. Maybe that's why the judge didn't go that far...who knows.

    What's funny about this whole thing, if he would have just blogged and left it be, somewhere down the road he probably would have been stumbledUpon, and might have gathered a following of people that felt sorry for him.

    Since he went the whole creepy route, all he did was ensure that any woman he meets in the future will google him, find this story, and run for the hills.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  46.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:04am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "The two options they offer up ignores the third option, which is that the speech itself may be of a somewhat protected nature, but that as part of an overall situation, and as part of a court order specifically saying not to do it, the defendant did it anyway."

    So, the speech itself may merit protection, but when placed in context of the overall conduct, is harassment. So we agree?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  47.  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, he was actually. He was actively messaging it to the ex's friends and families.

    The overall action is definitely harassment, Mike's concern is with the nitty gritty ruling that the speech itself is not 1st amendment, and suggest that the conduct/malicious intent should form the basis of the ruling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  48.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    *makes mental note to put you on the creepy list and passes to all my single girlfriends*

    Again, there is a difference in trolling each other, and totally attempting to ruin each other just because of a romantic break up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  49.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    *Reminds you to RTFA*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  50.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:11am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    *add you also to the "hey girls, don't date him" list*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  51.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:13am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Fine, I don't need nor want a date. I have a family of my own. Nice try though troll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  52.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:15am

    Re: The point

    True, it would have been more reasonable to just sanction him on a violation of the restraining order than to tear down an entire blog. That's like using a tactical nuke to burn out a cave full of terrorists. Sure, it gets the job done, but the collateral damage was unnecessary and avoidable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  53.  
    icon
    bordy (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Dude can I check out that list? I wanna see how I stack up.
    And is there any chance you have a list of your ex-girlfriends I can study?

    Aside: this is nothing personal, just happens to be my last day in the office for 2011 - I got 3 & 1/2 more hours!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  54.  
    icon
    Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Since he went the whole creepy route, all he did was ensure that any woman he meets in the future will google him, find this story, and run for the hills.

    Oh, THAT explains why I can't get a date!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  55.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:19am

    Re: Okay to me.

    It would have been far simpler, and more reasonable, to just punish him for making his ex and her family aware of these malicious blog posts than to blow up the whole blog to root out one bad actor.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  56.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:19am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Then I am totally confused about the lack of understanding the context of this.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  57.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    *giggles*

    /soothe

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 10:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ohh, Grats!! I am stuck in the office till Friday...boohiss...

    Aside: Sorry for taking it personal. Creepy dudes make life miserable....That's not saying women aren't nuts....some of them are. If this story was in reverse, I would say the same thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  59.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Except that you are still wrong. The blog itself isn't harassment, it's the emails, the Facebook messages, etc. The judge never should have ordered the blog to be taken down, it is protected free speech.

    However, I think it would be perfectly acceptable for the judge to punish him for his violation of the original RO, send him to jail, or counseling, or some other appropriate punishment. At no point should the judge be ordering him to do things which interfere with his fundamental rights (like banning him from Facebook or shutting down his blog) but he can dole out numerous punishments if he uses them for harassment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  60.  
    icon
    Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:13am

    Re: Re: Re:

    This is neither plain nor simple. Putting an end to harassment is fine, but the way the court went about it is preposterous. A blog is protected speech. PERIOD. Whether that speech is about my daily routine, cooking, technology, racial superiority, bomb making, or techniques on the abduction of children, it is still all protected free speech. Some of that speech may be abhorrent but it is protected nonetheless. As long as he wasn't slandering or threatening her his speech should have been protected as well and not censored.

    Your examples of standing in front of her house are not equitable to the situation and a poor comparison. The example used in the article is probably the best... If he wrote a book about her and published it, provided again that he was not slandering her with mis-truths or threatening her, the speech would and should be protected under the first amendment.

    It always comes back to the famous quote "while I may not agree with what you say, I will defend your right to say it." I am not willing to relinquish any rights granted under the 1st amendment, and if you are willing to relinquish these rights over something as petty as this, I truly feel sorry for you and hope you are never put in a place where your decisions can effect the rest of us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  61.  
    icon
    Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:29am

    Re: The point

    You are absolutely correct. His posting of a blog in and of itself was kinda pathetic but completely legal and absolutely protected under the 1st amendment. Also, it was in no way, shape, or form harassment. What was harassment was him contacting her friends and family pointing them to the blog. That may also have been a violation of the restraining order which is what should have been used to sanction him. Using the 1st amendment in this way is inappropriate and sets dangerous precedent. Typically a judge will avoid a constitutional issue when there is a clear way to reach the same verdict through something less controversial. This judge simply dropped the ball with a ruling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  62.  
    icon
    Raybone (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:36am

    Re: Re:

    I must concur with Wampa (Hothmonster)..+1

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  63.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:49am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    MY EYES! the cayenne burns my eyes!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  64.  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That reminds me I need to get back to work on making fake webpages/sites/articles so if my name gets googled I'll be amazing and maybe a millionare...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  65.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 20th, 2011 @ 2:26pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That's like saying it's OK to allow someone who has been threatening someone with a gun to continue to keep their gun.

    I'm fairly sure that criminals have had their guns confiscated when being used in criminal behavior.

    Guns are protected too......just like speech is.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  66.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 3:09pm

    I'm of two minds here. Please note.
    "On December 22, Arlotta consented to entry of a six-month HRO that prohibited him from (1) committing any acts “intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy,” (2) having “any contact” with Johnson “in person, by work or home e-mail, by telephone, or by other means or persons,” and (3) visiting Johnson's Morgan Stanley “worksite.”   By its terms, the HRO expired on June 22, 2010.

    Two days after entry of the 2009 HRO, Arlotta created an Internet blog titled, “Help Ann Johnson.”   The blog was written in the third-person and documented Arlotta's ongoing relationship issues with Johnson.   ... Arlotta publicized and promoted the blog by sending electronic messages to Johnson's relatives, friends, and others, and posting links to the blog on other websites.   He used fake Facebook identities (“Dana Russel” and “Pekin Ilanis”) to post the blog to other Facebook users.   As “Dana Russel,” Arlotta contacted the father of Johnson's child nine times between December 28, 2009, and January 27, 2010.   Arlotta asked him to “stop by” the blog, telling him, “this involves your child,” and claiming that “[c]hild & family services have been contacted.”   Arlotta also contacted Johnson's grandmother telling her that Johnson “seems to have been abused,” and “was either molested or abused as a child or witnessed domestic violence.”   ... As a result, Johnson was contacted by friends, family, and others who expressed concern over Arlotta's communications.

