The Illegal Activity of “Doxing”: Revealing “documents or personal information” about a person, without their permission, with the intent to Threaten, Harass, Intimidate, Shame, Humiliate or Place at Risk….

The majority of this article outlines the specific illegal and criminal activity of Miami Herald reporter Frances Robles on 7/13/12 and the substantial legal remedies available to Mark and Sondra Osterman.  

However, due to new federal laws that apply to internet cyber-stalking, the broader points now apply in multiple internet forums and social media sites (ours included).   At the end of the outline we will explain how The Conservative Treehouse is now in the process of specific legal criminal and civil remedies against various sites affiliated with Trayvon Martin.

Frances Robles published the following –  Frances Robles and The Miami Herald:  [...]  He was the friend who taught Zimmerman how to shoot and hosted his graduation party. As lesser acquaintances granted television interview after television interview, Mark Osterman never showed his face even as he offered shelter to a friend in need just when he had become one of the most controversial people in America.

In the summary of the friend’s interview with the FBI and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement released Thursday by the Duval County state attorney, the name and occupation of the friend is blacked out. But one memo in the 300 pages identifies him as an air marshal, and the interview he gave provides enough detail about the relationship to reasonably confirm his identity.

He told authorities that his wife presided over Zimmerman’s wedding. Zimmerman’s marriage certificate lists Sondra Osterman as the person who presided over the ceremony. Sondra Osterman’s Facebook profile shows she’s married to Mark, who posted that he travels for a living and works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Among his Facebook likes: “Support George Zimmerman.”  (link 7/13/12) 

Russell Simmons takes over from there:

Joy-Ann Reid and NBC (The Grio) / Russell Simmons and the Global Grind. – As we delve deeper into the George Zimmerman case, recent revelations  have come to light revealing that Zimmerman was hiding out for over a month at  the home of a federal law-enforcement agent. The man in question is a former  Seminole County Sheriff deputy who was pressured to quit after he was duped by a  con artist and violated department policy.

Here is the house which Zimmerman was hiding out at:

undefined

U.S. Air Marshal Mark Osterman was the friend who taught Zimmerman how to shoot,  and whose wife presided over Zimmerman’s wedding.  (article link 7/13/12)

Note the dates of both articles - The first of which reveals the identity of Mark Osterman a Federal Employee and Federal Air Marshal.   The second which includes pictures of Mark and Sondra’s actual residence.

Both criminal activities.

Doxing is a legal term that means revealing “documents” about a person. This can range from revealing the name of a person who uses an alias, but more commonly refers to revealing whatever the person doing it feels will harm, shame, humiliate, endanger, or put the person at some risk.   Doxing is a form of stalking or threatening and is illegal under many different federal and state laws, depending on the exact facts and location.

Revealing a “name” per se’ may, or may not be considered “Doxing” depending on the level of anticipated anonymity.   However, in this law, the term “restricted personal information” means, “with respect to an individual, the Social Security number, the home address, home phone number, mobile phone number, personal email, or home fax number of, and identifiable to, that individual.”   This is an important distinction to remember.

Once you outline the address or location of a person, within which a person can be placed at risk, YOU have VIOLATED THE LAW.  PERIOD.

In all cases if you outline the physical location of any individual with the intent to harm, shame, stalk, humiliate, endanger, or otherwise compromise the safety and security of ANY individual you have placed that person in a position of risk and you are in violation of ALL State Stalking laws.

THIS is the most commonly crossed line.

However, in some cases, such as federal agents, or in Mark Osterman’s case his anonymity as a Federal Air Marshal, just revealing his name crosses the threshold for illegal activity.

I CAN FIND THOSE PIECES OF INFORMATION USING GOOGLE SEARCH.  IS THAT STILL RESTRICTED?   YES.  It is illegal to announce or disseminate or post those listed pieces of information for the purposes listed in the law (18 USC § 119). Those are purposes such as threatening or intimidating or making it so others can harass or harm the person.   This law is about acts that endanger the safety of or encourage attacks against a person or a person’s family.   It is not about where you found the information.

READ THAT AGAIN:

This law is about acts that endanger the safety of, or encourage attacks against, a person or a person’s family.   It is not about where you found the information.

18 USC § 119

The information may or may not even be on the internet; that is not a factor for a charge.  A criminal act does not need to be physically possible for a charge to exist with regard to it.  The activity can take the form of cyber-space and internet posting.

Doxing might also be part of a conspiracy to harm, endanger, or even kill a person. Even if unintentionally if the action of the party is intended to threaten, harass or harm.

