Category Archives: Uncategorized

Henry: Fame has come!

While so many advocates relentlessly point fingers at people for being “pedophiles,” people like this have remained undetected. That is, until now. The individual is Henry Miller. Allegedly, he resides in Phoenix Arizona (AZ.) Before composing this article, I wanted to see for myself if the allegations were true. I do this due to the number of false allegations that seem to float around Facebook. Well, they are. Below is the evidence. Let’s make him famous, WoC style.

How this man has not been arrested is perplexing. So, let’s make him famous in hopes no child is harmed by this predator.

Private investigation law: Missouri

This is taken directly from their state website.

Title XXII OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS

324.1118. Licensure required — prohibited acts. — A private investigator agency or private fire investigator agency shall not hire an individual, who is not licensed as a private investigator or private fire investigator, as an employee if the individual:

(1) Has committed any act which, if committed by a licensee, would be grounds for the suspension or revocation of a license under the provisions of sections 324.1100 to 324.1148;

(2) Within two years prior to the application date:

(a) Has been convicted of or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a felony offense, including the receiving of a suspended imposition of sentence following a plea or finding of guilty to a felony offense;

(b) Has been convicted of or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a misdemeanor offense involving moral turpitude, including receiving a suspended imposition of sentence following a plea of guilty to a misdemeanor offense;

(c) Has falsified or willfully misrepresented information in an employment application, records of evidence, or in testimony under oath;

(d) Has been dependent on or abused alcohol or drugs; or

(e) Has used, possessed, or trafficked in any illegal substance;

(3) Has been refused a license under the provisions of sections 324.1100 to 324.1148 or had a license revoked, denied, or refused in this state or in any other state;

(4) While unlicensed, committed or aided and abetted the commission of any act for which a license is required by sections 324.1100 to 324.1148 after August 28, 2007; or

(5) Knowingly made any false statement in the application.

­­

(L. 2007 H.B. 780 and S.B. 308, A.L. 2010 H.B. 2226, et al., A.L. 2011 H.B. 464)
http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=324.1118

Investigations: who can do it?

You see it all the time in the world of Facebook. Some idiot decides to make an accusation, such as my situation, and runs their own “investigation.” What you don’t see, or may not know, are the legalities of these actions. So, it is to say, I am going to give you the tools you need to wipe the floor with such brainless adolecents.

Investigations

First off, there are actual laws regarding the method to which an investigation is conducting, even within a workplace. While a company can conduct an internal investigation, this only applies to its current employees or those employed at the time the investigation began; this applies to 501c3, and other organizations as well.

Now, in this situation, if a company, or 501c3 is conducting an investigation on you, and you were never employed by them, they are breaking the law. It goes back to that magic word: internal investigation. Furthermore, if the investigation is being conducted in a harassing or malicious manner, that is also illegal.

No company, or 501c3 can conduct an external investigation unless licensed to do so. If they are not licensed to conduct one, that gives the investigative target legal grounds. Furthermore, if the findings are being shared via social media, it is now libel slander unless you can establish loss.

A loss can include friends, employment, etc. If any of these things have happened as a result of the fraudulant investigation, you can now sue for Defamation of character. For a 501c3, this is especially hurtful as you can actually sue for the revocation of its non profit status, removal of its president, or for ownership of the organization itself. To put this kindly, you can destroy an entire organization if they have committed this crime.

Who can conduct an investigation?

Alright, so there are a variety of agencies and people who can actually conduct an investigation.

Local and state police, FBI, etc. If we branch out to the civilian world, private investigators. What do all of these people have in common? All of them have obtained a license to do so. Law enforcement are granted this right via the state. Private investigators are given a license to conduct such investigation. If the person conducting one is not licensed to do so, any and all findings ars null and void, their evidence is useless in court. Firthermore, if they are blasting it on social media, the courts could rule that null as well, not to mention the ratifications of conducting the illegal investigation.

If the investigation is on your past, for example, a closed case, you could call double jepordy, especially if the “evidence” is being used against you. You can claim they are enacting as an unlawful court and are, essentially, placing you on trial once again; this is where social media can turn dark for offending parties.

To conduct this style of investigation, is very much illegal. Here, I will give you the breached law categories:

1. Stalking.

2. Harassment.

3. (Cyber) bullying.

4. Libel slander.

5. Defamation of character.

6. Conducting an unlawful investigation.

This, my friends, is your ammunition to fight back. If you are a victim of this, do not wait for it to just vanish, it rarely does. Take action, begin legal proceedings, and pdf anything posted to any social media platform that contains slander; this is how you end such slander. Do it right, keep it legal.

Libel slander/ defamation of character information

Most Americans are familiar with defamation of character and slander. However, how many are familiar with libel slander? What is it exactly? This article is one that has been a long time coming, it is one that needs to be written.

Libel slander is established when an individual (or group) write maliciously about a person with the intent of destroying their name, image, and reputation. While it is not often an arrestable offense, it is still a crime. A person who is conducting such slander will often find ways to validate it.

If the slander, for example, is in regards to a court case, they may try to use documentation from that court, but only enough to establish the slander. For example, a police report. The issue in such documentation is the courts classify it as “hearsay” and thus it is not municiple. However, even with that in mind, it does not matter to the would-be criminal.

For a victim of such a crime, do you actually have any course of action? In the case of libel slander, yes. As long as you can establish that the information being written is false, you can file suit. However, bear in mind, you may also sue for defamation of character, also.

Defamation of character can be established when the libel slander, or any variation thereof, has caused loss. For example, if you are terminated from your place of employment. Once this has occured, you now have defamation of character as part of your lawsuit. It doesn’t stop there.

With an employment loss, you now have monetary loss, add loss of wages to the bucket. These abuses have psychological effects as well. With that, you now have mental/emotional trauma. If those close to you have been targets, they can file jointly with you.

As long as you have supporting evidence to back your claim, the court will most likely grant you a settlement. If the individual fails to pay, however, in time you could put a lean against their property. However, we are not attornies, please research this information before blindly following our helpful advice.

Stalking laws by State

We have created this list to assist victims of stalking. This is not a complete list of stalking laws but will provide a basic understanding. We are working on this until all states are included.

Alabama

Code of Ala. § 13A-6-90. Stalking in the first degree. (2012) (a) A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking in the first degree. (b) The crime of stalking in the first degree is a Class C felony. Code of Ala. § 13A-6-90.1. Stalking in the second degree. (2012) (a) A person who, acting with an improper purpose, intentionally and repeatedly follows, harasses, telephones, or initiates communication, verbally, electronically, or otherwise, with another person, any member of the other person’s immediate family, or any third party with whom the other person is acquainted, and causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of the other person, or causes such person to reasonably fear that his or her employment, business, or career is threatened, and the perpetrator was previously informed to cease that conduct is guilty of the crime of stalking in the second degree. (b) The crime of stalking in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor. Code of Ala. § 13A-6-91. Aggravated stalking in the first degree. (2012) (a) A person who violates the provisions of Section 13A-6-90(a) and whose conduct in doing so also violates any court order or injunction is guilty of the crime of aggravated stalking in the first degree. (b) The crime of aggravated stalking in the first degree is a Class B felony. Code of Ala. § 13A-6-91.1. Aggravated stalking in the second degree (2012) (a) A person who violates the provisions of Section 13A-6-90.1 and whose conduct in doing so also violates any court order or injunction is guilty of the crime of aggravated stalking in the second degree. (b) The crime of aggravated stalking in the second degree is a Class C felony. Code of Ala. § 13A-6-92. Definitions. (1994) As used in this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings, respectively, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. (a) Course of conduct. A pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time which evidences a continuity of purpose. (b) Credible threat. A threat, expressed or implied, made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to fear for his or her safety or the safety of a family member and to cause reasonable mental anxiety, anguish, or fear. (c) Harasses. Engages in an intentional course of conduct directed at a specified person which alarms or annoys that person, or interferes with the freedom of movement of that person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress. Constitutionally protected conduct is not included within the definition of this term. Code of Ala. § 13A-6-93. Construction; similar provisions. (1992) This article shall not be construed to repeal other criminal laws. Whenever conduct prescribed by any provision of this article is also prescribed by any other provision of law, the provision which carries the more serious penalty shall be applied. Code of Ala. § 13A-6-94. Construction; constitutionality of article. (1992) This article shall be construed and, if necessary, reconstrued to sustain its constitutionality.

Alaska
Alaska Stat. § 11.41.260 Stalking in the first degree. (2006) (a) A person commits the crime of stalking in the first degree if the person violates AS 11.41.270 and (1) the actions constituting the offense are in violation of an order issued or filed under AS 18.66.100 — 18.66.180 or issued under former AS 25.35.010(b) or 25.35.020; (2) the actions constituting the offense are in violation of a condition of probation, release before trial, release after conviction, or parole; (3) the victim is under 16 years of age; (4) at any time during the course of conduct constituting the offense, the defendant possessed a deadly weapon; (5) the defendant has been previously convicted of a crime under this section, AS 11.41.270, or AS 11.56.740, or a law or ordinance of this or another jurisdiction with elements similar to a crime under this section, AS 11.41.270, or AS 11.56.740; or (6) the defendant has been previously convicted of a crime, or an attempt or solicitation to commit a crime, under (A) AS 11.41.100 — 11.41.250, 11.41.300 — 11.41.460, AS 11.56.807, 11.56.810, AS 11.61.118, 11.61.120, or (B) a law or an ordinance of this or another jurisdiction with elements similar to a crime, or an attempt or solicitation to commit a crime, under AS 11.41.100 — 11.41.250, 11.41.300 — 11.41.460, AS 11.56.807, 11.56.810, AS 11.61.118, or 11.61.120, involving the same victim as the present offense. (b) In this section, “course of conduct” and “victim” have the meanings given in AS 11.41.270(b). (c) Stalking in the first degree is a class C felony. Alaska Stat. § 11.41.270. Stalking in the second degree. (2011) (a) A person commits the crime of stalking in the second degree if the person knowingly engages in a course of conduct that recklessly places another person in fear of death or physical injury, or in fear of the death or physical injury of a family member. (b) In this section, (1) “course of conduct” means repeated acts of nonconsensual contact involving the victim or a family member; (2) “device” includes software; (3) “family member” means a (A) spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, sibling, uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece, of the victim, whether related by blood, marriage, or adoption; (B) person who lives, or has previously lived, in a spousal relationship with the victim; (C) person who lives in the same household as the victim; or (D) person who is a former spouse of the victim or is or has been in a dating, courtship, or engagement relationship with the victim; (4) “nonconsensual contact” means any contact with another person that is initiated or continued without that person’s consent, that is beyond the scope of the consent provided by that person, or that is in disregard of that person’s expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued; “nonconsensual contact” includes (A) following or appearing within the sight of that person; (B) approaching or confronting that person in a public place or on private property; (C) appearing at the workplace or residence of that person; (D) entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by that person; (E) contacting that person by telephone; (F) sending mail or electronic communications to that person; (G) placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that person; (H) following or monitoring that person with a global positioning device or similar technological means; (I) using, installing, or attempting to use or install a device for observing, recording, or photographing events occurring in the residence, vehicle, or workplace used by that person, or on the personal telephone or computer used by that person; (5) “victim” means a person who is the target of a course of conduct. (c) Stalking in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

Arizona

A.R.S. § 13-2923. Stalking; classification; definitions. (2012) A. A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct either: 1. Would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person’s safety or the safety of that person’s immediate family member and that person in fact fears for the person’s safety or the safety of that person’s immediate family member. 2. Would cause a reasonable person to fear death of that person or that person’s immediate family member and that person in fact fears death of that person or that person’s immediate family member. B. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section is a class 5 felony. Stalking under subsection A, paragraph 2 is a class 3 felony. C. For the purposes of this section: 1. “Course of conduct:” (a) Means any of the following: (i) Maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person or directing verbal, written, or other threats, whether express or implied, to a specific person on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short. (ii) Using any electronic, digital or global positioning system device to surveil a specific person or a specific person’s internet or wireless activity continuously for 12 hours or more or on two or more occasions over a period of time, however short, without authorization. (b) Does not include constitutionally protected activity or other activity authorized by law, the other person, the other person’s authorized representative or if the other person is a minor, the minor’s parent or guardian. 2. “Immediate family member” means a spouse, parent, child or sibling or any other person who regularly resides in a person’s household or resided in a person’s household within the past six months.

California

Cal Pen Code § 646.9 . Stalking. (2008) (a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison. (b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years. (c) (1) Every person who, after having been convicted of a felony under Section 273.5, 273.6, or 422, commits a violation of subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years. (2) Every person who, after having been convicted of a felony under subdivision (a), commits a violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years. (d) In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the sentencing court may order a person convicted of a felony under this section to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290.006. (e) For the purposes of this section, “harasses” means engages in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. (f) For the purposes of this section, “course of conduct” means two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” (g) For the purposes of this section, “credible threat” means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family, and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “credible threat.” (h) For purposes of this section, the term “electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code. (i) This section shall not apply to conduct that occurs during labor picketing. (j) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of a sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section, it shall be a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling, as designated by the court. However, the court, upon a showing of good cause, may find that the counseling requirement shall not be imposed. (k) (1) The sentencing court also shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, that may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and his or her immediate family. (2) This protective order may be issued by the court whether the defendant is sentenced to state prison, county jail, or if imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation. (l) For purposes of this section, “immediate family” means any spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household. (m) The court shall consider whether the defendant would benefit from treatment pursuant to Section 2684. If it is determined to be appropriate, the court shall recommend that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation make a certification as provided in Section 2684. Upon the certification, the defendant shall be evaluated and transferred to the appropriate hospital for treatment pursuant to Section 2684.

Colorado

C.R.S. 18-3-601. [Formerly 18-9-111 (4) (a)] Legislative declaration. (2010) (1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that: (a) Stalking is a serious problem in this state and nationwide; (b) Although stalking often involves persons who have had an intimate relationship with one another, it can also involve persons who have little or no past relationship; (c) A stalker will often maintain strong, unshakable, and irrational emotional feelings for his or her victim, and may likewise believe that the victim either returns these feelings of affection or will do so if the stalker is persistent enough. Further, the stalker often maintains this belief, despite a trivial or nonexistent basis for it and despite rejection, lack of reciprocation, efforts to restrict or avoid the stalker, and other facts that conflict with this belief. (d) A stalker may also develop jealousy and animosity for persons who are in relationships with the victim, including family members, employers and co-workers, and friends, perceiving them as obstacles or as threats to the stalker’s own “relationship” with the victim; (e) Because stalking involves highly inappropriate intensity, persistence, and possessiveness, it entails great unpredictability and creates great stress and fear for the victim; (f) Stalking involves severe intrusions on the victim’s personal privacy and autonomy, with an immediate and long-lasting impact on quality of life as well as risks to security and safety of the victim and persons close to the victim, even in the absence of express threats of physical harm. (2) The general assembly hereby recognizes the seriousness posed by stalking and adopts the provisions of this part 6 with the goal of encouraging and authorizing effective intervention before stalking can escalate into behavior that has even more serious consequences. C.R.S. 18-3-602. Stalking – penalty – definitions – Vonnie’s Law. (2012) (1) A person commits stalking if directly, or indirectly, through another person, the person knowingly: (a) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, or places under surveillance that person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship; or (b) Makes a credible threat to another person and, in connection with the threat, repeatedly makes any form of communication with that person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship, regardless of whether a conversation ensues; or (c) Repeatedly follows, approaches, contacts, places under surveillance, or makes any form of communication with another person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person, a member of that person’s immediate family, or someone with whom that person has or has had a continuing relationship to suffer serious emotional distress. For purposes of this paragraph (c), a victim need not show that he or she received professional treatment or counseling to show that he or she suffered serious emotional distress. (2) For the purposes of this part 6: (a) Conduct “in connection with” a credible threat means acts that further, advance, promote, or have a continuity of purpose, and may occur before, during, or after the credible threat. (b) “Credible threat” means a threat, physical action, or repeated conduct that would cause a reasonable person to be in fear for the person’s safety or the safety of his or her immediate family or of someone with whom the person has or has had a continuing relationship. The threat need not be directly expressed if the totality of the conduct would cause a reasonable person such fear. (c) “Immediate family” includes the person’s spouse and the person’s parent, grandparent, sibling, or child. (d) “Repeated” or “repeatedly” means on more than one occasion. (3) A person who commits stalking: (a) Commits a class 5 felony for a first offense except as otherwise provided in subsection (5) of this section; or (b) Commits a class 4 felony for a second or subsequent offense, if the offense occurs within seven years after the date of a prior offense for which the person was convicted. (4) Stalking is an extraordinary risk crime that is subject to the modified presumptive sentencing range specified in section 18-1.3-401 (10). (5) If, at the time of the offense, there was a temporary or permanent protection order, injunction, or condition of bond, probation, or parole or any other court order in effect against the person, prohibiting the behavior described in this section, the person commits a class 4 felony. (6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or diminish the inherent authority of the court to enforce its orders through civil or criminal contempt proceedings; however, before a criminal contempt proceeding is heard before the court, notice of the proceedings shall be provided to the district attorney for the judicial district of the court where the proceedings are to be heard and the district attorney for the judicial district in which the alleged act of criminal contempt occurred. The district attorney for either district shall be allowed to appear and argue for the imposition of contempt sanctions. (7) A peace officer shall have a duty to respond as soon as reasonably possible to a report of stalking and to cooperate with the alleged victim in investigating the report. (8) (a) When a person is arrested for an alleged violation of this section, the fixing of bail for the crime of stalking shall be done in accordance with section 16-4-103 (2) (d), C.R.S., and a protection order shall issue in accordance with section 18-1-1001(5). (b) This subsection (8) shall be known and may be cited as “Vonnie’s law.” (9) When a violation under this section is committed in connection with a violation of a court order, including but not limited to any protection order or any order that sets forth the conditions of a bond, any sentences imposed pursuant to this section and pursuant to section 18-6-803.5, or any sentence imposed in a contempt proceeding for violation of the court order shall be served consecutively and not concurrently.

Connecticut

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-181c. Stalking in the first degree: Class D felony. (2012) (a) A person is guilty of stalking in the first degree when such person commits stalking in the second degree as provided in section 53a-181d, as amended by this act, and (1) such person has previously been convicted of a violation of section 53a-181d, as amended by this act, or (2) such conduct violates a court order in effect at the time of the offense, or (3) the other person is under sixteen years of age. (b) Stalking in the first degree is a class D felony. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-181d. Stalking in the second degree: Class A misdemeanor. (2012) (a) For the purposes of this section, “course of conduct” means two or more acts, including, but not limited to, acts in which a person directly, indirectly or through a third party, by any action, method, device or means, (1) follows, lies in wait for, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, harasses, communicates with or sends unwanted gifts to, a person, or (2) interferes with a person’s property. (b) A person is guilty of stalking in the second degree when: (1) Such person knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for such person’s physical safety or the physical safety of a third person; or (2) Such person intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear that such person’s employment, business or career is threatened, where (A) such conduct consists of the actor telephoning to, appearing at or initiating communication or contact at such other person’s place of employment or business, provided the actor was previously and clearly informed to cease such conduct, and (B) such conduct does not consist of constitutionally protected activity. (c) Stalking in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-181e. Stalking in the third degree: Class B misdemeanor. (1995) (a) A person is guilty of stalking in the third degree when he recklessly causes another person to reasonably fear for his physical safety by willfully and repeatedly following or lying in wait for such other person. (b) Stalking in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor. Sec. 53a-181f. Electronic stalking: Class B misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of electronic stalking when such person recklessly causes another person to reasonably fear for his or her physical safety by willfully and repeatedly using a global positioning system or similar electronic monitoring system to remotely determine or track the position or movement of such other person. (b) Electronic stalking is a class B misdemeanor.

Delaware

11 Del. C. § 1312. Stalking; class G felony, class F felony, class C felony. (2008) (a) A person is guilty of stalking when the person knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person and that conduct would cause a reasonable person to: (1) Fear physical injury to himself or herself or that of another person; or (2) Suffer other significant mental anguish or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. (b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is a class G felony. (c) Stalking is a class F felony if a person is guilty of stalking and 1 or more of the following exists: (1) The person is age 21 or older and the victim is under the age of 14; or (2) The person violated any order prohibiting contact with the victim; or (3) The victim is age 62 years of age or older; or (4) The course of conduct includes a threat of death or threat of serious physical injury to the victim, or to another person; or (5) The person causes physical injury to the victim. (d) Stalking is a class C felony if the person is guilty of stalking and 1 or more of the following exists: (1) The person possesses a deadly weapon during any act; or (2) The person causes serious physical injury to the victim. (e) Definitions. — The following terms shall have the following meaning as used in this section: (1) “Course of conduct” means 3 or more separate incidents, including, but not limited to, acts in which the person directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means, follows, monitors, observes, surveys, threatens, or communicates to or about another, or interferes with, jeopardizes, damages, or disrupts another’s daily activities, property, employment, business, career, education, or medical care. A conviction is not required for any predicate act relied upon to establish a course of conduct. A conviction for any predicate act relied upon to establish a course of conduct does not preclude prosecution under this section. Prosecution under this section does not preclude prosecution under any other section of the Code. (2) “A reasonable person” means a reasonable person in the victim’s circumstances. (f) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of § 4205 of this title, any person who commits the crime of stalking by engaging in a course of conduct which includes any act or acts which have previously been prohibited by a then-existing court order or sentence shall receive a minimum sentence of 6 months incarceration at Level V. The first 6 months of said period of incarceration shall not be subject to suspension. (g) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of § 4205 of this title, any person who is convicted of stalking within 5 years of a prior conviction of stalking shall receive a minimum sentence of 1 year incarceration at Level V. The first year of said period of incarceration shall not be subject to suspension. (h) In any prosecution under this law, it shall not be a defense that the perpetrator was not given actual notice that the course of conduct was unwanted; or that the perpetrator did not intend to cause the victim fear or other emotional distress. (i) In any prosecution under this section, it is an affirmative defense that the person charged was engaged in lawful picketing. (j) This section shall not apply to conduct which occurs in furtherance of legitimate activities of law-enforcement, private investigators, security officers or private detectives as those activities are defined in Chapter 13 of Title 24.

Florida

Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2012) (1) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose. (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests. (c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section. (d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose. (2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person’s property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section. (7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5). (9) (a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim. (b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation. Electronic Stalking § 934.425 Installation of tracking devices or tracking 21 applications; exceptions; penalties (1) As used in this section, the term: (a) “Business entity” means any form of corporation, partnership, association, cooperative, joint venture, business trust, or sole proprietorship that conducts business in this state. (b) “Tracking application” means any software program whose primary purpose is to track or identify the location or movement of an individual. (c) “Tracking device” means any device whose primary purpose is to reveal its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals. (d) “Person” means an individual but does not include a business entity. (2) Except as provided in subsection (4), a person may not knowingly install a tracking device or tracking application on another person’s property without the other person’s consent. (3) For purposes of this section, a person’s consent is presumed to be revoked if: (a) The consenting person and the person to whom consent was given are lawfully married and one person files a petition for dissolution of marriage from the other; or (b) The consenting person or the person to whom consent was given files an injunction for protection against the other person pursuant tos. 741.30, s. 741.315, s. 784.046, or s. 784.0485. (4) This section does not apply to: (a) A law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10, or any local, state, federal, or military law enforcement agency, that lawfully installs a tracking device or tracking application on another person’s property as part of a criminal investigation. (b) A parent or legal guardian of a minor child who installs a tracking device or tracking application on the minor child’s property if: The parents or legal guardians are lawfully married to each other and are not separated or otherwise living apart, and either parent or legal guardian consents to the installation of the tracking device or tracking application; The parent or legal guardian is the sole surviving parent or legal guardian of the minor child; The parent or legal guardian has sole custody of the minor child; or The parents or legal guardians are divorced, separated, or otherwise living apart and both consent to the installation of the tracking device or tracking application. (c) A caregiver of an elderly person or disabled adult, as those terms are defined in s. 825.101, if the elderly person’s or disabled adult’s treating physician certifies that the installation of a tracking device or tracking application onto the elderly person’s or disabled adult’s property is necessary to ensure the safety of the elderly person or disabled adult. (d) A person acting in good faith on behalf of a business entity for a legitimate business purpose. This paragraph does not apply to a person engaged in private investigation, as defined in s. 493.6101, on behalf of another person unless such activities would otherwise be exempt under this subsection if performed by the person engaging the private investigator. (e) An owner or lessee of a motor vehicle that installs, or directs the installation of, a tracking device or tracking application on such vehicle during the period of ownership or lease, provided that: The tracking device or tracking application is removed before the vehicle’s title is transferred or the vehicle’s lease expires, The new owner of the vehicle, in the case of a sale, or the lessor of the vehicle, in the case of an expired lease, consents in writing to the nonremoval of the tracking device or tracking application; or The owner of the vehicle at the time of the installation of the tracking device or tracking application was the original manufacturer of the vehicle. (5) A person who violates this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Georgia

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90 Stalking; psychological evaluation. (2000) (a) (1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the terms “computer” and “computer network” shall have the same meanings as set out in Code Section 16-9-92; the term “contact” shall mean any communication including without being limited to communication in person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer network, or by any other electronic device; and the place or places that contact by telephone, mail, broadcast, computer, computer network, or any other electronic device is deemed to occur shall be the place or places where such communication is received. For the purpose of this article, the term “place or places” shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term “harassing and intimidating” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person’s safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose. This Code section shall not be construed to require that an overt threat of death or bodily injury has been made. (2) A person commits the offense of stalking when such person, in violation of a bond to keep the peace posted pursuant to Code Section 17-6-110, standing order issued under Code Section 19-1-1, temporary restraining order, temporary protective order, permanent restraining order, permanent protective order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction or condition of pretrial release, condition of probation, or condition of parole in effect prohibiting the harassment or intimidation of another person, broadcasts or publishes, including electronic publication, the picture, name, address, or phone number of a person for whose benefit the bond, order, or condition was made and without such person’s consent in such a manner that causes other persons to harass or intimidate such person and the person making the broadcast or publication knew or had reason to believe that such broadcast or publication would cause such person to be harassed or intimidated by others. (b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of stalking is guilty of a misdemeanor. (c) Upon the second conviction, and all subsequent convictions, for stalking, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years. (d) Before sentencing a defendant for any conviction of stalking under this Code section or aggravated stalking under Code Section 16-5-91, the sentencing judge may require psychological evaluation of the offender and shall consider the entire criminal record of the offender. At the time of sentencing, the judge is authorized to issue a permanent restraining order against the offender to protect the person stalked and the members of such person’s immediate family, and the judge is authorized to require psychological treatment of the offender as a part of the sentence, or as a condition for suspension or stay of sentence, or for probation. O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91. Aggravated stalking. (2002) (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated stalking when such person, in violation of a bond to keep the peace posted pursuant to Code Section 17-6-110, temporary restraining order, temporary protective order, permanent restraining order, permanent protective order, preliminary injunction, good behavior bond, or permanent injunction or condition of pretrial release, condition of probation, or condition of parole in effect prohibiting the behavior described in this subsection, follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. (b) Any person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years and by a fine of not more than $10,000.00. The provisions of subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-90 apply to sentencing for conviction of aggravated stalking. O.C.G.A. § 16-5-92. Applicability. (1993) The provisions of Code Sections 16-5-90 and 16-5-91 shall not apply to persons engaged in activities protected by the Constitution of the United States or of this state or to persons or employees of such persons lawfully engaged in bona fide business activity or lawfully engaged in the practice of a profession. O.C.G.A. § 16-5-93. Right of victim to notification of release or escape of stalker. (1997) (a) The victim of stalking or aggravated stalking shall be entitled to notice of the release from custody of the person arrested for and charged with the offense of stalking or aggravated stalking and to notice of any hearing on the issue of bail for such person. No such notice shall be required unless the victim provides a landline telephone number other than a pocket pager or electronic communication device number to which such notice can be directed. (b) The law enforcement agency, prosecutor, or court directly involved with the victim at the outset of a criminal prosecution for the offense of stalking or aggravated stalking shall advise the victim of his or her right to notice and of the requirement of the victim’s providing a landline telephone number other than a pocket pager or electronic communication device number to which the notice of custodial release or bail hearing can be directed. Such victim shall transmit the telephone number described in this subsection to the court and custodian of the person charged with stalking or aggravated stalking. (c) Upon receipt of the telephone number, the custodian of the person charged with stalking or aggravated stalking shall take reasonable and necessary steps under the circumstances to notify the victim of the person’s release from custody. Such notice shall, at a minimum, include: (1) Prior to the person’s release, placing a telephone call to the number provided by the victim and giving notice to the victim or any person answering the telephone who appears to be sui juris or by leaving an appropriate message on a telephone answering machine; and (2) Following the person’s release, if the custodian is unable to notify the victim by the method provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection, telephoning the number provided by the victim no less than two times in no less than 15 minute intervals within one hour of custodial release and giving notice to the victim or to any person answering the telephone who appears to be sui juris or by leaving an appropriate message on a telephone answering machine. (d) Upon receipt of the telephone number, the court conducting a hearing on the issue of bail shall take reasonable and necessary steps under the circumstances to notify the victim of any scheduled hearing on the issue of bail. Such notice shall, at a minimum, include placing a telephone call to the number provided by the victim prior to any scheduled hearing on the issue of bail. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code section, a scheduled bail hearing or the release of the person charged with stalking or aggravated stalking shall not be delayed solely for the purpose of effectuating notice pursuant to this Code section for a period of more than 30 minutes. (f) Upon the person’s release or escape from custody after conviction and service of all or a portion of a sentence, notification to the victim shall be provided by the State Board of Pardons and Paroles as set forth in Code Sections 42-9-46 and 42-9-47. (g) This Code section shall not apply to a custodian who is transferring a person charged with stalking or aggravated stalking to another custodian in this state. (h) As used in this Code section, the term “custodian” means a warden, sheriff, jailer, deputy sheriff, police officer, officer or employee of the Department of Juvenile Justice, or any other law enforcement officer having actual custody of an inmate. (i) A custodian or his or her employing agency shall not be liable in damages for a failure to provide the notice required by this Code section, but the custodian shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action including termination for such failure. O.C.G.A. § 16-5-94. Restraining orders; protective orders. (1999) (a) A person who is not a minor who alleges stalking by another person may seek a restraining order by filing a petition alleging conduct constituting stalking as defined in Code Section 16-5-90. A person who is not a minor may also seek relief on behalf of a minor by filing such a petition. (b) Jurisdiction for such a petition shall be the same as for family violence petitions as set out in Code Section 19-13-2. (c) Upon the filing of a verified petition in which the petitioner alleges with specific facts that probable cause exists to establish that stalking by the respondent has occurred in the past and may occur in the future, the court may order such temporary relief ex parte as it deems necessary to protect the petitioner or a minor of the household from stalking. If the court issues an ex parte order, a copy of the order shall be immediately furnished to the petitioner. (d) The court may grant a protective order or approve a consent agreement to bring about a cessation of conduct constituting stalking. Orders or agreements may: (1) Direct a party to refrain from such conduct; (2) Order a party to refrain from harassing or interfering with the other; (3) Award costs and attorney’s fees to either party; and (4) Order either or all parties to receive appropriate psychiatric or psychological services as a further measure to prevent the recurrence of stalking. (e) The provisions of subsections (c) and (d) of Code Section 19-13-3, subsections (b), (c), and (d) of Code Section 19-13-4, and Code Section 19-13-5, relating to family violence petitions, shall apply to petitions filed pursuant to this Code section, except that the clerk of court may provide forms for petitions and pleadings to persons alleging conduct constituting stalking and to any other person designated by the superior court pursuant to this Code section as authorized to advise persons alleging conduct constituting stalking on filling out and filing such petitions and pleadings.

Missouri

R.S.Mo. § 565.225. Crime of stalking — definitions – penalties. (2008) 1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean: (1) “Course of conduct”, a pattern of conduct composed of two or more acts, which may include communication by any means, over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of course of conduct. Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests; (2) “Credible threat”, a threat communicated with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her family, or household members or domestic animals or livestock as defined in section 276.606, RSMo, kept at such person’s residence or on such person’s property. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause physical injury to, or the kidnapping of, the person, the person’s family, or the person’s household members or domestic animals or livestock as defined in section 276.606, RSMo, kept at such person’s residence or on such person’s property; (3) “Harasses”, to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that serves no legitimate purpose, that would cause a reasonable person under the circumstances to be frightened, intimidated, or emotionally distressed. 2. A person commits the crime of stalking if he or she purposely, through his or her course of conduct, harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person. 3. A person commits the crime of aggravated stalking if he or she purposely, through his or her course of conduct, harasses or follows with the intent of harassing another person, and: (1) Makes a credible threat; or (2) At least one of the acts constituting the course of conduct is in violation of an order of protection and the person has received actual notice of such order; or (3) At least one of the actions constituting the course of conduct is in violation of a condition of probation, parole, pretrial release, or release on bond pending appeal; or (4) At any time during the course of conduct, the other person is seventeen years of age or younger and the person harassing the other person is twenty-one years of age or older; or (5) He or she has previously pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of domestic assault, violation of an order of protection, or any other crime where the other person was the victim. 4. The crime of stalking shall be a class A misdemeanor unless the person has previously pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, or of any offense committed in violation of any county or municipal ordinance in any state, any state law, any federal law, or any military law which, if committed in this state, would be chargeable or indictable as a violation of any offense listed in this section, in which case stalking shall be a class D felony. 5. The crime of aggravated stalking shall be a class D felony unless the person has previously pleaded guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, or of any offense committed in violation of any county or municipal ordinance in any state, any state law, any federal law, or any military law which, if committed in this state, would be chargeable or indictable as a violation of any offense listed in this section, aggravated stalking shall be a class C felony. 6. Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section. 7. This section shall not apply to activities of federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement officers conducting investigations of violation of federal, state, county, or municipal law.

Oklahoma

Stalking 21 Okl. St. § 1173. Stalking-Penalties. (2000) A. Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person in a manner that: 1. Would cause a reasonable person or a member of the immediate family of that person as defined in subsection F of this section to feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested; and 2. Actually causes the person being followed or harassed to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of the crime of stalking, which is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one (1) year, or by a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. B. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section when: 1. There is a permanent or temporary restraining order, a protective order, an emergency ex parte protective order, or an injunction in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subsection A of this section against the same party, when the person violating the provisions of subsection A of this section has actual notice of the issuance of such order or injunction; 2. Said person is on probation or parole, a condition of which prohibits the behavior described in subsection A of this section against the same party or under the conditions of a community or alternative punishment; or 3. Said person, within ten (10) years preceding the violation of subsection A of this section, completed the execution of sentence for a conviction of a crime involving the use or threat of violence against the same party, or against any member of the immediate family of such party, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding five (5) years, or by a fine of not more than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. C. Any person who : 1. Commits a second act of stalking within ten (10) years of the completion of sentence for a prior conviction of stalking; or 2. Has a prior conviction of stalking and, after being served with a protective order that prohibits contact with an individual, knowingly makes unconsented contact with the same individual, shall, upon conviction , be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding five (5) years, or by a fine of not less than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. D. Any person who commits an act of stalking within ten (10) years of the completion of execution of sentence for a prior conviction under subsection B or C of this section, shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine of not less than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term not exceeding ten (10) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. E. Evidence that the defendant continued to engage in a course of conduct involving repeated unconsented contact, as defined in subsection F of this section, with the victim after having been requested by the victim to discontinue the same or any other form of unconsented contact, and to refrain from any further unconsented contact with the victim, shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the continuation of the course of conduct caused the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested. F. For purposes of this section: 1. “Harasses” means a pattern or course of conduct directed toward another individual that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress, and that actually causes emotional distress to the victim. Harassment shall include harassing or obscene phone calls as prohibited by Section 1172 of this title and conduct prohibited by Section 850 of this title. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose; 2. “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of two or more separate acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct”; 3. “Emotional distress” means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily require, medical or other professional treatment or counseling; 4. “Unconsented contact” means any contact with another individual that is initiated or continued without the consent of the individual, or in disregard of that individual’s expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of unconsented contact. Unconsented contact includes but is not limited to any of the following: a. following or appearing within the sight of that individual, b. approaching or confronting that individual in a public place or on private property, c. appearing at the workplace or residence of that individual, d. entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual, e. contacting that individual by telephone, f. sending mail or electronic communications to that individual, and g. placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual; and 5. “Member of the immediate family”, for the purposes of this section, means any spouse, parent, child, person related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity or any other person who regularly resides in the household or who regularly resided in the household within the prior six (6) months.