    On August 22, 2010, Arlotta sent an e-mail to a Morgan Stanley employee asserting that Johnson was connected to “hardcore criminals” and that she “could be bad for business.”   The e-mail included a link to the blog.   The employee, believing the e-mail to be genuine, informed her supervisor, who met with Johnson to discuss the e-mail.   No other action was taken by Johnson's employer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  67.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 4:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Fine, for pushing this information on the ex's friends and family (that would be harassment) I think he deserves to be reprimanded for violating his HRO, but I blowing up the blog to do it is not within the scope of the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  68.  
    icon
    Greevar (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 4:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    RTFA is a very rude way to make your point. RTFA is the acronym for "read the fucking article". Your insistence to use such a phrasing over and over is just making you look like an ass. If you want people to take you seriously, stop being a dick or GTFO.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  69.  
    icon
    TtfnJohn (profile), Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:22pm

    Re: OOPS

    I forgot, in the above to add emphasis mine. To this point I don't think I've removed (redacted) anything pertinent from the ruling and Arlotta's actions. To continue:

    "On September 10, Johnson petitioned for a new HRO. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued an HRO on March 28, 2011, that would “remain in effect until March 28, 2062.”   The HRO prohibits Arlotta from:  (1) “[a]ny repeated, intrusive, or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect [Johnson's] safety, security, or privacy”;  (2) “[a]ny contact, direct or indirect, with [Johnson] in person, by telephone, by email or by other means or persons”;  and (3) “[a]ny email or other electronic message contact with third-parties that contains any material concerning [Johnson] that affects or intends to adversely affect [her] safety, security, or privacy.”   The HRO also directs Arlotta to remove his blog from the Internet

    Ok, now let me explain why I'm of two minds here.


    To begin with the statements of fact prior to the ruling indicate that Arolotta consented to the first HRO and then within 48 hours began to violate if not the letter if it then the spirit of his consensual agreement. Not only by starting his blog but but contracting others of Ms Johnson's circle and employer by email and using his blog as a reference. During this period he contacts Johnson's grandmother, among others, to accuse Ms Johnson of abusing her child. In his contact with her grandmother he uses language which can only mean the child has being or is being sexually abused.

    (Statement: I am a survivor of sexual abuse by my father during my teens and legally still a child. This continued into my early 20s. So you bet alarm bells went ringing right then and there.)

    Now I don't know what the law is in Minnesota but I do know that Criminal Code of Canada says that such a statement must be reported to police for investigation. Failing to do that could result on charges of aiding and abetting the crime or being an accessory to it.

    I'd have reported her on the spot.

    I'd have had to but I'd have done it anyway.

    None of the facts found seem in dispute it's the court's order to delete the blog that's appealed under the US First Amendment.

    In my mind he consented to the first restraining order them broke it's terms and conditions in just about any way possible excluding the blog but did used the blog to cite for additional evidence should someone want more information on Ms Johnson. To me that citation as well as well as his continuing to email people known to Ms Johnson in violation of that and the subsequent award and his contracting of her employers that really make his blog in my mind questionable as protected free speech.

    Worse his comment to Ms Johnson's grandmother isn't an opinion it's an accusation of a criminal act.

    While I know the blog is still available should I go look for it in various places I can see the court wanting him to take it down though, the rest of his stuff remains on line on Facebook and elsewhere.

    My problem remains that he consented to the terms and conditions of the first order and ought to have known that the blog, plus the emails put him in violation of something he AGREED to and consented to. To me he didn't just violate a restraining order he broke an agreement, contract if you would, with the court that would include the blog as it related to his continuing harassment by Ms Johnson by other means up to and including a criminal act our society finds heinous.

    To me that means the blog wasn't protected speech given the findings of fact in the judgement and that they weren't disputed.

    I apologize for the delay between these two posts as a nasty thing called "real life" intervened before I could get back to finish this.

    With luck the first post makes more sense now. Maybe not.

    It's been that kinda day since I started this. ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  70.  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:46am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Talking to yourself again? Pathetic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  71.  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:49am

    Re: Re:

    I think strong case could be made that the prohibition be based on their obvious banal derivative nature.

    Is this the 'Arab Street' of blogs?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  72.  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 3:50am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 20th, 2011 @ 7:45am

    Prohibit all cayenne sales in the United States! Some people don't like spicy food!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  73.  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 4:01am

    Re:

    "The employee, believing the e-mail to be genuine, informed her supervisor,"

    If this is the type of critical thinking individual Morgan Stanley employs, then I would suggest placing your money elsewhere.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  74.  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 4:04am

    Adult Diapers Full of Crap

    Look, we can talk precedent and hurl man-on-street cliche's til the cows come home, but until we take actions against decrepit senior citizen Judge-corpses wearing adult diapers, we will continue getting these crap rulings about the internetz.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  75.  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 6:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Heywood Jablome?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  76.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:49am

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Restraining orders are an attempt by the
    > court to balance (at least in the short term)
    > the rights of the two parties.

    You apparently have a very different definition of 'short term' than most people, considering the order in this case is set to last for 51 years.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  77.  
    icon
    btr1701 (profile), Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > *makes mental note to put you on the creepy
    > list and passes to all my single girlfriends*

    So you're going to pass around a list to all the single women you know which includes random people who post using aliases on internet blogs that you read? Seems like most single women would find *you* creepier than some guy on a list only identified as 'bordy'.

    And even if they took you seriously, what good would it do them to be warned about "Guy calling himself 'bordy' on TechDirt.com"? It's not like they can actually be on the lookout for someone like that.

    Stop being a tool.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  78.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Dec 21st, 2011 @ 9:00pm

    The problem was that he did not "once" harass, not only did he do this to her but to others before and now after! It was not only the blog that started the quest for the HRO but the 100's of emails, texts and phone calls and showing up at place of business and home, it is all repeated and unwanted acts of harassment to inflict privacy and safety concerns for the individual. Unfortunately the blog site was contacted, he somehow doctored the blog and was using the blogspot.com site illegally, but blogspot was unable to trace and would have cost her thousands to hire a forensic attorney to look into further. It wasn't just the blog words that were harmful, it was the fear that he put into the situation raising safety concerns. If you read the blog you would see that it was more than a story but more of a threat, I don't have any recollection of books being written and published with actual threatening content aimed towards one individual naming her and where she lives.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  79.  
    identicon
    Jacob, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 1:56pm

    I found the blog

    Anyone can get a copy of the blog as it is public. Just go down to the court and request court records. I found the blog and read it. I don't see any threats. What am I missing? I also understand that the e-mail sent to her work was after the first restraining order was dismissed after 6 months. There was no restraining order in place when he sent one single e-mail to her work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  80.  
    identicon
    A GOOD FRIEND, Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 2:21pm

    Some key points Anonymous Coward

    If you read the blog they were both contacting each other the entire time. Plus he was also a victim of many kinds of abuse from her including physical, mental and verbal. It looks like he was defending himself in the blog. Remeber his side of the story was never tolld in court and he settled for a 6 month order. I didn't even know they offered 6 month restraining orders.


    Did you read TFA?

    They split up, he harassed her, she got a restraining order. 2 days after the restraining order he created a blog about her. (THE ORDER STARTED IN SEPT 09 AND THE BLOG WAS NOT POSTED TILL DEC 09)

    This, in of itself, is not a bad thing, imho. It's his right.

    However, keep reading.....

    1. sending electronic messages to Johnson's relatives, friends, and others, and posting links to the blog on other websites (THIS LOOKS TO BE TRUE)

    2. He used fake Facebook identities (“Dana Russel” and “Pekin Ilanis”) to post the blog to other Facebook users.(THIS LOOKS TO BE TRUE)

    3. He contacted the bio father of the woman 9 times.(THROUGH FACEBOOK ONLY)(THIS LOOKS TO BE TRUE)

    4. He calls the woman's grandmother saying things like “seems to have been abused,” and “was either molested or abused as a child or witnessed domestic violence.”. (HE NEVER CALLED ANYONE INCLUDING THE GRANDMA, HE SENT GRANDMA WHAT ANOTHER RAPE AND ABUSE SURVIOR POSTED ON HIS BLOG)

    5. sent messages publicizing the blog to members of Johnson's high school graduating class, a local television news anchor, and other organizations unrelated to the woman. (THIS LOOKS TO BE TRUE)

    6. sent an email to one of the woman's coworkers, claiming she was connected to hard core criminals which got her reported and called to the office. (YES HE DID DO THIS AFTER THE ORDER WAS DISMISSED)


    If he would have just blogged, and left it be, that would be one thing.

    It's one thing to troll each other, it's a total other story when you start really fking with someone's income and family.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  81.  
    identicon
    a good friend, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 2:09am

    Re: The Blog

    Looks like he was defending himself not attacking her. I found a copy of what was written in court records.

    I am only writing this so that someone will try and help this person who so badly needs it. Help her and save her child from what will end up affecting them so much worse if their mother (pictured to your left which was found at trubreedmc.org) doesn’t get help. I have seen many cases just like the one described below. I meet this person on pandys.org about 6 months ago (Dec. 2009) because he had questions and wanted to get some help only to lead me to their blog which is where I read most of the below information from. Please feel fee to contact me or come to the site (screen name Love101) for support and a family of people that have been through it.

    This sounds like someone that could possibly suffer from mental health problems? This is someone that has been the victim of rape by three different men, two of them at a party at local pro Minnesota Timberwolves basketball player Anthony Peeler place with her good friend Erin Bruns now Erin Nebben (Big Lake) who was dating Anthony Peeler. It is important to let you know that the man Ann Marie Johnson of Plymouth Minnesota is attacking in this blog is very sensitive to the issue of rape as his mother is also a victim of rape. (Erin Nebben is pictured on the left in this photo of two women) Yes, they both knew it happened and told her not to tell the police. The two guys that raped her were basketball player Anthony Peeler family members. The other guy and boyfriend that raped her and was physically abusive to her was Justin Saice (Picture 1) (his record convicted of 2 separate Domestic Abuse Order for Protection & 2 separate Harassment, Restraining Orders, he violated all of them (total of 4 all from women). In 2003 & 2006 Justin was found mentally ill by the courts and sent to a physc hospital) This is a guy that proposed to her and continued to rape her many times. The Private Investigator had a chat with Justin after he stopped by his place in Hopkins. Justin’s big thing to the PI was that she was always cheating on him (This person writes in the blog that they do not believe this and does not feel she is the type to cheat). Read the police reports where Justin had beat up a 50 year old homeless man that was living at Ann’s place for the past 3 days with another homeless person (Kathleen R Johnson 50 who is also a convicted criminal). Ann is someone who has continued to be in relationships with men who were either physically or sexually abusive to her, except for the last one who did none of this and has been the punching bag for her past. This person got her to counseling, sounds like he was trying to help her. Ann’s two plus year boyfriend Eric McDew (Picture 2). Another convicted criminal Spent 90 days in jail in 2005 for Domestic Assault (also Convicted of Unlawful Acts & convicted of Public Nuisance). Eric was living with her and her child for a year. Why would someone bring someone like this around their own child? This sounds like a trend in her type of men. Eric ended up stealing her credit card from her used it and lied to her about it (someone who she calls a good guy). The guy before him was Wayne, he tried to body slam her and beat her up. Sounds like another Domestic Abuse type of guy. Has anyone ever asked why she would have any association with a known criminal group called Tru Breed? She does and this guy is 26 year old Adonis Armstrong (Picture 3) who she is hanging with now, a month after she served her last boyfriend with a restraining order(which was dismissed with prejudice=A court has inherent power to dismiss an action with prejudice if it is vexatious or brought in bad faith). (Adoinis has a DUI from 2003) Just the type of guy she wants & needs but doesn’t want her child or friends to know about for some reason. Check out the type of people this Tru Breed group is on U-Tube. Don’t think this type of guy or group has anything good to offer her or her child but sounds and looks like all the other guys that she has been with. The reason for this might stem from her past experience? I would not be honest if I didn’t mention something that has me curious. Out of all of these guys only one was Caucasian, the one with no criminal record or past run in with the law. It sounds like he is in good standing with all of the girls he has dated even his last one. Sounds like this was the guy she attacked and lied about.

    The question he had was why did she never tell anyone like the police, family or
    seek professional counseling? She says she is completely fine with her past and that she has dealt with it on her own, he had nothing to be concerned about. She said all her friends and co-workers knew about all this and they help her. He had a hard time thinking that anyone would be fine after all that, especially when she never got any professional help. He did get her to see someone and she is actually still seeing Wayzata therapist Susan Siegel in Wayzata Minnesota(from his blog sounds like a real flake of a counselor). That makes him so happy even if he is no longer in her life. She is now getting the help she needs but it only works if you are honest and it sounds like she was never honest in the meetings they had with Susan. He was unsure if they could have a healthy relationship if she has not addressed these things and never gotten help. He is in love with her and told her that he would be by her side if she decided to go the path of getting some help. He even told her that he would wait for her to get healthy and that he would always be there for her. He would soon see if someone that has gone through all that with no counseling could have a healthy relationship with love and affection. It sounds like that never came the way it should. She might not have been able to have love and affection the way it should be because she was only used to the thugs and criminals that rape beat or steal. It sounds like it was too much work and to demanding for her to keep this window dressing on (again this is something that I have seen many times with women that have been the victim of what she has been through). It sounds like so many times before that she takes the easy way out. Go after him, the one guy that was not like the rest. He wanted to marry her and was actually saving for the ring that she picked out. A few weeks before all this they were working with a realtor and shopping for houses in Wayzata and Plymouth. It sounds like he was a great role model for her child and was always a gentleman to her. He mentions in his blog how in the mornings while she was in the shower he would get up and make the bed and by the time she was done with her shower he would be there waiting for her with a towel open for her to wrap her self in (almost all the time). He would leave work early so that he could be with her at her child’s sporting events. Every time he would get his haircut he would pick up a gift card for Ann to get her hair done at the same place. This sounds like a guy that did and would do anything for this woman. Ann would tell him both verbal and by e-mail what a positive impact he has made on her child. Her child was showing more affection with the mother then ever before. For the first time her child was holding her hand and giving her kisses out of the blue and even in public. Ann would comment on how the games they would play on who could open the door for mom first or who could pull out the chair for mom first was teaching her child for the first time on how to be a gentleman to his mother and other women. Something we know the past boyfriends and lovers didn’t do for this young impressionable child.

    He really started to question if she was fine the first time she became physically abusive with him the night of her friend Robin Carter wedding February 14th. This is when they got back to his place and he was questioning some things in her past. While he was talking to her she all of a sudden had a burst of rage and out of control anger and slammed him against a wall and held him there while she yelled at him to stop questioning her past and that she is fine with it and he needed to get over it. As time went on he started to see more. She would get out of control often most of the time becoming verbally, mentally and physically abusive. On the 4th of July they got into another argument after he asked her about a man that was in her cell phone. He had a question about why she had a man’s name in her phone that was married and she didn’t know his wife and the wife didn’t know her. He thought this was a little strange and asked how she is such great friends with this guy for the past 10 years but had never met his wife or that his wife doesn’t even know of her. She said tough and told him to get over it. Looks like the other guy was more important then helping him to feel more comfortable. Later when this talk was brought up again she became out of control getting physically abusive slamming him against the wall. This time grabbing his wrists tightly and shaking him while pushing him against the wall. This out of control rage was very scary to him. The night of July 25th while the two of them were up north with a bunch of her friends she again got out of control. The conversation started in the car on the way back to the hotel from the concert. This again was a topic she became very angry about and begins yelling at him and telling him she is done and to leave and that he was an awful person. After telling him to leave and then like so many times before she started calling him on his cell and threatened him to get his “fucking ass back or she was done with him”. He would come back and the same thing would start up. This time she ended up slamming the car door in his face and walked off and then came back a few minutes later, this time getting him out of the car. While he was standing there with his arms crossed she verbally abused him some more and ended up getting physically abusive by pushing him where he ended up getting hurt when he fell back into the driver’s side mirror. The last time she threatened him was on October 7th when she again brought up her connections. Like other times when she would threaten him with her connections she told him that she knew people that would come after him and shut him up. This type of out of control behavior happened much more then the above.

    There were times where he would leave her place because she was so out of control
    that it scared him. She would call him and threaten him that “if he didn’t get his fucking ass back she was done with him”. There was one time when he left and she got in her car and chased him for miles down the street while calling him on his cell threatening him to turn around and get back to her place. He then pulled off to a gas station and she pulled in behind him and again with this rage she threatened him that she was done with him if he didn’t get back to her place. On September 11th the two of them got into an argument and he wanted to leave to leave her place. She kept him from leaving by blocking him from the bedroom door. After realizing he had no other safe option and she would not move after he asked her he was forced to stay. She has also thrown things at him before and because of his public figure status has threatened to use her connections with the local media to tell them some crazy story about him. She has broken into his e-mail account and gone through his personal stuff. Using his credit card she bought three plane tickets for herself and one for her child that they were all going to go on and then canceled all of them and kept the credit for herself. She came to him a few days before September 11th before one of many break ups and told him she needed to come up with $7,000 and if she didn’t she was going to have to cash in her 401k. He gets her car detailed and takes her and her child out for new shoes. The next day he takes her child to the opening game at TCF Bank stadium only to be stunned the next day when she breaks up with him again. Kind of like the day she sent him flowers and broke up with him in the same day. It’s strange she started looking up restraining orders the night of October 4th after he said he was done with her till she got help and he was going to date other women. She claims that later that night she sent his father an e mail how crazy he is and how he won’t stop contacting her. That day and early that morning of October 4th she was texting him and calling him. Since he would not answer her calls she left voice mails how much she loved him. On October 7th he stops by her place to pick up his things she had not sent him in the past three weeks. When he got there he meet her outside and she right away got into her out of control rage and started screaming at him and threatened him. She said she had sent his stuff and he should be getting it. He was so scared of her that he left right away. Five days later she submitted a restraining order against him for harassment. In the time frame she uses in her order September 13th through October 4th she texts him 252 times, sends him 21 e-mails, calls him on the phone for 300 minutes. Most of her e-mails and calls are mean, cold hearted and all blame. They meet with a counselor on September 17th and on the 22nd. She even used his Gopher tickets on September 19th and October 3rd. This is kind of strange, in his blog he mentions that she had broken up with him in the past and actually sent him an e-mail (which he posted on the blog) telling him that she would still like to use the tickets to a play he bought for the three of them to go to but she did not want him there. He gave them to her. During this time frame he has actual e-mails (which he posted on the blog) that she sent him where she is getting mad at him for not responding to her. In my mind this is not harassment on his part. Sounds like two people that are having a tough time letting go which is why her filing an order tells me that there is something more going on with her and that she is suffering from some mental illness that stems from her past.

    It sounds a bit crazy but she tells him and others how she hates him more then any
    other guy that has been in her life. She tells him that he did this to her and
    made her this way. She blamed him for everything and never even brought up the
    out of control behavior of hers. She tells him and the counselor that these guys she was with were not bad guys and were not thugs but he was the bad guy (Sounds like something is off in that thinking). I will tell you that he did not do this to her. From the sounds of it he loves and cares about her very much. He treated her very well. Most professionals as well as the people that have been through what she has will tell you that these things are very hard to face. The women that have been with the above named men said something to the police after they were treated the way they were. Why didn’t she? These men are criminals and could go to jail for the things they did to her. She didn’t tell anyone and some of the same things happened to other women by these men. When you are a victim over and over again it starts to become normal & actually something you seek unconsciously. The fact that nothing has ever been worked on could lead one to believe there is more that does not want to be dug up because its to hard to face. As you might be able to see this is a true sign of someone who is not stable and may suffer from some kind of mental health issue. She is someone who has a much distorted view on what is really going on with her and around her. She has now gone too far and has committed perjury and has been slandering his name and reputation. Because of her out of control behavior, physical abuse, bad temper and the threats of her connections with the media and this known group of criminals Tru Breed he is very concerned for his safety as well as the safety of his family (which is why he and his lawyer have prepared an OFP Order for Protection Domestic Abuse (which is all true unlike her report which can now be criminal because she committed perjury by lying about details) to be served if she ever contacts him again and this would not be good for a mother who has custody of her child). The type of men she has been with have proven to be criminals (mostly domestic abuse or rape) so this is of a concern as well. He (who has no criminal record and no run in with the law) wants nothing to do with her and is actually very scared of her and what her connections have proven to be capable of doing.

    Please if not for her do it for the safety and well being of her child. If you would like more details feel free to ask me or read his blog. Please stop by Pandys.org and help them or post your comments below.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  82.  
    identicon
    a good friend, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 2:12am

    Re: Help Ann Johnson Blog

    Looks like he was defending himself not attacking her. I found a copy of what was written in court records.

    I am only writing this so that someone will try and help this person who so badly needs it. Help her and save her child from what will end up affecting them so much worse if their mother (pictured to your left which was found at trubreedmc.org) doesn’t get help. I have seen many cases just like the one described below. I meet this person on pandys.org about 6 months ago (Dec. 2009) because he had questions and wanted to get some help only to lead me to their blog which is where I read most of the below information from. Please feel fee to contact me or come to the site (screen name Love101) for support and a family of people that have been through it.

    This sounds like someone that could possibly suffer from mental health problems? This is someone that has been the victim of rape by three different men, two of them at a party at local pro Minnesota Timberwolves basketball player Anthony Peeler place with her good friend Erin Bruns now Erin Nebben (Big Lake) who was dating Anthony Peeler. It is important to let you know that the man Ann Marie Johnson of Plymouth Minnesota is attacking in this blog is very sensitive to the issue of rape as his mother is also a victim of rape. (Erin Nebben is pictured on the left in this photo of two women) Yes, they both knew it happened and told her not to tell the police. The two guys that raped her were basketball player Anthony Peeler family members. The other guy and boyfriend that raped her and was physically abusive to her was Justin Saice (Picture 1) (his record convicted of 2 separate Domestic Abuse Order for Protection & 2 separate Harassment, Restraining Orders, he violated all of them (total of 4 all from women). In 2003 & 2006 Justin was found mentally ill by the courts and sent to a physc hospital) This is a guy that proposed to her and continued to rape her many times. The Private Investigator had a chat with Justin after he stopped by his place in Hopkins. Justin’s big thing to the PI was that she was always cheating on him (This person writes in the blog that they do not believe this and does not feel she is the type to cheat). Read the police reports where Justin had beat up a 50 year old homeless man that was living at Ann’s place for the past 3 days with another homeless person (Kathleen R Johnson 50 who is also a convicted criminal). Ann is someone who has continued to be in relationships with men who were either physically or sexually abusive to her, except for the last one who did none of this and has been the punching bag for her past. This person got her to counseling, sounds like he was trying to help her. Ann’s two plus year boyfriend Eric McDew (Picture 2). Another convicted criminal Spent 90 days in jail in 2005 for Domestic Assault (also Convicted of Unlawful Acts & convicted of Public Nuisance). Eric was living with her and her child for a year. Why would someone bring someone like this around their own child? This sounds like a trend in her type of men. Eric ended up stealing her credit card from her used it and lied to her about it (someone who she calls a good guy). The guy before him was Wayne, he tried to body slam her and beat her up. Sounds like another Domestic Abuse type of guy. Has anyone ever asked why she would have any association with a known criminal group called Tru Breed? She does and this guy is 26 year old Adonis Armstrong (Picture 3) who she is hanging with now, a month after she served her last boyfriend with a restraining order(which was dismissed with prejudice=A court has inherent power to dismiss an action with prejudice if it is vexatious or brought in bad faith). (Adoinis has a DUI from 2003) Just the type of guy she wants & needs but doesn’t want her child or friends to know about for some reason. Check out the type of people this Tru Breed group is on U-Tube. Don’t think this type of guy or group has anything good to offer her or her child but sounds and looks like all the other guys that she has been with. The reason for this might stem from her past experience? I would not be honest if I didn’t mention something that has me curious. Out of all of these guys only one was Caucasian, the one with no criminal record or past run in with the law. It sounds like he is in good standing with all of the girls he has dated even his last one. Sounds like this was the guy she attacked and lied about.

    The question he had was why did she never tell anyone like the police, family or
    seek professional counseling? She says she is completely fine with her past and that she has dealt with it on her own, he had nothing to be concerned about. She said all her friends and co-workers knew about all this and they help her. He had a hard time thinking that anyone would be fine after all that, especially when she never got any professional help. He did get her to see someone and she is actually still seeing Wayzata therapist Susan Siegel in Wayzata Minnesota(from his blog sounds like a real flake of a counselor). That makes him so happy even if he is no longer in her life. She is now getting the help she needs but it only works if you are honest and it sounds like she was never honest in the meetings they had with Susan. He was unsure if they could have a healthy relationship if she has not addressed these things and never gotten help. He is in love with her and told her that he would be by her side if she decided to go the path of getting some help. He even told her that he would wait for her to get healthy and that he would always be there for her. He would soon see if someone that has gone through all that with no counseling could have a healthy relationship with love and affection. It sounds like that never came the way it should. She might not have been able to have love and affection the way it should be because she was only used to the thugs and criminals that rape beat or steal. It sounds like it was too much work and to demanding for her to keep this window dressing on (again this is something that I have seen many times with women that have been the victim of what she has been through). It sounds like so many times before that she takes the easy way out. Go after him, the one guy that was not like the rest. He wanted to marry her and was actually saving for the ring that she picked out. A few weeks before all this they were working with a realtor and shopping for houses in Wayzata and Plymouth. It sounds like he was a great role model for her child and was always a gentleman to her. He mentions in his blog how in the mornings while she was in the shower he would get up and make the bed and by the time she was done with her shower he would be there waiting for her with a towel open for her to wrap her self in (almost all the time). He would leave work early so that he could be with her at her child’s sporting events. Every time he would get his haircut he would pick up a gift card for Ann to get her hair done at the same place. This sounds like a guy that did and would do anything for this woman. Ann would tell him both verbal and by e-mail what a positive impact he has made on her child. Her child was showing more affection with the mother then ever before. For the first time her child was holding her hand and giving her kisses out of the blue and even in public. Ann would comment on how the games they would play on who could open the door for mom first or who could pull out the chair for mom first was teaching her child for the first time on how to be a gentleman to his mother and other women. Something we know the past boyfriends and lovers didn’t do for this young impressionable child.