Doxing is always illegal, whether it is done against a federal employee, a state employee, or a regular person.   There are federal and state laws that specifically address doxing government employees  18 U.S.C. Sec 371 (18 U.S.C. Sec 119).

With regular non-governmental citizens, doxing falls under various state criminal laws, such as stalking, cyber stalking, harassment, threats, and other such laws, depending on the state.

Since these doxing threats and activities are made on the internet, the law of any state may be invoked, though most often an investigator will look to the state in which the person making the threat is located, if this is known, or the state in which the victim is situated.

A state prosecutor can only prosecute violations of the laws of his or her own state, and of acts that extend into their state.

However, when acts are on the internet, they extend into all the states.   Thereby allowing the victim to choose the state of filing which may, or may not, be the state of residence for the victim(s) or perpetrator(s).

Increasingly with internet use,  attorneys are affirming representation to the state with the strongest current legal remedies for Doxing, Cyber-Stalking, or Harassment.

Misinformation was spread that doxing is legal.  I am not sure how or why anyone fell for that misinformation. Surely, people must understand instinctively, even if they were misled about the law, that if they are threatening someone or putting them at risk, or tormenting or harassing the other on the internet, that this must be illegal.

Common sense would tell you that bullying or jeopardizing another would be illegal in some way. So yes, doxing is illegal, no matter who the target.  The difference is when it is on the internet it is Federal, or State.  When it is not via cyber space it is State issue/laws/ remedy only.

In addition there are even more consequential specific federal laws, and federal remedies, against doxing federal employees.  This is one of the issues with Mark Osterman and the potential for Frances Robles indictment.   In addition, many states have such individual laws against doing this to state employees, officials, and/or law enforcement officers.

If you are doxing a non-government person, this can be illegal under various laws that have names such as stalking, cyber stalking, cyber-bullying, harassment, invasion of privacy, threatening, terroristic threatening, endangering the safety of, intentional infliction of emotional distress (this can be a crime or a tort, depending on state law), threatening a witness (if the person is a witness), intimidation, and other laws that exist in the different states.

Depending on the situation, it might also be a hate crime or a violation of civil rights. Some states also have laws that specifically apply to students harassing or being harassed.  Many states now have laws about posting a person’s name or photo on an indecent or incendiary website without their permission.   It really depends on the situation, but there are plenty of laws that can be invoked and multiple remedies available.

When you do something on the internet, it reaches into every state and you open yourself up to potentially being prosecuted under the laws of any state.

In addition, since it is being done in interstate commerce (the internet), you can be accountable under federal law.

Also, if you dox someone using an internet website or service such as Facebook or Twitter or most other such services, such as WordPress or Blogger, and your intent is stalking, cyber stalking, cyber-bullying, harassment, invasion of privacy, threatening, terroristic threatening, endangering the safety of, intentional infliction of emotional distress or intimidation, you are probably violating the Terms of Service under the media contract which binds your activity from your acceptance of the terms.

Violating the terms of service can actually be a federal crime, depending on the situation, and especially so when the terms are violated in order to harm a person.

It is important at this point to note the “intent” of the activity itself, which is where capturing the full data “as it exists” becomes important.   Example: A post itself may not violate the terms or the law;  However, the “intent” can change depending on the editorial content within the control of the site operator.   When the comments follow, and reflect, a specific intent as outlined, then the arbiter of the posting itself is ultimately liable for the consequences of their affiliates.

Think about only using a name, it is probably a violation of law, but maybe not.  However, once you go beyond the name IT IS ALWAYS A VIOLATION OF LAW.

If we are hosting a site discussion and publicly name a private party, depending on intent, there is no harm.   However, if we further provide, or a commentator provides an address for the party – and we do not delete the information in a timely manner, then depending on circumstance we could be in direct violation of law.

There was a recent court case where a person violated the terms of service for social media and using manufactured e-mail address, only for the media platform, created a fake account/site with the specific purpose to harass another person.   In turn this led to the harassed person committing suicide — and this was treated as a federal crime because of the violation of terms of service.   Remember - the person being harassed does not need to die for the crime to exist, it just amplifies the repercussions/charges.

If you DO post someone’s personal information and if some harm comes to that person, you might also be charged with something related to that, possibly even with the crime itself.

For example, if you post someone’s address and then someone reads it and goes and kills that person or someone close to them, don’t be surprised if you are charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, or other actionable charges as outlined in 18 U.S.C. Sec 371 (18 U.S.C. Sec 119) b.

