 |
| Roger Stone |
(Click here for Part 1)
(Click here for Part 2)
What is it like to be targeted for a cyber harassment campaign by a disinformation network associated with Trump ally and GOP dirty trickster Roger Stone -- a network Facebook disbanded because of its use of fake accounts and phony personas?
Graphika, an NYC-based firm that uses artificial intelligence to analyze social-media activity, provided several examples of messages the Stone network sent to Legal Schnauzer (LS) -- along with our response to them. Let's take a journey through the misguided minds of individuals who participated in the Stone network, courtesy of the Graphika report.
First, what types of LS reports seemed to spark ire, even outrage, in the Stoners? I addressed that question in a couple of posts, first in one dated January 6, 2017:
The ugly e-mails started around the middle of November [2016] after we wrote posts about two Alabamians -- Jeff Sessions (Trump's pick for U.S. attorney general) and Bill Pryor (a Sessions protege and likely Trump nominee for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court).I povided more details in a post dated December 15, 2016:
The deluge of comments, most of which I deleted or sent to spam, seem to come in several categories -- rants about the defamation lawsuit GOP operative Jessica Medeiros Garrison brought against me, rants about the first nude Bill Pryor photo . . . rants about our reporting on "Luv Guv" Robert Bentley and his adviser/mistress Rebekah Caldwell Mason, rants about alleged violations here of the Child Protection Act (related to the Pryor photo), bogus claims of e-mail communications with me, and general harassing, profanity-filled tirades.
With that as a backdrop, let's look at samples from the Graqphika report:Is this as vile as the Stoners get? Nope. We have other examples that probably are more twisted than these.
The Jessica Garrison Lawsuit
(1) Trumpista (sent 12/2/16) -- "They already served you, and YOU are the one responsible for updating your mailing address. . . . They served you at your self-provided last known address, and that was sufficient. (The) judge did not accept (your) lawyer's shuffling excuses, and you lost because you didn't notify the court or check the docket. Frankly, I think you failed to update the court deliberately, in hopes you would delay proceedings.
The Truth -- The first sentence tells you this anonymous commenter (they all are anonymous or appear to use fake names) is clueless. The issue in the Garrison case is not that I wasn't served originally; it's that I never received notice of Garrison's default-judgment application and hearing. Alabama law requires that a plaintiff (Garrison) provide three days' notice -- the burden is on Garrison, not me -- and it's undisputed that Garrison provided zero notice; the docket indicates she did not even try. That's why I did not appear for the hearing, why her default-judgment was entered without opposition, and why it now is void. Notice that the Trumpista relies on emotion and unsupported assertions and zero citations to law. That's a style we've seen over and over.
(2) Trumpista (sent 12/3/16) -- "If the (default) motion didn't reach you it's because you avoided it. And the judge didn't give you any slack. His ruling isn't void or voidable, because his ruling is a discretionary one. It doesn't really matter, of course, whether the judgment is void or voidable, because you are judgment proof. You might have collection attempts made in the future if you ever inherit anything or win a lottery. They've got 20 years to collect.
The Truth -- Alabama law could not be more clear on this. Without proper notice to defendant, an order of default is void, and it is not a matter of judicial discretion. Alabama law says such an order "is void, not merely voidable." (See Abernathy v. Green Tree Servicing.) In fact, the order can be attacked as void at any time; there is no time limit on having the order declared a nullity. (See McConico v. Patterson.) Again, notice the Trumpista makes no citation to law; I suspect that's because the law does not matter to her and her brethren. She only cares about coming out on top in a corrupt world and harassing those who don't share her warped worldview.
"Luv Guv" Bentley and his main squeeze, Rebekah Caldwell Mason
Trumpista (sent 11/30/16) -- "My husband and I pay our taxes, Mr. Shuler, allowing people like you to live off social services. Oh, don't think we don't know all about your current circumstances. Confidential my ass. You sick fuck.
"I don't usually swear, but when someone is a sick fuck -- like Roger Shuler -- I call them a sick fuck. Seriously, I've never been so sympathetic toward redneck police before reading about what has happened to Shuler.
:Shuler needs an ethics checker. I never claimed to be intelligent, but I'm not an old pervy prick like you, Shuler."
The Truth -- Now, that was enlightening, wasn't it? That was attached to a post about Bentley and Mason, although I don't know why. After all, Bentley supported John Kasich, not Trump. Anyway, it's nice to know that a person who uses the term "sick fuck" over and over doesn't normally swear. Must be one of Trump's supporters from the religious right.
The nude Pryor photo is of an under-aged teen, pointing to a violation of the Child Protection Act
Trumpista (sent 11/28/16) -- "We are legally and morally obligated to report content online that we reasonably believe does not comply with the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. Period, full stop. You cannot prove that the nude image you published is of a person 18 years of age or older. This is not in dispute at all.
"We will keep reporting your site, FOREVER, to make sure that your abusive exploitation of children and adults is flagged by Google, Bing, and everyone else. I think you can expect us to never give up.
"You produce fake news that abuses women and children."
The Truth -- This came from a repeat commenter who calls herself "Sarah." I have multiple law-enforcement and legal figures on tape saying the photo was taken while THE Bill Pryor was a student at Northeast Louisiana University (now Louisiana Monroe) and, like most college students, he was 18 or over. The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act " places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws . . . require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records." Is Legal Schnauzer a "producer of sexually explicit material," one who "shoots models"? Not exactly. I pointed this out to "Sarah," but she wasn't interested in hearing it because it is . . . the truth.
I'm telling you that we communicated via e-mail, and you said ugly things to me!
Trumpista (sent 11/28/16) -- "I've engaged Mr. Shuler twice now through email about important issues, and each time he has ended up demanding to know "who I am working for" and my home address. Well, he has my real name (twice now!) but not my address, because we all know what he will do with that information: try and connect me with his other "enemies" in his vast, impossible conspiracy, and then sexually smear me (I'm a woman).
The Truth -- This was another missive from "Sarah." I told her I had no memory of communicating with someone who went only by the first name of Sarah, and that I had checked my records and found no such communications. I asked "Sarah" to send me copies of such e-mails and -- surprise, surprise -- I'm still waiting for them.
Cursing and harassing up a storm
Trumpista (sent 11/30/16) -- "I don't usually swear, but when someone is a sick fuck -- like Roger Shuler -- I call them a sick fuck."
The Truth -- I don't have anything to add. Just had to repeat that classic.
Trumpista (sent 11/29/16) -- "Coward. You endanger children. Coward. You whore out your wife. Coward. You lie. You lie. Coward. You hate children."
The Truth -- Something tells me this person thinks I'm a coward. And "you whore out your wife"? Where on earth did that come from? As you can see, this person is more than a little unhinged, and I've received several dozen similar comments.
So, the "post-truth" world is coming? My mailbox says it's already here.
Plus, we have this question: Did the Stoners limit themselves to digital harassment or did they engage in other forms of dirty tricks against my wife, Carol, and me. We will address those issues in an upcoming post.
(To be continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment