• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

42 § 1983

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

umkemesic

Member
Ah, I see the problem. The acronym SOL usually stands for Statute of Limitations. In your case, it was defined as:
Perhaps you should have given the definition if you wanted it to mean something outside the norm.
We will have to wait until a judge with access to the facts opines about it to tell.
Thanks.

Sorry about that, SOL is typically a Cook-County term, but it is also used in some administrative law practice.

I'm not worried about the criminal case. A Public Defender could crush this out of the park. Just needed some info on Civil litigation, not my cup of tee when dealing with multiple defendants.

Your advise in this forum was great, I could deal without the other's comments about the merits of the criminal case.

It's hard for an attorney to judge the facts of his own case objectively.

v/r

JC
 


cyjeff

Senior Member
Not forum shopping, I just don't want to file a Federal Suit and then file a State suit on the same issues. If I can get the non-state actor in the same suit it's easier than balancing both suits at once. Conversely, it may be "safer" to proceed with the Federal suit, and if the gov. is liable it would be easier to prove, by extension, the private actor is liable as well.
Uh huh. You do know you are attempting to sue two completely different entities, right?

You see, this is where coming to this forum has its drawbacks. The No-Contact order stated not to contact the CW or commit Stalking as Defined by the statute.

There was no contact, either directly or indirectly. The state is alleging that I violated the order by taking the pictures off her facebook without permission and creating this website. Both acts occurred before the OP.
Ah, so naming the website the same as her name was a coincidence?

Blatant attempt at indirect communication. Or were you thinking that she wouldn't be at all curious about what a website named after her would be saying?

That's correct, if it talks like a shyster, acts like a shyster, it's a shyster.
Not a lawyer, bunkie.

There is no defamation. There is nothing libelous on that website. You are taking "facts" that exist in an empty universe (your head) and applying inept legal reasoning (i.e. I contacted someone indirectly through a public website). That would mean I contacted her again by posting on this forum.
You named it after her, posted pictures of her and now have in-depth conversations about this case.

Yup, you are crafty to hide your intentions that way. No one will ever suspect a thing. Really.

You see - the only one that sounds crazy is you.
Yeah... but I have never been the subject of a restraining order after I go out of my way to create a website and blog about another person.

You aren't stalking... you are just obsessing. Unfortunately, the law doesn't see a difference.

Free Speech was not made to protect polite speech.
Thank you for that history lesson. Alex, can I take "The Federalist Papers" for a thousand?

Free speech was also not made to allow the knowing distribution of false information that humiliates and harasses a private individual, either.

You do know that just because it is posted on the internet doesn't mean it belongs to you, right? There are still such things as copyright laws.

If I were her, I would sue you on that basis alone.

Like that website forums and blogs can be indirect contact? Like I violated the order by collecting images prior to the order? That I purchased the website with the sole purpose of harssing the person?
Websites made and posted in the name of a person are designed to get that person's attention through indirect contact.

Are you saying you DIDN'T purchase the website in this person's name to get her attention? Are you saying it was accidental?

Judges are not stupid. Such a thin excuse will make a weak fort to hide behind.

Different Judge for one, again, for the 12th time - how a website can be considered as "contact" is a non sequitar. In-fact, the State is alleging that I violated the order by taking the pictures off her facebook, not that I contacted her.
So far.

Therefore the idea that a public website could be a form of "contact", either directly or indirectly, might be a tenable legal theory at Phoenix Online, or wherever you got your J.D., it is a non-issue as the State is not arguing contact, but emotional distress caused by the making of the website and the use of pictures without permission.
So far.

Still not a lawyer.

As I explained before, both those acts occurred before the OP, so the State would need to amend the charge if they want to include the post after I was arrested - so far that has not happened.
So far. Are you under the impression that additional charges cannot be levied?

If I was your professor, I would make you write a tome on indirect/direct contempt. And libel - which, as you should have learned at law school, needs to be false.
So you can PROVE this person is a skank? how would you do that?

Anyway, it is for the court to decide. Luckily, I took the time to save the web pages.

Just in case.

By the way, it is really lame to post fake comments to yourself. Your posters seem to think that a website full of venom and hate is not only the mostest wonderfulest website evAH, but that it changes all their lives.

Yeah.

Elected Judges are held to scrutiny as any elected officials. They are public - you know what, you just don't get it. Never mind.
But, are still judges. And they still have amazing authority. And you called one a crook without naming him/her. I wonder who the next judge that reads that will think whom you meant.

No. I already received discovery, they only have the blank blog, actually only the picture gallery. Regardless, there is nothing there**************.But it is better to error on the side of caution.
That's okay, I saved it.

I asked for advice in one area of law I was not familiar with. I am not worried about the criminal violation, I will beat that with my eyes closed.
You seem not to understand, the State has already drew up the charges as actions occurring before the OP. They have already lost. They would have to amend the charges - to what could possibly be an offense, I have no idea.
I'll tell you what jerk-face. After this gets dismissed I will post the order dismissing the case. Then you can scream "you violated the order" all you like.
Yeah, right. The good news is that since you named the other party on your website, we will be able to follow it from here.

Jerkface? Oh no!!! I have been transported to second grade!!!

Cyber squatting is not illegal. If you go to fredphelps.com it is ran by someone who HATES Fred Phelps.
Which does not, of course, insulate them from a restraining order or a civil suit.

You still really don't get this, do you?

Regarding your other comments, they are frivilous.
Or frivolous. Whatever.

Do they not allow spell check on the computers in the high school's media center?
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
What our young friend believes is so innocent..... Names have been redacted to protect this site.... I assure you that our OP names names... innocently, of course.

Hello,

Welcome to <victims name>.com. This website focuses on how an individual can have you arrested and thrown in jail by taking advantage of a system which is overwhelmingly pro &#8220;victim&#8221;. And when we say &#8220;victim&#8221; we are not talking about actual victims of domestic abuse. We are talking about little girls who manipulate the system in order to get &#8220;even&#8221; with the actual victims, the men who have to defend themselves from frivolous allegations of abuse.

<victim's name> is one of these so-called &#8220;victims&#8221;. Incredibly she had me arrested for making this very website. That&#8217;s right. This website, which has no threats and uses public images that she herself posted on her own facebook. Arrested because of she wanted this website taken down.

But what is more interesting is how we got here in the first place. <victim's name> was able to get an order of protection from an ignorant C[r]ook County Judge (we will refer them as &#8220;Greylords&#8221;). Normally to get an order of protection you have to show, through a preponderance of the evidence, that on at least two occasions someone made threats of injury or caused you emotional distress.

Here, <victim's name> complained of an email that stated in part &#8220;I can email you whenever I want to, it&#8217;s called FREEDOM OF SPEECH&#8221;. The Greylord said one email was enough and I could not email her whenever I wanted. That day I wrote an email to her lawyer stating that I was creating a blog, this one you are reading now. <victim's name> and her lawyer had me arrested and tried to ask the judge to take down the website. Obviously she has failed.

Now this website will stay up. And with it I will bring you into the world of how protective orders are abused, especially in divorces, as a weapon of choice to deprive the true victim of constitutional rights.

Commonly used phrases, characters, and terms:

Greylord &#8211; A C[r]ook County Judge. These judges are usually are appointed through a slating process by the Chicago Alderman via rigged elections. Typically their qualifications are (1) Over the Age of 35 (2) Be a lawyer of minimal intelligence (3) Have donated extensive campaign funds to the Democrat Party or Lisa Madigan (4) Are friends with influential Democrats or Lisa Madigan. For more information see the Tribune article &#8220;Inside the Beast, How Cook County Judges are Elected&#8221;.

<a second victim's name> &#8211; A very confused woman. What&#8217;s worse is that she sends twitter messages to 50cent, Snooki, and many celebrities on a daily basis in apparent confusion that (1) She is a celebrity herself, and (2) Anyone cares to listen to what she has to say. She has a degree in Web Design, but because she has no real talent in her career field she has been forced to work as an admin assistant. Now works in Marketing at Sensus Healthcare. Currently lives in Florida, potentially a future Hooters Waitress.

&#8220;Victim&#8221; &#8211; According to the courts, a &#8220;victim&#8221; is anyone making an allegation no matter how unsubstantiated. No proof or evidence that the &#8220;victim&#8221; actually suffered from any crime is required.

True Victim &#8211; Used in this website as someone who actually is a victim of some crime. Usually the heterosexual male who is accused as an abuser.

Order of Protection &#8211; A weapon used by &#8220;victims&#8221; in order to accuse a true victim of a crime in order to get even with the true victim or to score points against a true victim in a Divorce. Often the order is sought with the knowledge that the true victim will be arrested for merely walking down the street within the eye sight of the &#8220;victim&#8221;. Often, the statute allows for a true victim to be arrested without an arrest warrant in violation of the constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America &#8211; A document pertaining to the founding of the USA, often disregarded as toliet paper by activist judges who act like petty dictators and wipe their @$$ with it. Its original meaning has been lost in translation due to the Earl Warren court.
Let's recap...

He not only admits to the issues for which he was arrested (which kinda kicks that whole "no probable cause" thing in the teeth) but dares the court to force him to take down his website. Strangely enough, this is exactly what is going on.

This is on a site NAMED after the woman that he is supposed to have absolutely no contact with.

Yeah, the judge will NEVER have a problem with that.

Feel free to go through the pages there, though. In between his rants on the unfairness of life, he throws in racial slurs and sexual innuendo.

He must be the hit of all the local nightlife.

Strangely enough, the same posters post to all the pages with the same one sentence posts. Wow.

From another page:

The point is how talking about Perez & Skank Co. hooking up can land you in hot water with the Police, but the people actually asking to hookup, or that have their hands up the skank&#8217;s dress can avoid prosecution.

Remember, &#8220;stalking&#8221; and &#8220;sexual harassment&#8221; are ok as long as you follow these simple rules:

(1) be handsome

(2) be attractive

(3) don&#8217;t&#8217; be unattractive

That is why someone, like myself, can be arrested for making a blog and posting public pictures while these Mexicans, who don&#8217;t belong in this country any way can make these comments:
The story is starting to work itself out here..... and if Skank Company DOESN'T refer to the named plaintiff, it would certainly appear to be. Apparently, prince charming here got rejected.

I am guess it would have something to do with that wonderful personality.
 
Last edited:

>Charlotte<

Lurker
You don't have a leg to stand on, OP. Why? Because you're an obsessed whack-job who probably needs to be medicated. If strangers on an Internet forum can see that, I can only imagine what you look like in person, in court.

You're exactly the kind of person that restraining orders are meant for. This girl that you're stalking and harassing absolutely deserves to have as much protection against you as the law can give her.

It's easy for you to spew all this defensive (and delusional) nonsense here, but that doesn't fly in the real world. A great big truck full of reality is going to run over you, back up, and run over you again. And a great big truck full of reality is exactly what you need.
 

umkemesic

Member
Uh huh. You do know you are attempting to sue two completely different entities, right?
Yes, that is why I am asking, so far I am getting two different answers. And trying two separate entities is not the question. The question is whether one of those can be sued on state-only claims while the other on Federal claims - where you paying attention?

Ah, so naming the website the same as her name was a coincidence?
No.

Blatant attempt at indirect communication. Or were you thinking that she wouldn't be at all curious about what a website named after her would be saying?
We went over this before, (1) It's not contact naming a website after someone, directly or indirectly (2) the state is not alleging I contacted her.

Not a lawyer, bunkie.
See, and that's my mistake. I went to this website with a simple question, I did not want to call my friends, this case is obviously embarrassing. I did not know you had trolls and 1L & 2L students putting their two cents in.

Not that is bad, its been a while, and I do not keep up with procedures myself. Not everyone who has a J.D. actually goes out and try cases.

Sometimes we need to reach out for answers to simple questions, which we may not remember. And a student is usually smart on the current law.


You named it after her, posted pictures of her and now have in-depth conversations about this case.
So what. Please tell me, with your vast legal experience, where that is a crime. I am sure we can sue the State from keeping your sex-offender pictures off their websites as well.

These are called name-and-shame websites, look that term up.


Yeah... but I have never been the subject of a restraining order after I go out of my way to create a website and blog about another person.
I was given the restraining order for sending one email. The Judge did not like my lawyering, which happens. It looked exactly like this:

TV Judge Completely Ends Smartass Lawyer - YouTube


Free speech was also not made to allow the knowing distribution of false information that humiliates and harasses a private individual, either.
Oh-huh Colombo. At what would be false on the website?

I don't need to go into Hustler v. Falwell, Snyder v. Phelps, or Purtell v. Mason on harassing - but protected speech. Those cases would bounce off your ignorant brain.


You do know that just because it is posted on the internet doesn't mean it belongs to you, right? There are still such things as copyright laws.
None of her pictures are copyrighted. This would not be an invasion of privacy/seclusion tort either (which you know nothing about, being a non-attorney). It is fair use.

If I were her, I would sue you on that basis alone.
And you would loose and face Rule 11 sanctions.

Websites made and posted in the name of a person are designed to get that person's attention through indirect contact.
You can be an ASA with that argument.

Are you saying you DIDN'T purchase the website in this person's name to get her attention? Are you saying it was accidental?
I don't care if she knew about the website or not, whichever the case is irrelevant.

Judges are not stupid. Such a thin excuse will make a weak fort to hide behind.
You are naive and you haven't tried a case in Cook County. It's grounds for disbarment for a PA to ridicule a Judge, fortunately I am not a PA, I run a business.

So far. Are you under the impression that additional charges cannot be levied?
They can, but it would be extremely difficult, they would have to allege two acts directed specifically at the CW that caused severe emotional distress that was not protected by Free Speech. These acts would have to have occurred after the No-Contact order was issued.

So you can PROVE this person is a skank? how would you do that?
No one called her a skank. The word "skank" was directed at someone else.
Anyway, it is for the court to decide. Luckily, I took the time to save the web pages.

Just in case.

By the way, it is really lame to post fake comments to yourself. Your posters seem to think that a website full of venom and hate is not only the mostest wonderfulest website evAH, but that it changes all their lives.
The website does not matter, it is a good thing to have a lot of "fluff" on the site because it works to my claims that this site was not directed specifically at her. You don't scare me, it matters not if they have the copy of the blog.

None of the reply comments were posted by me, some of them are actual spam. I have the IP address of anyone posting comments, and anyone visiting my page, which today was you.


But, are still judges. And they still have amazing authority. And you called one a crook without naming him/her. I wonder who the next judge that reads that will think whom you meant.
On the very slim chance it goes to trial, this will be heard by a Jury. You have no idea what a Judge is in New york, Cook, or Los Angles County. You haven't been there to see them make ridiculous rulings - just to peeve you off. You know nothing of Operation Greylord or Wrinkled Robe. Because you are a simpleton troll.

That's okay, I saved it.
Scared, you're not going to tell anyone, are you? Maybe you can get an obstruction of justice charge thrown in there for me.

Yeah, right. The good news is that since you named the other party on your website, we will be able to follow it from here.

Jerkface? Oh no!!! I have been transported to second grade!!!

Which does not, of course, insulate them from a restraining order or a civil suit.
You cannot give this OPs out like candy. This judge did it anyway, there is a process for that, I have a motion for reconsideration and an accelerated appeal to forward too.

You still really don't get this, do you?

Do they not allow spell check on the computers in the high school's media center?
I don't care for typos, it does not prove-up your argument.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
Yes, that is why I am asking, so far I am getting two different answers. And trying two separate entities is not the question. The question is whether one of those can be sued on state-only claims while the other on Federal claims - where you paying attention?



No.



We went over this before, (1) It's not contact naming a website after someone, directly or indirectly (2) the state is not alleging I contacted her.



See, and that's my mistake. I went to this website with a simple question, I did not want to call my friends, this case is obviously embarrassing. I did not know you had trolls and 1L & 2L students putting their two cents in.

Not that is bad, its been a while, and I do not keep up with procedures myself. Not everyone who has a J.D. actually goes out and try cases.

Sometimes we need to reach out for answers to simple questions, which we may not remember. And a student is usually smart on the current law.




So what. Please tell me, with your vast legal experience, where that is a crime. I am sure we can sue the State from keeping your sex-offender pictures off their websites as well.

These are called name-and-shame websites, look that term up.




I was given the restraining order for sending one email. The Judge did not like my lawyering, which happens. It looked exactly like this:

TV Judge Completely Ends Smartass Lawyer - YouTube




Oh-huh Colombo. At what would be false on the website?

I don't need to go into Hustler v. Falwell, Snyder v. Phelps, or Purtell v. Mason on harassing - but protected speech. Those cases would bounce off your ignorant brain.




None of her pictures are copyrighted. This would not be an invasion of privacy/seclusion tort either (which you know nothing about, being a non-attorney). It is fair use.



And you would loose and face Rule 11 sanctions.



You can be an ASA with that argument.



I don't care if she knew about the website or not, whichever the case is irrelevant.



You are naive and you haven't tried a case in Cook County. It's grounds for disbarment for a PA to ridicule a Judge, fortunately I am not a PA, I run a business.



They can, but it would be extremely difficult, they would have to allege two acts directed specifically at the CW that caused severe emotional distress that was not protected by Free Speech. These acts would have to have occurred after the No-Contact order was issued.



The website does not matter, it is a good thing to have a lot of "fluff" on the site because it works to my claims that this site was not directed specifically at her. You don't scare me, it matters not if they have the copy of the blog.

None of the reply comments were posted by me, some of them are actual spam. I have the IP address of anyone posting comments, and anyone visiting my page, which today was you.




On the very slim chance it goes to trial, this will be heard by a Jury. You have no idea what a Judge is in New york, Cook, or Los Angles County. You haven't been there to see them make ridiculous rulings - just to peeve you off. You know nothing of Operation Greylord or Wrinkled Robe. Because you are a simpleton troll.



Scared, you're not going to tell anyone, are you? Maybe you can get an obstruction of justice charge thrown in there for me.



You cannot give this OPs out like candy. This judge did it anyway, there is a process for that, I have a motion for reconsideration and an accelerated appeal to forward too.



I don't care for typos, it does not prove-up your argument.




Q4P.

(wow)
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
Yes, that is why I am asking, so far I am getting two different answers. And trying two separate entities is not the question. The question is whether one of those can be sued on state-only claims while the other on Federal claims - where you paying attention?
yes. You, on the other hand, have not.


We went over this before, (1) It's not contact naming a website after someone, directly or indirectly (2) the state is not alleging I contacted her.
Actually, it is.

Not yet, they haven't. Give it time.

See, and that's my mistake. I went to this website with a simple question, I did not want to call my friends, this case is obviously embarrassing. I did not know you had trolls and 1L & 2L students putting their two cents in.

Not that is bad, its been a while, and I do not keep up with procedures myself. Not everyone who has a J.D. actually goes out and try cases.

Sometimes we need to reach out for answers to simple questions, which we may not remember. And a student is usually smart on the current law.
You didn't read the rules of this site. Not my problem.

So you are saying you have a J.D.?

yeah, that's just crap.


So what. Please tell me, with your vast legal experience, where that is a crime. I am sure we can sue the State from keeping your sex-offender pictures off their websites as well.

These are called name-and-shame websites, look that term up.
First, are you trying to say that I am a sex offender? That most certainly IS libel.

"Look that term up". Cute. Tell me, how many of these sites have a restraining or no contact order in place? Do you, with your J.D., think that this court order may make a difference?

I was given the restraining order for sending one email. The Judge did not like my lawyering, which happens. It looked exactly like this:

Um, you got lawyering tucked up in there somewhere?

You haven't shown any of it here.

Oh-huh Colombo. At what would be false on the website?

I don't need to go into Hustler v. Falwell, Snyder v. Phelps, or Purtell v. Mason on harassing - but protected speech. Those cases would bounce off your ignorant brain.
I guess you slept through all those slander and libel classes.

You should haul out your old text books and go to the index.

None of her pictures are copyrighted. This would not be an invasion of privacy/seclusion tort either (which you know nothing about, being a non-attorney). It is fair use.
Uh huh. Is that what the judge told you?

Why do you think that was?

And you would loose and face Rule 11 sanctions.
The word is "lose". Strange that someone with your advanced degrees can't spell four letter words.

And you are wrong.... as her attorney is SHOWING you. By your OWN ADMISSION, you are being sued with nothing more than her pictures on your little site.



<Bunch of mindless crap inserted here.>


You are naive and you haven't tried a case in Cook County. It's grounds for disbarment for a PA to ridicule a Judge, fortunately I am not a PA, I run a business.
And that protects you from a contempt of court charge how? You FALSELY accuse judges of rigging elections and paying for their seats.