Considering the activity of the Miami Herald’s Frances Robles action in regard to Mark and Sondra Osterman:   Conspiracy to Make Publicly Available Restricted Personal Information of an Employee of the United States  18 U.S.C. Sec 371 (18 U.S.C. Sec 119)

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? It means the potential for Robles, Simmons and Reid to be charged with Conspiracy (under 18 U.S.C Section 371) to commit a crime that is listed in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 7 Section 119.

The illegal activity is the restricted private information that was made public, and someone else agreed to do so (Robles), and some step was taken in furtherance of doing it (Simmons).  In Mark Ostermans case Francis Robles took the specific action of “doxing” Mark with the expressed collusion of NBC’s Joy-Ann Reid.  This was furthered by the action of posting pictures of the personal residence and address by Russell Simmons and the Global Grind.

CAN SOMETHING SOMEONE SAYS ON THE INTERNET BE CONSIDERED A CRIME AND NOT FREE SPEECH?   Easily and quite often actually, again it goes to intent –  Michael Prout, Assistant Director for Judicial Security of the US Marshals Service, on page 2 in a written statement in 2009 explained the danger of internet threats:

“Most Internet threateners, when confronted or challenged on their statement, will claim they are only exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.  And in many cases, an examination of their speech could lead us to concur.

To guard against violating a person’s First Amendment right to free speech, the USMS requires the occurrence of a “triggering event” before a protective investigation is initiated. In the area of threat management, a “triggering event” is the receipt of an inappropriate communication, or a reasonable indication that a possible threat exists.

However, one of the issues that make Internet threats so insidious is that others who hear or read this “free speech” may
interpret it differently; they may interpret it as a threat of violence, or as a call to violence, and be influenced to act out violently.

If the threat on the Internet is also accompanied by restricted personal information, it can assist in facilitating the act of
violence by locating the protectee.”  (citation)

According to legal authorities who have reviewed the Frances Robles action there is absolutely NO STANDARD of review which would not outline the specific activity of Frances Robles, Joy-Ann Reid, and Russell Simmons to be absolutely in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec 371 (18 U.S.C. Sec 119) in the Doxing of Mark Osterman.

Indeed, arguably there is no more succinct an example of such illegal activity given the inherent role of Mark Osterman as a federal officer in his role of anonymity for his position as a Federal Air Marshal.

Subsequently as a specific agent of The Miami Herald, it’s parent company, and NBC’s The Grio, along with Global Grind the management and company leadership would also be criminally accountable, and civilly liable for the willful acceptance of the illegal action of their employed agent.  Cha-Ching

Mark Osterman

Whether or not the FBI or DOJ would pursue the legal case is a matter of political discussion, risk and benefit analysis.  However, the illegal activity is not subjective – it exists.   More importantly for corrective action, and punishment upon the perpetrator of the Doxing though, is the “civil liability”, which is even more extreme.

The compensatory and punitive damages available to the Osterman’s for the specific action of Frances Robles, Joy-Ann Reid, and Russell Simmons, and their respective approving employers is staggering when you consider the real, physical, and emotional quantification of harm.

Think about the “costs” of harm a judiciary or jury would have to consider:  Having to move, live in fear, effects on children, move schools, emotional distress and actual financial costs from being Doxed are significant.

Many who have reviewed have also concluded there has never been a more appropriate case for application.

The positive at the end of this dark tunnel is the REAL and reasonable expectation of serious compensatory damages for Mark and Sondra.   Any attorney would grab this case for the sheer value to their own pocketbook.

This is a case of minimal lawyers effort needed to secure a maximum financial award for their client.   The case speaks for itself.

Many thanks to Sue Basko a lawyer for  Independent Media in California and Illinois.  Ms. Basko trained in mass communications graduate school in investigative journalism and historic research techniques, as well as in media law, IP law, First Amendment, and digital production tech.   Her research and information has been exceptional and invaluable.

Now, how does this also pertain to the Treehouse.   As you are aware we have now invested over 15 full labor-hour days of intrepid research cataloging various sites who have specific intent to “out” or publish the personal information of Site Administrators, myself included, and various Treepers.  

Some seriously ideological, and hate-filled people have been “Doxing”, or actively engaged in the attempting to “Dox” us quite openly, which as outlined is not only violation of multiple site TOS it is also illegal as above.

Only the media sites, and corresponding Twitter feeds who have linked to the sites, with the expressed purpose of spreading the illegal activity, and who have openly violated the law, have currently been addressed.    There are two more being monitored as they flirt dangerously close to the line.

One specific site has seriously and massively crossed the line regarding illegal DOXING and apparently they are fully aware of their illegal activity, yet they scoff and continue.  (not a good character trait)    All of their visible posts, comments, backgrounds, names, accounts have been screengrabbed, cataloged and cited based on date of incident.    Hosting sites (WordPress, Blogger, Gravatar, Twitter, FB, e-mail platforms such as g-mail etc)  have now been contacted (step one) and are in the process of complying with court ordered requests for mandatory release of the account holder(s)/Administrator(s)  isp, account names, e-mail addresses and physical locations by state (step 2).

No, we will not publish this information – two wrongs don’t make right.   (It will however -in time- become a matter of public record – those links will be provided)  The information is initially being used to file the first batch of criminal police reports in the identified state jurisdictions (step 3.).   From there, based on “best venue”, civil filings will be submitted to the appropriate courts of jurisdiction (step 4).   Some of the civil jurisdictions will be divergent from the law enforcement actions, for the sake of convenience and cost effectiveness (civil actions take longer). 

It is doubtful any mediation terms will be accepted, nor will settlement terms be offered or entertained - The process through the court system is longer, much longer, but the consequences more severe. 

Lessons need to be learned.

The first batch of court order filing fees was manageable, however, if you want to hit the tip jar to help offset the recurring filing costs moving forward – that would be splendid.   And don’t worry about the scrubbing (one site already took themselves down when notified by their host today) every single page is screen captured and stored on both disk and thumb drive.   The removal of content does not remove the liability (it does reflect a certain regret which is appreciated).  

We feel confident we have located the primary offenders.  However, please feel free to continue sending your identified site details to thelastrefuge@reagan.com and we will follow-up accordingly.  Y’all do a great job with that and we THANK YOU muchly.

Wolverines !

About these ads
This entry was posted in George Zimmerman Open Thread, Mark O'Mara, Mark Osterman Book, media bias, Racism, Trayvon Martin, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to The Illegal Activity of “Doxing”: Revealing “documents or personal information” about a person, without their permission, with the intent to Threaten, Harass, Intimidate, Shame, Humiliate or Place at Risk….

  1. John VI says:

    Wouldnt this law also apply to rosanne barr and spike lee for tweeting the address of zimmermans parents? Thier own statements were hostile and in hopes that someone would go to those addresses and beat up or kill the people that lived there.

    Sadly, I seriously doubt that anyone at a federal level would be willing to prosecute these crimes, given the attitude of Eric “My People” Holder’s justice department.

    • ytz4mee says:

      I believe so. And both of those morons have deep pockets …. a litigator’s dream.

    • sundance says:

      They both already paid (privately) to avoid public civil litigation. Of course their legal position now is protected behind “Release and Settlement of Claim” acceptances.

      • canadacan says:

        It’s a start. I have been very ill in this just makes me feel better

      • ytz4mee says:

        Does that apply to Robert and Gladys, or just to the elderly couple that were forced to flee their home when Spike Lee tweeted their address (in error) as the Zimmerman’s? I know that the elderly couple agreed to settle for hotel expenses, etc (which was a mistake, IMO).
        But Robert and Gladys are a different story. The doxing was aimed at them, with the intent to incite people to cause them bodily harm, preferably death by mob justice. Like their son, their lives will never be the same. Let me put it this way — whatever Spike Lee owns, he should be compelled to hand over to the Z’s. Same same for Roseanne Barr for jumping on the “lynching are fun” anti-Z bandwagon.

        That is all.

        • jello333 says:

          I think some of these fools are gonna be shocked once they start being served with complaints. “Oh good, here’s a lawsuit from George and Shellie Zimmerman. We expected it though…” Then a few days later, “What?! We already got sued by Zimmerman, what’s going on? Wait, this isn’t George, this is Robert. Who’s Robert? Oh, that’s right… the father.” A awhile later, “Another one from Robert? This must be a duplicate or… or wait, this was says Robert Jr. What’s going on here?!”

          Yes idiots, that’s right… the Zimmermans are not some monolithic unit. They can and WILL sue you all separately. Enjoy your time in court.

      • John VI says:

        I found reference to spike lee settling with the family he mistweeted about, and for rosanne barr having deleted her tweet, but nothing about a settlement with the actual zimmermans. There was a reference to the fact that someone else was doing the research and forwarding it to them to tweet though. It would be interesting to see who that original poster was, since they are just as liable for the damages. Depending on thier identity I dont think it would be too difficult to prove that they conspired to get that info out in order to hurt the zimmermanns.

        Could they hold Lee accountable even though he was too stupid to get the address right? His intent was obvious and stated publicly at the time.

        Loved the comments under those references though. They date back to late march and they were already almost 50/50 for and against on the first page. Nice to see.

    • jello333 says:

      Go after both of those scumbags. Oh, by the way, I used to at least halfway like both of them… NO MORE.

    • Sha says:

      I hope they both have to pay big time , then maybe they will think next time before they endanger people’s lives. Both Rosanne and Spike Lee are lucky that no one got killed. I have no respect for either of them. Everyone has a right to there opionion’s but not a right to put someone’s life on the line.

  2. rumpole2 says:

    Ii would be nice if an initial reaction is that several sites, ( the owners of sites), take stock of what they have done, and at least stop now. Perhaps get rid of some of their more rabid posters.. and delete all there posts. As you say:
    “The removal of content does not remove the liability (it does reflect a certain regret which is appreciated). ”
    I don’t hold out much hope though.

  3. Hugh Stone says:

    Are the suits already filed?

  4. Susie Newman says:

    Dang, while skimming through this blog post, I couldn’t help think of Dee Dee and GZs cousin.

    • Hugh Stone says:

      Nobody was harassing or intimidating them. There is a BIG difference.

      • sundance says:

        That is true. However, the difference is actually more substantive than that from a legal perspective.

        Regarding – Witness #9, or W9 (Cristina Meza aka Christina Johnson) is an example of legal “outing” (name only) free speech. Compared to the specifically legally protected name of Federal Air Marshall Mark Osterman (he has laws written just to protect his circumstance).

        Regarding – DeeDee: The actual “DeeDee” was never identified was she? Our research, and our finding, only produced various “synonyms” or “user names” or “social media handles”, that we connected together and identified as attributable to the person whom Benjamin Crump was describing to the media on 3/20. Not once did we identify a legal name or identity (go back and look). Even though we could legally do just that – identify and publish a name; No-one knows if Diasha Brianne is an actual person, do they?

        And if you have a picture of DeeDee, (as in the person from the 4/2 interview tape with FDLE), please send it to me – I’d be more than happy to consider posting it. As far as I can tell, no-one has ever actually laid eyes on “DeeDee”. Heck, I’m certain Mark O’Mara would be thrilled to know who she is. I mean, actually is….

        ….. considering at this point she is Benjamin Crump’s Kaiser Soze’.

        • Knuckledraggingwino says:

          Which Double Dee Dee? The double Dee Dee who did the first interview over the phone with Crump and Guttmann or the Double Dee Dee that BDLR interviewed?

    • James F says:

      Their addresses were posted somewhere on this site? Do you have a link?

    • sundance says:

      Susie understanding you are more than likely a Provacatuer, I choose to answer because the ill-minded apparently do not know the difference. There are multiple factors which define “legal” vs. “illegal” privacy issues. But essentially two broad categories (broadly speaking):

      One is the action of the person who is behind the curtain of anonymity, and what they do to advance themselves into the public venue. Meaning, are they just living a life without affect or influence over another, a private person. Understanding that in general terms “a person who “makes a claim” of another, in a public forum, in a legal matter, has by their own impetus, placed themselves into a position of scrutiny.

      In essence they, by their own decisionmaking, made a specific personal choice to drop the “highest standard of privacy”. – It is more complex than that, but suffice to say this is essentially the easiest descriptive without writing volumes.

      The Second broad consideration is the action of the party who pulls back the curtain of anonymity. Because there are circumstances where revealing information is lawful one of the primary considerations is “what is their intent”? Is the intent harm, harrassment, threatening, intimidation, stalking etc? Then, what can be legally shown as evidence to reflect that intent.

      We have, thankfully, very distinct protections for free speech. But this does not protect persons engaged in blackmail, deprivation of rights, threat of bodily harm to a person, harrassment, intimidation, humiliation or otherwise place at risk.

      Again, as a generalization, it is incorrect to say the use of a person’s name alone, in testimony of FACT or reasonable conclusion in dispute, is illegal, nor am I stating that in the outline above. However, there are specific laws that protect the private identity of various persons, such as Federal Air Marshals and other federal employees who depend on anonymity as a matter of their responsibility.

      Editorial and Opinion articles, using a persons name, where not VILLIFYING BY CHARACTER (ad hominem abuse, to presume intent rather than report actions or inaction leading to harm), is perfectly legal public speech. But there is a line that can easily be crossed between legally protected speech and illegal threatening activity.

      Again, it becomes a matter of “intent”.

      I would strongly advise anyone with any questions to contact their legal representation, and get sound legal advice based on their state laws and the federal laws which surround cyber threats.

      The illegal act of “Doxing”, or broadcasting a private persons documents, is a bigger issue than many people recognize. If an action is taken by a 3rd party in response to information provided by a harrasser, even unintentionally, both parties are generally complicit in their culpability and liability for legal (civil and criminal) remedy.

  5. Arkindole says:

    8-O; wow…

  6. arkansasmimi says:

    WOLVERINES!!!

  7. LoudaJew says:

    when I saw the Osterman’s on TV, I felt they were good honest people. Dr. Phil was pushing the belief that this could have been your kid, and Trayvon was just going to the store. they were fighting a losing battle against a bunch of emotional people thinking it could have been their kid. well, if their kid beat up a strange guy to a pulp, maybe this would happen to them. I felt Alicia Martin was also dramatic with her response “Are you serious?” after the Osterman’s said George was fighting for his life. I know it’s off topic, but that’s what I felt when I saw those nice people on TV defending their friend. I also saw his book was rated very poorly by a bunch of people who claim to have read the book on Amazon. it’s the opicture of Trayvon as a little kid that gets people going. Robles felt like she was fighting the good fight, and if she had doubts, her supporters will back her up with a pat on the back. she knew she was doing wrong. I’ve asked her to look into certain people who I knew were Trayvon’s friends but she never took me up on my offer.

    • jello333 says:

      I’ve considered that, yeah… “What if Trayvon was my son?” Yeah. But then I’ve also done what the GZ-haters are totally incapable of doing: Of imagining, “What if George was my son?” Why do these people refuse to have THAT mental exercise?

      • janc1955 says:

        If Trayvon had been my son, I’d be deathly ill or dead already from guilt. If that young man was my son, and I failed him so miserably, I would be inconsolable. Hopefully, I would learn something from the experience and find a way to make amends for the rest of my miserable life. The last thing I’d be doing is looking for others to blame.

        • justfactsplz says:

          You probably wouldn’t be trying to use him as a cash cow either.

        • ytz4mee says:

          There was an article in the Washingtonian magazine about a pastor who was working with the families of murder victims to promote reconciliation and healing. Two of the families profiled, the mothers of the murdered children in essence “adopted” the youths that killed their children, and helped them to a better path in life, similar to this organization:
          http://www.mvfr.org/?page_id=6

          Trashcan Momma talks a good story, but if healing and truth were truly what she was seeking, her actions would be very different. It’s all about the Ca$h, and always has been.

          • arkansasmimi says:

            Saturday will be Dec 1. I wonder if TrayMom or Auntie went back to work? Wonder if she sent Thank You cards to ea person? I would have. Will they be going to the Office Christmas Party? Wouldnt you like to be a fly on the wall in their breakroom sometime? Wonder whatever happened about the Victim Fund ?

        • Sha says:

          janc1955: I know what you are saying….. I help raise a few boy’s that some gave up on. I love them very much. They went from very bad behavior to ,Yes mam , No Mam and thank you. It was a long hard road but worth it…. I worried about my two son’s and them learning to act like the ones I was taking in, I thank god that didn’t happen. I would feel that I had failed, had I lost my fight for any of them. My heart would have been broken if I had got a call that one of my boy’s had done what TM did. I wouldn’t wont your money , your camera in my face or anyone around me. I wouldn’t lie are make excuses for his bad behavior. I would go through the regular stages of grief. I would remind my other son’s that you have a choice in life and the wrong ones can cost you. I would be in my own little world until the lord seen fit to bring me out of it. I would blame myself for the way he handled the situation with GZ.

  8. justfactsplz says:

    I have long thought Frances Robles should be prosecuted for outing Mark Osterman. Great article Sundance. It is very enlightening.

    • jello333 says:

      I think you’ve been saying that almost since the first time I saw you here. You should be proud. And did you see the latest from this Robles idiot? Just today she wrote some article about George gonna send a signed thank-you card to people who donate to the defense fund. Robles’ headline about that? “Zimmerman to begin selling autographs to pay for expenses”. That woman (like most of the others on that side) has NO shame.

      • justfactsplz says:

        I saw it. That woman has no shame. That is not what GZlegalcase said. She definitely needs to be stopped, this is malicious reporting.