    He really started to question if she was fine the first time she became physically abusive with him the night of her friend Robin Carter wedding February 14th. This is when they got back to his place and he was questioning some things in her past. While he was talking to her she all of a sudden had a burst of rage and out of control anger and slammed him against a wall and held him there while she yelled at him to stop questioning her past and that she is fine with it and he needed to get over it. As time went on he started to see more. She would get out of control often most of the time becoming verbally, mentally and physically abusive. On the 4th of July they got into another argument after he asked her about a man that was in her cell phone. He had a question about why she had a man’s name in her phone that was married and she didn’t know his wife and the wife didn’t know her. He thought this was a little strange and asked how she is such great friends with this guy for the past 10 years but had never met his wife or that his wife doesn’t even know of her. She said tough and told him to get over it. Looks like the other guy was more important then helping him to feel more comfortable. Later when this talk was brought up again she became out of control getting physically abusive slamming him against the wall. This time grabbing his wrists tightly and shaking him while pushing him against the wall. This out of control rage was very scary to him. The night of July 25th while the two of them were up north with a bunch of her friends she again got out of control. The conversation started in the car on the way back to the hotel from the concert. This again was a topic she became very angry about and begins yelling at him and telling him she is done and to leave and that he was an awful person. After telling him to leave and then like so many times before she started calling him on his cell and threatened him to get his “fucking ass back or she was done with him”. He would come back and the same thing would start up. This time she ended up slamming the car door in his face and walked off and then came back a few minutes later, this time getting him out of the car. While he was standing there with his arms crossed she verbally abused him some more and ended up getting physically abusive by pushing him where he ended up getting hurt when he fell back into the driver’s side mirror. The last time she threatened him was on October 7th when she again brought up her connections. Like other times when she would threaten him with her connections she told him that she knew people that would come after him and shut him up. This type of out of control behavior happened much more then the above.

    There were times where he would leave her place because she was so out of control
    that it scared him. She would call him and threaten him that “if he didn’t get his fucking ass back she was done with him”. There was one time when he left and she got in her car and chased him for miles down the street while calling him on his cell threatening him to turn around and get back to her place. He then pulled off to a gas station and she pulled in behind him and again with this rage she threatened him that she was done with him if he didn’t get back to her place. On September 11th the two of them got into an argument and he wanted to leave to leave her place. She kept him from leaving by blocking him from the bedroom door. After realizing he had no other safe option and she would not move after he asked her he was forced to stay. She has also thrown things at him before and because of his public figure status has threatened to use her connections with the local media to tell them some crazy story about him. She has broken into his e-mail account and gone through his personal stuff. Using his credit card she bought three plane tickets for herself and one for her child that they were all going to go on and then canceled all of them and kept the credit for herself. She came to him a few days before September 11th before one of many break ups and told him she needed to come up with $7,000 and if she didn’t she was going to have to cash in her 401k. He gets her car detailed and takes her and her child out for new shoes. The next day he takes her child to the opening game at TCF Bank stadium only to be stunned the next day when she breaks up with him again. Kind of like the day she sent him flowers and broke up with him in the same day. It’s strange she started looking up restraining orders the night of October 4th after he said he was done with her till she got help and he was going to date other women. She claims that later that night she sent his father an e mail how crazy he is and how he won’t stop contacting her. That day and early that morning of October 4th she was texting him and calling him. Since he would not answer her calls she left voice mails how much she loved him. On October 7th he stops by her place to pick up his things she had not sent him in the past three weeks. When he got there he meet her outside and she right away got into her out of control rage and started screaming at him and threatened him. She said she had sent his stuff and he should be getting it. He was so scared of her that he left right away. Five days later she submitted a restraining order against him for harassment. In the time frame she uses in her order September 13th through October 4th she texts him 252 times, sends him 21 e-mails, calls him on the phone for 300 minutes. Most of her e-mails and calls are mean, cold hearted and all blame. They meet with a counselor on September 17th and on the 22nd. She even used his Gopher tickets on September 19th and October 3rd. This is kind of strange, in his blog he mentions that she had broken up with him in the past and actually sent him an e-mail (which he posted on the blog) telling him that she would still like to use the tickets to a play he bought for the three of them to go to but she did not want him there. He gave them to her. During this time frame he has actual e-mails (which he posted on the blog) that she sent him where she is getting mad at him for not responding to her. In my mind this is not harassment on his part. Sounds like two people that are having a tough time letting go which is why her filing an order tells me that there is something more going on with her and that she is suffering from some mental illness that stems from her past.

    It sounds a bit crazy but she tells him and others how she hates him more then any
    other guy that has been in her life. She tells him that he did this to her and
    made her this way. She blamed him for everything and never even brought up the
    out of control behavior of hers. She tells him and the counselor that these guys she was with were not bad guys and were not thugs but he was the bad guy (Sounds like something is off in that thinking). I will tell you that he did not do this to her. From the sounds of it he loves and cares about her very much. He treated her very well. Most professionals as well as the people that have been through what she has will tell you that these things are very hard to face. The women that have been with the above named men said something to the police after they were treated the way they were. Why didn’t she? These men are criminals and could go to jail for the things they did to her. She didn’t tell anyone and some of the same things happened to other women by these men. When you are a victim over and over again it starts to become normal & actually something you seek unconsciously. The fact that nothing has ever been worked on could lead one to believe there is more that does not want to be dug up because its to hard to face. As you might be able to see this is a true sign of someone who is not stable and may suffer from some kind of mental health issue. She is someone who has a much distorted view on what is really going on with her and around her. She has now gone too far and has committed perjury and has been slandering his name and reputation. Because of her out of control behavior, physical abuse, bad temper and the threats of her connections with the media and this known group of criminals Tru Breed he is very concerned for his safety as well as the safety of his family (which is why he and his lawyer have prepared an OFP Order for Protection Domestic Abuse (which is all true unlike her report which can now be criminal because she committed perjury by lying about details) to be served if she ever contacts him again and this would not be good for a mother who has custody of her child). The type of men she has been with have proven to be criminals (mostly domestic abuse or rape) so this is of a concern as well. He (who has no criminal record and no run in with the law) wants nothing to do with her and is actually very scared of her and what her connections have proven to be capable of doing.

    Please if not for her do it for the safety and well being of her child. If you would like more details feel free to ask me or read his blog. Please stop by Pandys.org and help them or post your comments below.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  83.  
    identicon
    a good friend, Feb 17th, 2012 @ 2:20am

    Help Ann Johnson Blog

    Looks like he was defending himself not attacking her. I found a copy of what was written in court records.

    I am only writing this so that someone will try and help this person who so badly needs it. Help her and save her child from what will end up affecting them so much worse if their mother (pictured to your left which was found at trubreedmc.org) doesn’t get help. I have seen many cases just like the one described below. I meet this person on pandys.org about 6 months ago (Dec. 2009) because he had questions and wanted to get some help only to lead me to their blog which is where I read most of the below information from. Please feel fee to contact me or come to the site (screen name Love101) for support and a family of people that have been through it.

    This sounds like someone that could possibly suffer from mental health problems? This is someone that has been the victim of rape by three different men, two of them at a party at local pro Minnesota Timberwolves basketball player Anthony Peeler place with her good friend Erin Bruns now Erin Nebben (Big Lake) who was dating Anthony Peeler. It is important to let you know that the man Ann Marie Johnson of Plymouth Minnesota is attacking in this blog is very sensitive to the issue of rape as his mother is also a victim of rape. (Erin Nebben is pictured on the left in this photo of two women) Yes, they both knew it happened and told her not to tell the police. The two guys that raped her were basketball player Anthony Peeler family members. The other guy and boyfriend that raped her and was physically abusive to her was Justin Saice (Picture 1) (his record convicted of 2 separate Domestic Abuse Order for Protection & 2 separate Harassment, Restraining Orders, he violated all of them (total of 4 all from women). In 2003 & 2006 Justin was found mentally ill by the courts and sent to a physc hospital) This is a guy that proposed to her and continued to rape her many times. The Private Investigator had a chat with Justin after he stopped by his place in Hopkins. Justin’s big thing to the PI was that she was always cheating on him (This person writes in the blog that they do not believe this and does not feel she is the type to cheat). Read the police reports where Justin had beat up a 50 year old homeless man that was living at Ann’s place for the past 3 days with another homeless person (Kathleen R Johnson 50 who is also a convicted criminal). Ann is someone who has continued to be in relationships with men who were either physically or sexually abusive to her, except for the last one who did none of this and has been the punching bag for her past. This person got her to counseling, sounds like he was trying to help her. Ann’s two plus year boyfriend Eric McDew (Picture 2). Another convicted criminal Spent 90 days in jail in 2005 for Domestic Assault (also Convicted of Unlawful Acts & convicted of Public Nuisance). Eric was living with her and her child for a year. Why would someone bring someone like this around their own child? This sounds like a trend in her type of men. Eric ended up stealing her credit card from her used it and lied to her about it (someone who she calls a good guy). The guy before him was Wayne, he tried to body slam her and beat her up. Sounds like another Domestic Abuse type of guy. Has anyone ever asked why she would have any association with a known criminal group called Tru Breed? She does and this guy is 26 year old Adonis Armstrong (Picture 3) who she is hanging with now, a month after she served her last boyfriend with a restraining order(which was dismissed with prejudice=A court has inherent power to dismiss an action with prejudice if it is vexatious or brought in bad faith). (Adoinis has a DUI from 2003) Just the type of guy she wants & needs but doesn’t want her child or friends to know about for some reason. Check out the type of people this Tru Breed group is on U-Tube. Don’t think this type of guy or group has anything good to offer her or her child but sounds and looks like all the other guys that she has been with. The reason for this might stem from her past experience? I would not be honest if I didn’t mention something that has me curious. Out of all of these guys only one was Caucasian, the one with no criminal record or past run in with the law. It sounds like he is in good standing with all of the girls he has dated even his last one. Sounds like this was the guy she attacked and lied about.

    The question he had was why did she never tell anyone like the police, family or
    seek professional counseling? She says she is completely fine with her past and that she has dealt with it on her own, he had nothing to be concerned about. She said all her friends and co-workers knew about all this and they help her. He had a hard time thinking that anyone would be fine after all that, especially when she never got any professional help. He did get her to see someone and she is actually still seeing Wayzata therapist Susan Siegel in Wayzata Minnesota(from his blog sounds like a real flake of a counselor). That makes him so happy even if he is no longer in her life. She is now getting the help she needs but it only works if you are honest and it sounds like she was never honest in the meetings they had with Susan. He was unsure if they could have a healthy relationship if she has not addressed these things and never gotten help. He is in love with her and told her that he would be by her side if she decided to go the path of getting some help. He even told her that he would wait for her to get healthy and that he would always be there for her. He would soon see if someone that has gone through all that with no counseling could have a healthy relationship with love and affection. It sounds like that never came the way it should. She might not have been able to have love and affection the way it should be because she was only used to the thugs and criminals that rape beat or steal. It sounds like it was too much work and to demanding for her to keep this window dressing on (again this is something that I have seen many times with women that have been the victim of what she has been through). It sounds like so many times before that she takes the easy way out. Go after him, the one guy that was not like the rest. He wanted to marry her and was actually saving for the ring that she picked out. A few weeks before all this they were working with a realtor and shopping for houses in Wayzata and Plymouth. It sounds like he was a great role model for her child and was always a gentleman to her. He mentions in his blog how in the mornings while she was in the shower he would get up and make the bed and by the time she was done with her shower he would be there waiting for her with a towel open for her to wrap her self in (almost all the time). He would leave work early so that he could be with her at her child’s sporting events. Every time he would get his haircut he would pick up a gift card for Ann to get her hair done at the same place. This sounds like a guy that did and would do anything for this woman. Ann would tell him both verbal and by e-mail what a positive impact he has made on her child. Her child was showing more affection with the mother then ever before. For the first time her child was holding her hand and giving her kisses out of the blue and even in public. Ann would comment on how the games they would play on who could open the door for mom first or who could pull out the chair for mom first was teaching her child for the first time on how to be a gentleman to his mother and other women. Something we know the past boyfriends and lovers didn’t do for this young impressionable child.