Judge and jury

Recently, War on Corruption recieved the biggest blow we could had anticipated, the loss of one of our own. As some of you maybe aware, our lead journalist and friend, Matt, recently resigned from his own platform. With his loss, however, we have continued to push forward as best we can.

It was with much hesitation that he made the call to leave. “We both know this psychopath will stop at nothing to destroy me as a person; we both know I will fall,” the solemn explanation behind his choice. For months, the rest of us had watched the malicious attack, the alteration of information as a 501c3 continued to violate, not only its own bylaws, but the law as well.

As of the time of this writing, Matt attempted to obtain a protection order. However, due to the interaction being third party, it was declined. As a result, past he has spoken to me, he has fled his childhood town and is now in hiding; meanwhile, the assailant filed a retalitory order.

The issue here has hit critical levels. When a man gives up everything he worked toward, flees his home in fear, and gives his passwords to those he trusts in hopes his work will continue, this is a problem. While our dozens of contacts continue to collect evidence in defense of our friend, the assailant continues to destroy his image.

However, he isn’t the only one who is being called a pedophile. When we checked back into the evidence we had gathered for Matt, a pattern was made clear. Rosemary, Deb, Bob, Carrie, Matt, and Paul are just a few who have been given the pedo belt by the assailant. Now, let’s break down a pattern.

The assailant and Matt had a falling out over a year ago over an article he

had apparently written. In this article, he questioned the assailant’s ability to operate an organization, why? The reason was due to a woman he was attacking on his group (group name withheld.)

Deb, Bob, Carrie, and Paul all had falling outs with the assailant over various reasons. While, to some extent, a hack did occur, it was not a true hack. In reality, from what we have seen, the assailant’s accounts were accessed using their password, this is a hijack, not a hack. The other thing to note here is this, Deb and Carrie were board members of the attacking organization. As for Rosemary, she was a client, he was her advocate during a DFS case. When she defended her friend against the pedophile claim, she too was made a target.

The pattern here should be obvious. All of these people have two things in common:

1. They all angered the assailant.

2. They all were his friends who had some form of falling out with the unsub.

As a result, all of these people have been deemed pedophiles or pedophile enablers. The same accusation for so many people? When you truly reflect on this concept, one has to wonder, “how valid are these claims?” “Why the obsession on pedophiles?” And, of course, “how does one end up being surrounded by so many, if they actually were?”

There really is no way to answer what is going on in the assailant’s head, if anything at all. What we can see is a clear sign of mental instability. In fact, this instability was so severe that one woman got a protection order, a man fled his home, and they are all working on legal action.

The entire situation reminds me of a child who has had his candy stolen. He cries to mommy, for attention, and he throws a tantrum. For this situation, the tantrum went to far. While I still remain in contact with Matt, it is certain to presume that he has no intention of returning to War on Corruption. It is, with that act, an incompetent loon won.

501c3 evidence: screenshots

This information demonstrates the harassment commenced on several individuals by the unsub. You will see information that also gives a glimpse unto the mindset of the individual. As of now, our lead journalist has had a protection order filed against him. Just as it was in Ms. Dalton’s case, it was done maliciously and as a form of retaliation, a crime we plan to pursue. This information is being provided as is. For this reason, duplicates may exist. The following images are provided so that:

1. Other victims may have easy access to evidence for their cases.

2. A warning to victims who have yet to be revictimized.

3. To demonstrate the reality of how the subject represents himself, his organization, and his clients.

War on Corruption is providing this information solely for informational purposes as well as a form of legal documentation for other victims. We will, as with the other, update this as needed.

wp-image-595895010
While attempting to sever a six year friendship Ms. Kemble attempted to convince me to close WoC.
wp-image-623059493
Because he felt our lead journalist “slandered” him, we are making these gallaries. You can decide for yourself.

wp-image-150613898wp-image--2143754350wp-image--1718499388wp-image-536617147wp-image--1647518235wp-image-1390003473wp-image-133857278wp-image--258847586wp-image--2064197072wp-image-1395863528wp-image-1086620380wp-image-1424443295wp-image--710346401wp-image--540461134wp-image-1554264187wp-image-1824361665wp-image--119602575wp-image-1184364054wp-image-589959827wp-image--2033775330wp-image-186646061wp-image-1659984310wp-image-35305679wp-image--1746635880wp-image--202422388wp-image-1513514419wp-image--57602640wp-image--682566421wp-image--206965998wp-image--300410649

501c3 slanders people: complete evidence gallary (updated 8-15-17)

The information provided here is done so with two reasons in mind.

1. Other victims can file lawsuits against 501c3 U.B.F.U.C.T. and its president.

2. For informational reasons.

PDFS/photos captured

Update 8-15-17

Scroll and you will see where he randomly attacked a person. In a PM, the target was told to “lick a sh#### d###.” The justification was the target was Matt. Yet another lie with no merit.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ahg5yh8fxlA9hXaYkqMGp-NlEzoi

The first pdf taken of “The truth is out!!” wall.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B45UIQf_2BCBVlpkTjhNQkNpdWs/view?usp=drivesdk

The following versions exist because the admin removed various slanderous postings.

complete wall update 2

Phil: violation 3

The following PDF is where it all publically started.

initial thread

When our lead journalist came to the defense of Rosemary and M.A.F.A., Mr. Worland began a smear campaign against him and our platform. This is clearly shown below.

“exposure” slandering begins

provocation attempt

At this point, Matt was actually attempting to salvage his reputation. Due to the extreme nature of the slanderings, our platform is currently petitioning a lawsuit.

slanders Matt…again

However, the slandering didn’t stop at just him.

Phil smears Judi

Even with 20+ victims, he still has time to violate a protection order.

PO violation 2

Response when served with an EPO

epo response

Even makes time to retarget Cindy

targets Cindy

This post would begin nearly four months of hell…a hell that some of the victims are now reliving due to Mr. Worland’s dangerous instability.

post pt 1

post pt 2

Regardless of the fact a state judge has informed Mr. Worland that Matt is NOT a pedophile, he maintains his stance. This is just one case in which he makes the accusation.

phil calls matt a pedo

Mr. Worland began a mass campaign against all people who befriended Rosemary. Zoë, who has had no contact with him prior to this, became a target, as did Kara.

phil attacks Zoe

Beyond all of the previous disturbing evidences, there are also indirect threats.

phil makes indirect threat

Yet another smear campaign

Phil smears Rosemary and MAFA

In yet another instance, Phil calls Matt a pedophile. The case he used is one that:

A: did not involve children.

B: was closed due to several contradictions in witness accounts that lead to a rule 6 hearing for lack of evidence.

Phil calls matt a pedo…again

This post is his recap of a protection order, that is in effect. The very post violated the order.

Phil P.O. post

As if his terror toward people was not enough, he recruited a team to further harass, torment, and mentally drive people to their breaking point. One individual has clinical depression, Phil has targeted, and had his friends, target them the most.

Linda attacks victim

In regards to Linda Hickey aka Linda Clanahan, if you go to Missouri casenet, type in the Clanahan name, you will see half a dozen convictions for stalking.

On June 17, we got this audio recording. It is a phone call between Jason Dover, Phil’s best friend, and Rosemary.

Jason chat recording.wav

Becky Kemble harasses Matt’s mother, alleging him to be a pedophile. You can see how bad that goes as she did not get her desired response.

Becky harasses Matt’s mother.

UPDATE:

According to Matt, Phil yelled at him outside the courthouse…where several witnesses heard, including an attorney who was crossing the street at the time.att is currently in discussions of filing lawsuits against, both, Mr. Worland and his organization. Below, we are submitting information regarding Missouri harassment laws in hopes that he grow up, move forward, and cease further acts of harassment.

harassment law 1

Missouri harassment law 2

Missouri Stalking law 1

There are countless laws on this.

EVIDENCE UPDATE 1

he day prior to the attacks on M.A.F.A, its founder, and our lead journalist, it was made abundantly clear that he intended to target various people.

One such individual, Luis Ewing, was accused of being oyr lead, Matt. We can only speculate that the last name is the reason.

Following that, are the results from the national sex offenders database. Although a judge has already confirmed Mr. Ewing to not be a pedophile, Mr. Worland continues to make the claim.

wp-image-1951264923 The national database confirming that our lead is NOT on the registry. Below that, Phil himself confirms this. He would later retract this statement. However, this statement has unknowingly tied the noose in his rope should Matt file suit.

wp-image--176498409wp-image--281427196wp-image--2072504236The following picture, he confesses that he forced one victim into doing what she wanted. He, again smears Matt. However, at no point has Matt ever claimed to be an advocate. It is, at this point, Mr. Worland’s intention becomes clear; it is purely a personal vendetta against Mr. Ewing for standing up to him.wp-image-172401627wp-image-1066927926The following picture confirms our claim: Mr. Worland’s malicious slander is driven off the fact that our lead journalist protected a close friend. Following that, Mr. Worland attacks and degrades Ms. Dalton.wp-image-2115267890wp-image--1344081427wp-image-1491584082A discussion from one of Mr. Worland’s friends. Following this discussion, she was banned.wp-image--1831774219wp-image--1990144010

Cyber trafficking

Disclaimer: due to the nature of the discussed site, we have opted to withold its name and url. We are currently trying to find ways to have taken down.

With the internet, comes information unlike anything we have ever seen. Cultures, religions, recipes, there are trillions of things that are just a click away. However, hidden within all of this information, literally in plain sight, is the world of child trafficking.

Recently, a site has caught the attention of several “pedo hunters.” The site, much like photobucket, is a place where anybody can share anything…we mean anything. While you will see pictures of nature, families, and so on, this site has a more sinister side to it.

If you were, for example, to click into specific categories, such as “kids,” you are instantly brought into a pedophile sharing page topic upon topic of illegally exploited children. It is, for this reason, we are witholding the url.

The website in question has children ranging from infants to 18 years of age. The images, can become extremely graphic in nature. Children seen in sexually based stances, the comments applauding the abuse. So, why has nothing been done?

Because the website is based outside of the United States, it limits the ability our government has to shutting it down. The only thing we could do, in reality, is report it to that countrys’ authorities; a procedure that can become very complicated in nature. But, then there is the more disturbing reason: nobody has actually taken the time to report it.

Websites such as this are not only becoming more common, they are becoming more bold. Normally, people are lead to believe these sites solely exists within the “dark web.” However, this is not true. Sites such as this, are hiding in plain sight, waiting for unsuspecting people to click into them.

However, it doesn’t end there. With apps such as kik, live.me, etc. the availability of plausible child victims has increased. Kids, who may just want to livestream their daily events, are finding themselves preyed upon by deviants. Through coarsion, fear, and blackmail, these innocent kids are lead into the underground world of the internet.

Child predators often use such tactics to get everything from nudes to physical meetups with children. In some cases, children are forced into the human trafficking world. In cases such as this, they are often never found.

This isn’t just about internet safety, this is about making people aware, to open their eyes, and to protect their children. This is just an example of why every parent should teach internet safety and restrict the content visible to their child(ren.) Yes, the above site does exist, and yes it is not alone. You do have the key to shut sites like this down, utilize it.

Girl rapes dog, police do nothing

A rather contraversial, and taboo, subject is beastiality. For Amy Lynn Lew, aka Whitney Wisconsin, it is just daily life. Initially when we got this case, we had turned it away. The reason was, because upon investigation, we confirmed Amy to be a legit. We decided to contact police, in response.

Initially, when we looked into her, we were at the conclusion that she was a cyber troll seeking views and reactions. And so, we did a widespread search on her. Naturally, we found her contraversial Youtube videos discussing why women should commence in beastiality. And then, to our dismay, we found her beastiality videos.

For instance, in one such video, a dog is seen licking her genitalia. At first, we weren’t sure if it was her, how do we prove otherwise? Near the end of this video she pans the camera revealing her face. At this point, we had all the evidence that we needed.

During my discussion with the Eau Claire police department, I had learned several disturbing facts. According to the officer, they currently have had over 500 calls regarding “Whitney.” However, that wasn’t the worst of it.

Upon thanking me, he leaked out some very disturbing information. As it turns out, the department has been aware of these sick videos for nearly two years! It is, at this point, I realized the department opted into doing nothing regarding the animal abuse.

It amazes me that any department would allow this criminal act to go on. It blows my mind that it would be ignored for nearly two years. What this young woman is doing is appauling. However, it is equally so that the police have taken no action against her.