  9. lovemygirl says:

    I’m still absorbing it. My only current comment is those that engaged in the illegal activity must be shell shocked that the law applies to them as well. All this time they thought they were sheltered because they supported the prog side.

    • ytz4mee says:

      They still believe that doxing laws do not apply to them ….. belligerently so. They are under the misguided belief that if the info can be publicly obtained, you can do whatever you want with it. Not so.

      Oh, well. They’re about to find out it’s expensive to be stupid … and belligerent.
      No attorney is going to defend against a doxing claim without a significant retainer upfront and verification of assets …

      • lovemygirl says:

        Hee hee, just reminded me of meeting with a lawyer and afterwards discussing the cost. I decided no and he even said you let the little things go.

        • ytz4mee says:

          I was involved in some very nasty, and lengthy litigation not too long ago. I tried to reason with the other side, but like the Traydemark supporters, they substituted emotion for reason. They were “so sure” they were going to win, because there were more of them against just me, and they had their narrative (lies) all lined up. How wrong they were. The law is the law, and what is right is right. All of their manufactured lies were easily disproven by documents and testimony from impartial observers with nothing to gain from their testimony. In the end, not only did they have their own legal costs to absorb(estimated to be in the high five figures), they had to pay all of my legal costs (low six figures) as well as significant punitive damages. The Court, not amused by their antics, gave them only 10 days to pay in full. Needless to say, they couldn’t (their mouths were bigger than their bank balances) and that’s when things got really interesting.

          The Scheme Team is about to learn the meaning of the phrase,
          “Come to Court with Clean Hands”.

    • boutis says:

      They also think that since it will not be prosecuted by the DOJ that they are in the clear and can do anything as it is too expensive to legally pursue it. The media has been protected to some extent throughout history by their legal counsel who tell them how far they can go under 1st amendment case law. Now “reporters” Facebook, Twit, run their mouths on TV which is not vetted by their employers media counsel. I would not be surprised to see media companies start refusing to pay legal costs for “utterances” by employees that are not in their publications, websites, or broadcasts. NBC and the affiliate fired people who got caught on the media they own to cover their butts for liability and damages.

  10. Sentenza says:

    I like Janeway’s bully speech:

  11. scubachick75 says:

    Remember when a woman outed an undercover cop on facebook a couple months ago?
    Robles and Simmons should go down the same way!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/melissa-walthall-texas-undercover-cop-facebook-arrest_n_1970479.html

    • ytz4mee says:

      I think the issue with Osterman is that both Robles and Simmons feel “immune” to prosecution and the standards that others are held to. Robles because she is part of the Corporate Media complex which was a front and center cheer leader for the race-baiting and Simmons because he is politically “hooked up”.

      A civil jury might feel very different, depending on the venue.
      $$$$$$

  12. Why wouldn’t they think they could get by with the bullying and the threats, look at the representatives for the side they are on. No justice, no peace simply means if we don’t get what we want, you are a racist and we are going tear some sh** up. They call employers, there is no level to which they will not stoop. It is a disgusting display of high-school, bully mentality. Robles needs to be accountable, good work SD.

  13. Sue Basko says:

    I am glad you enjoyed reading my blog and using paragraphs from it here. This business of thinking it is clever to endanger or harass others by posting their whereabouts or other such information on the internet has to stop. I don’t know the story you are writing about here, but I hope the people are safe. // Happy Holidays to you all.

    • ytz4mee says:

      Thank you so much for all the excellent work you have done in explaining how dangerous … and illegal this activity is. I couldn’t agree more …. it has to stop. It is nothing more than modern mob justice. Too many people have been killed, driven to suicide and grievously injured already as a result of this activity.

  14. cajunkelly says:

    I’m gonna play devil’s advocate here, right after I don my flame retardent suit;

    I believe there will be a damage mitigation issue here re mark and shellie Sondra, in that they seemingly welcomed the notoriety and jumped up, grabbed that brass ring and rode it squarely into the public arena via the book (which I still think thew GZ under the bus) and then on the dr spiel show.

    Had they continued to attempt a low profile, yeah, I could see big bucks in this for them. The book and a nationally (internationally, even) television show, IMO, damages those monetary prospects.

    Greed; it is what it is.

    This is my opinion, and mine only. If this came to trial and I was on the jury, this is certainly an issue *I* would consider.

    YMMV

    • cajunkelly says:

      Disclaimer;

      I am *not* excusing the behavior of those who doxed the ostermans. I am simply saying that when it comes to assesed damages via a civil suit, their own actions become a damage mitigation issue.

      Were I them I wouldn’t be shopping for a small island in the tropics just yet.

      Remember, I’m saying this *as* a Federal Employee and I have had to defend myself against cyber attacks. Many attempts have been made to find my true identity, simply because of differences in political and social issues. Granted, the attacks weren’t by professionals and they were never successful.

      The person *I* believe is owed a small island in the tropics is the Zimmermans.

    • cajunkelly says:

      correction:

      mark and SONDRA osterman
      ——————-
      CK, hope you’re ok with this–inserted the correct name in the comment above, since you noted it here, to avoid possible misunderstandings by your readers. Your insights are much appreciated. –Admin

    • jello333 says:

      I think that would be true, IF he hadn’t already been outed. But I figure that once he was outed, he KNEW he no longer had a career, seeing as he was no longer anonymous… so therefore there was no reason NOT to go all out with the book, appearances, etc. If he can show that he would NOT have put himself into the public sphere had it not been for the original outing, yeah… he still has a case.

      • cajunkelly says:

        I didn’t say he doesn’t have a case jello. I’m saying there *will* (IMO)be a damage mitigation issue when it comes to any possible civil suit award.

        Huge difference.

        • jello333 says:

          Well, you said you were playing devil’s advocate, so I figured you wanted me to yell at you. ;) But seriously though, yeah you’re right. Your point being (I think) that even if Osterman wins a case, he’ll probably wind up getting a lot less in damages than he would have had he just tried to remain as anonymous as he still could after the outing… right?

          • cajunkelly says:

            Oh darn, I didn’t realize you were yelling? (chuckle) Don’t ya know you’re supposed to type it in ALL CAPS?

            And yeah, you understood my post perfectly. Da debil sez so. (grin)

      • justfactsplz says:

        I was going to reply to her but you beat me to it Jello. The Osterman’s had no intentions of going public before they were outed. Once their identiity was out there his career was on the line, yes.

    • sundance says:

      JHMO…. and something to reflect upon….. But *never* advocate for the devil… it trains the psyche…. whether you recognize it or not.

      • Sharon says:

        Good advice, SD.

      • cajunkelly says:

        Just a figure of speech sundance. Had I known an alternate one I wouldn’t have used it.

        Know one?

        My psyche is just fine. I’ve got God’s angels guarding it. (sweet Southern smile)

        • raiikun says:

          Personally, I don’t really have an issue with the term. It, after all, originated with the Catholic Church’s canonization process (the Devil’s Advocate was a lawyer appointed by Church authorities to argue against the canonization of a candidate, while another argued for.)

          • cajunkelly says:

            *Thank you* raiikun! Both for the origin of the phrase, and support.
            That scenario is much the same as my intent when I used the phrase.

            Gotta admit I was somewhat offended that it appeared I was actually advocating for satan, or opening myself up tto be influenced by him.

            Nothing could be further from the truth.

            (another sweet Southern smile)…and this time I am not gritting my teeth while I do it. :)

        • sundance says:

          It’s a deep conversation. Too deep. I was merely offering a possible reflection moment. That’s all.

          It’s like talking to a person who begins the sentence with: “well, to be honest with you”, or “to be honest”, or “in all honesty” et al….

          To which I usually respond – “Really? I didn’t know we had options. OK, well now that I know what signals to look for on your end, I’ll move my trust switch to the off position until you’re finished”.

  15. lovemygirl says:

    “The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers,”
    Well, except mine ;)

  16. justfactsplz says:

    I just wanted to clear something up a bit. This excellent research and article by Sundance outlines what the Ostermans COULD do. Whether they will seek civil damages remains to be seen. AT this time they are pursuing criminal charges against Frances Robles. They want her to be federally charged and are coming up with much resistance from the DOJ. They are not motivated by greed and did not write the book out of greed.

  17. Angel says:

    I hope one site that i have seen is on this list.

    • arkansasmimi says:

      I hope there are a couple I have seen on there too, Angel.

    • James F says:

      They have been given fair legal notice. I hope they are stupid enough to make it even worse for themselves.

      • jello333 says:

        I saw a tweet earlier this evening from someone at the dothprotest site (I think that’s what it’s called), where they said they didn’t care about threats of a lawsuit, and that they “wouldn’t be bullied”. Alrighty then…

        • ytz4mee says:

          They are experts on everything … including bullying.
          Threats, intimidation, ad hominem attacks – that’s all they have instead of facts and reason.

          Scheme Team
          Scheme Team
          Scheme Team

          The only reason it angers them it because it rings true, and their elaborate con has been laid bare.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s