I guess you weren't paying attention to that Blago thing, but that really is against the law. Even in Rahm's Chicago.

And judges don't laugh about that.

They can, but it would be extremely difficult, they would have to allege two acts directed specifically at the CW that caused severe emotional distress that was not protected by Free Speech. These acts would have to have occurred after the No-Contact order was issued.
Yeah, I listed them.

The website does not matter, it is a good thing to have a lot of "fluff" on the site because it works to my claims that this site was not directed specifically at her. You don't scare me, it matters not if they have the copy of the blog.

None of the reply comments were posted by me, some of them are actual spam. I have the IP address of anyone posting comments, and anyone visiting my page, which today was you.
Goody. Guess whose IP address WE have?

On the very slim chance it goes to trial, this will be heard by a Jury. You have no idea what a Judge is in New york, Cook, or Los Angles County. You haven't been there to see them make ridiculous rulings - just to peeve you off. You know nothing of Operation Greylord or Wrinkled Robe. Because you are a simpleton troll.
Not a troll... but not delusional either.

Scared, you're not going to tell anyone, are you? Maybe you can get an obstruction of justice charge thrown in there for me.

You cannot give this OPs out like candy. This judge did it anyway, there is a process for that, I have a motion for reconsideration and an accelerated appeal to forward too.
More delusional drivel.

I don't care for typos, it does not prove-up your argument.
"Prove-up"? Making up your own words because you can't spell the ones the rest of us use?
 

umkemesic

Member
(1) You missed the facts of this case, no surprise there. All the postings your eyeballs see happened AFTER the arrest. At the time of the arrest the website was blank.

(2) Making a website with someone's name on it is not "Contact". Do you work for the DMV or any other Gov. agency?

(3) i am Hispanic myself, there are no racial slurs, there is a difference between racism and Nationalism.

Hmmm, but you have opened my eyes to something.

I assume you are a human being with a relative brain size to most of your species, I could be wrong though.

You may have a brain the size of a Stegosaurus.

At any rate, if you are too stupid to follow that the website events occured AFTER the arrest, I will help you out.....

There we go, all done.

Now CyJeff - If you go back to the website you will see how the website looked at the time of arrest. Don't worry, I saved everything for later .

There, hope that clears things up with you third-rate lawyers. I know you are perfect for Government work
 
Last edited by a moderator:

umkemesic

Member
Well, we went a little upfield from a simple discussion on jurisdiction, to the merits of a case I have only toyed with the idea of filing.

Let's try to put things in perspective.

If I was arrested for let's say, making threats, and there were no threats (lets assume arguendo that it could be proven no threats took place and the Judge made an entry for no probable cause).

And later, after being released they were threats (or even vauge threats made). Here is the Question:


What would the subsequent actions have on the false arrest?

(a) None. The true threats were made after the false arrest. It matters not any subsequent statements or actions. A perfectly valid conviction on one charge does not preclude a successful False Arrest claim on another.

(b) It still matters, because I went to Law School with CyJeff and they taught us it matters.

(c) Duh - I don't know, me State's Attorney.

(d) Don't know, but we should make Ad Hom. attacks and nit-pick on spelling "lose" - "loose". Because our spell checker makes us look smart.


The correct answer is "A".

Oh and CyJeff, "Prove-Up" is not a made up word, go back into your law books and look up the term in your glossary. Look up libel and slander while you are at it.
 
Last edited:

LillianX

Senior Member
And now we are all crystal clear on why the court didn't hesitate to issue an order of protection against this guy.
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
Oh and CyJeff, "Prove-Up" is not a made up word, go back into your law books and look up the term in your glossary. Look up libel and slander while you are at it.
I am done with you except for here.

A "Prove-up" is a short hearing when an action is uncontested.

You tell me how that works in your sentence?

I don't care for typos, it does not prove-up your argument.
Again, just because you THINK a legal term can be used one way doesn't mean it can be.... or are you saying that you believe the legal issue you are in is uncontested?
 

cyjeff

Senior Member
And now we are all crystal clear on why the court didn't hesitate to issue an order of protection against this guy.
Or, for that matter, why the OP is bitter and alone.

He created a website for the sole purpose of intimidation and humiliation and is honestly surprised when his victim didn't just take it. Amazing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top