    He really started to question if she was fine the first time she became physically abusive with him the night of her friend Robin Carter wedding February 14th. This is when they got back to his place and he was questioning some things in her past. While he was talking to her she all of a sudden had a burst of rage and out of control anger and slammed him against a wall and held him there while she yelled at him to stop questioning her past and that she is fine with it and he needed to get over it. As time went on he started to see more. She would get out of control often most of the time becoming verbally, mentally and physically abusive. On the 4th of July they got into another argument after he asked her about a man that was in her cell phone. He had a question about why she had a man’s name in her phone that was married and she didn’t know his wife and the wife didn’t know her. He thought this was a little strange and asked how she is such great friends with this guy for the past 10 years but had never met his wife or that his wife doesn’t even know of her. She said tough and told him to get over it. Looks like the other guy was more important then helping him to feel more comfortable. Later when this talk was brought up again she became out of control getting physically abusive slamming him against the wall. This time grabbing his wrists tightly and shaking him while pushing him against the wall. This out of control rage was very scary to him. The night of July 25th while the two of them were up north with a bunch of her friends she again got out of control. The conversation started in the car on the way back to the hotel from the concert. This again was a topic she became very angry about and begins yelling at him and telling him she is done and to leave and that he was an awful person. After telling him to leave and then like so many times before she started calling him on his cell and threatened him to get his “fucking ass back or she was done with him”. He would come back and the same thing would start up. This time she ended up slamming the car door in his face and walked off and then came back a few minutes later, this time getting him out of the car. While he was standing there with his arms crossed she verbally abused him some more and ended up getting physically abusive by pushing him where he ended up getting hurt when he fell back into the driver’s side mirror. The last time she threatened him was on October 7th when she again brought up her connections. Like other times when she would threaten him with her connections she told him that she knew people that would come after him and shut him up. This type of out of control behavior happened much more then the above.

    There were times where he would leave her place because she was so out of control
    that it scared him. She would call him and threaten him that “if he didn’t get his fucking ass back she was done with him”. There was one time when he left and she got in her car and chased him for miles down the street while calling him on his cell threatening him to turn around and get back to her place. He then pulled off to a gas station and she pulled in behind him and again with this rage she threatened him that she was done with him if he didn’t get back to her place. On September 11th the two of them got into an argument and he wanted to leave to leave her place. She kept him from leaving by blocking him from the bedroom door. After realizing he had no other safe option and she would not move after he asked her he was forced to stay. She has also thrown things at him before and because of his public figure status has threatened to use her connections with the local media to tell them some crazy story about him. She has broken into his e-mail account and gone through his personal stuff. Using his credit card she bought three plane tickets for herself and one for her child that they were all going to go on and then canceled all of them and kept the credit for herself. She came to him a few days before September 11th before one of many break ups and told him she needed to come up with $7,000 and if she didn’t she was going to have to cash in her 401k. He gets her car detailed and takes her and her child out for new shoes. The next day he takes her child to the opening game at TCF Bank stadium only to be stunned the next day when she breaks up with him again. Kind of like the day she sent him flowers and broke up with him in the same day. It’s strange she started looking up restraining orders the night of October 4th after he said he was done with her till she got help and he was going to date other women. She claims that later that night she sent his father an e mail how crazy he is and how he won’t stop contacting her. That day and early that morning of October 4th she was texting him and calling him. Since he would not answer her calls she left voice mails how much she loved him. On October 7th he stops by her place to pick up his things she had not sent him in the past three weeks. When he got there he meet her outside and she right away got into her out of control rage and started screaming at him and threatened him. She said she had sent his stuff and he should be getting it. He was so scared of her that he left right away. Five days later she submitted a restraining order against him for harassment. In the time frame she uses in her order September 13th through October 4th she texts him 252 times, sends him 21 e-mails, calls him on the phone for 300 minutes. Most of her e-mails and calls are mean, cold hearted and all blame. They meet with a counselor on September 17th and on the 22nd. She even used his Gopher tickets on September 19th and October 3rd. This is kind of strange, in his blog he mentions that she had broken up with him in the past and actually sent him an e-mail (which he posted on the blog) telling him that she would still like to use the tickets to a play he bought for the three of them to go to but she did not want him there. He gave them to her. During this time frame he has actual e-mails (which he posted on the blog) that she sent him where she is getting mad at him for not responding to her. In my mind this is not harassment on his part. Sounds like two people that are having a tough time letting go which is why her filing an order tells me that there is something more going on with her and that she is suffering from some mental illness that stems from her past.

    It sounds a bit crazy but she tells him and others how she hates him more then any
    other guy that has been in her life. She tells him that he did this to her and
    made her this way. She blamed him for everything and never even brought up the
    out of control behavior of hers. She tells him and the counselor that these guys she was with were not bad guys and were not thugs but he was the bad guy (Sounds like something is off in that thinking). I will tell you that he did not do this to her. From the sounds of it he loves and cares about her very much. He treated her very well. Most professionals as well as the people that have been through what she has will tell you that these things are very hard to face. The women that have been with the above named men said something to the police after they were treated the way they were. Why didn’t she? These men are criminals and could go to jail for the things they did to her. She didn’t tell anyone and some of the same things happened to other women by these men. When you are a victim over and over again it starts to become normal & actually something you seek unconsciously. The fact that nothing has ever been worked on could lead one to believe there is more that does not want to be dug up because its to hard to face. As you might be able to see this is a true sign of someone who is not stable and may suffer from some kind of mental health issue. She is someone who has a much distorted view on what is really going on with her and around her. She has now gone too far and has committed perjury and has been slandering his name and reputation. Because of her out of control behavior, physical abuse, bad temper and the threats of her connections with the media and this known group of criminals Tru Breed he is very concerned for his safety as well as the safety of his family (which is why he and his lawyer have prepared an OFP Order for Protection Domestic Abuse (which is all true unlike her report which can now be criminal because she committed perjury by lying about details) to be served if she ever contacts him again and this would not be good for a mother who has custody of her child). The type of men she has been with have proven to be criminals (mostly domestic abuse or rape) so this is of a concern as well. He (who has no criminal record and no run in with the law) wants nothing to do with her and is actually very scared of her and what her connections have proven to be capable of doing.

    Please if not for her do it for the safety and well being of her child. If you would like more details feel free to ask me or read his blog. Please stop by Pandys.org and help them or post your comments below.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  84.  
    identicon
    Sara, Mar 12th, 2013 @ 6:31pm

    Justin J Saice

    This guy mentioned in the blog is one sick in the head guy. Justin Saice tried to kill his own mom and sister two times. His mom and sister were so scared they had to lock themselves in their bedroom and phone the police. He said he was going to eat them after he killed them. He was sent to the mental hospital after each time. The court said Justin J Saice was not safe. This is all public information that you can look up. This guy is really sick. He says he is sent from Jesus to kill people with the mark of the beast on there head. One sick person.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  85.  
    identicon
    Sara, Mar 12th, 2013 @ 6:31pm

    Justin J Saice

    This guy mentioned in the blog is one sick in the head guy. Justin Saice tried to kill his own mom and sister two times. His mom and sister were so scared they had to lock themselves in their bedroom and phone the police. He said he was going to eat them after he killed them. He was sent to the mental hospital after each time. The court said Justin J Saice was not safe. This is all public information that you can look up. This guy is really sick. He says he is sent from Jesus to kill people with the mark of the beast on there head. One sick person.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This