CYBERSTALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - PART II

Originally published 8/28/2011

CYBERSTALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Report to Congress


U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Violence Against Women Office World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo

Report to Congress on Stalking and Domestic Violence 2

Nature and Extent of Cyberstalking

An Existing Problem

Aggravated by New Technology

Although online harassment and threats can take many forms, cyberstalking shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers—online or offline—are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victims and will engage in similar types of behavior to accomplish this end. As with offline stalking, the available evidence (which is largely anecdotal) suggests that the majority of cyber- stalkers are men and the majority of their victims are women, although there have been reported cases of women cyberstalk- ing men and of same-sex cyberstalking. In many cases, the cyberstalker and the vic- tim had a prior relationship, and the cyber- stalking began when the victim attempted to break off the relationship. However, there also have been many instances of cyberstalking by strangers.

The fact that cyberstalking does not involve physical contact may create the misperception that it is more benign than physical stalking. This is not necessarily true. As the Internet becomes an evermore integral part of our personal and professional lives, stalkers can take advantage of the ease of communication as well as increased access to an enormous amount of personal information that is available through the Internet. Indeed, a cyberstalker can easily locate private information about a potential victim with a few mouse clicks or keystrokes. In addition, the ease of use and the nonconfrontational, impersonal, and sometimes anonymous nature of Internet communications may remove disincentives to cyberstalking. Put another way, where a potential stalker may be unwilling or unable to confront a victim in person or on the telephone, he or she may have little hesitation sending harassing or threatening electronic communications. Furthermore, as with physical stalking, online harassment and threats may

foreshadow more serious behavior, including physical violence.

Despite the many similarities between offline and online stalking, the Internet and other communications technologies provide new avenues for stalkers to pursue their victims. A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing messages (or through public blogs) by the simple push of a button. More sophisticated cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random intervals without being physically present at the computer terminal. California law enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations in which victims repeatedly received the message “187” on their pagers—the section of the California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other Internet users into harassing or threatening a victim by, for example, posting a victim’s name, telephone number, (ways to find unpublished address)  e-mail address on a bulletin board or in a chat room with a controversial message or invitation, resulting in the victim receiving multiple e-mails in response. Each message—whether from the actual cyber- stalker or others—will have the intended effect of frightening or harassing the victim, with little effort on the part of the cyberstalker.

Evidence Suggests Cyberstalking Incidents Are Increasing

Although comprehensive nationwide data on the extent of cyberstalking in the United States do not yet exist, there is a growing body of statistics available from law enforcement agencies, as well as from some ISPs, that compile information on the number and types of complaints of harassment and threats involving ISP subscribers. There is increasing anecdotal and informal evidence on the nature and extent of cyberstalking, and research addressing offline stalking may provide insight into the scope of the problem. 

According to the most recent National Violence Against Women Survey, which defines stalking as involving instances where the victim felt a high level of fear:4

• One out of every 12 women (8.2 mil- lion) in the United States and 1 out of every 45 men (2 million) have been stalked at some time in their lives.

• One percent of all women and 0.4 per- cent of all men had been stalked dur- ing the 12 months preceding the survey.

• Women are far more likely than men to be victims of stalking—nearly 80 percent of stalking victims are women. Men are far more likely to be stalkers, comprising 87 percent of the stalkers identified by victims partici- pating in the survey.

• Women are twice as likely as men to be victims of stalking by strangers and eight times as likely to be victims of stalking by intimates.

In the United States today, more than 80 million adults and 10 million children have access to the Internet. Assuming the proportion of cyberstalking victims is even a fraction of the proportion of persons who have been the victims of offline stalking, there may be potentially tens or even hundreds of thousands of victims of cyberstalking incidents each year in the United States.

Cyberstalking Resources Online CyberAngels: A nonprofit group devoted to assisting victims of online harassment and threats,

including cyberstalking: www.cyberangels.org.

GetNetWise: An online resource for families and caregivers to help kids use the Internet in a safe and educational manner. It includes a guide to online safety, a directory of online safety tools, and directions for reporting online trouble: www.getnetwise.org.

National Center for Victims of Crime: Through its toll-free national hotline, the center provides vic- tims with referrals to the nearest appropriate services in their community, including crisis counseling and support groups, advocacy services, and assistance with the criminal justice process. The center publishes bulletins on a number of topics, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking: www.ncvc.org.

National Cybercrime Training Partnership: This interagency Federal/State/local partnership, led by the Justice Department with extensive support from the Office of Justice Programs and the National White Collar Crime Center, is developing and delivering training to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies on how to investigate and prosecute computer crime. Information about the partnership can be found through its Web site: www.cybercrime.org.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: This nonprofit consumer information and advocacy program offers consumers a unique opportunity to learn how to protect their personal privacy. Its services include a consumer hotline for reporting privacy abuses and for requesting information on ways to protect pri- vacy and fact sheets on privacy issues, including one entitled Are You Being Stalked? Tips for Your Protection: www.privacyrights.org.

Search Group, Inc.: SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, provides assistance to State and local criminal justice agencies on information technology issues. SEARCH, through its National Technical Assistance and Training Program, provides comprehensive, hands-on training on computer crime investigations at its headquarters in Sacramento, California, and at regional training sites around the country: www.search.org.

Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA): Founded by women to educate the Internet community about online harassment, WHOA empowers victims of online harassment and develops voluntary poli- cies that systems administrators can adopt to create an environment free of online harassment. WHOA educates the online community by developing Web site resources, including the creation of a safe- and unsafe-site list to enable users to make informed decisions and providing information about how users can protect themselves against harassment: www.haltabuse.org.

CHRIS DAY - AN ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER ADDRESS IS STILL AN ADDRESS

Originally published 8/15/2011

Will be interesting to see how this plays out...  

From International Constitution

"21.7 Disclosure of Union Business.  No officer or member of the L.U. shall furnish to any unauthorized person a list of the names and addresses of the membership. All business of the L.U. must be kept strictly private from persons outside of the Union, unless publication be authorized by the L.U., and persons giving out any information contrary to the L.U. shall after proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 22, if found guilty, be fined, suspended or expelled."

Besides all of the reasons Hunt mentioned in yesterdays meeting for not allowing the Preferring of Charges to go forward,  here is the REALITY of the situation.  What this means is that when the International Constitution says ADDRESS - it MEANS ADDRESS - NOT BADGE NUMBERS.  ONE cannot simply change the wording of the constitution to suit THEIR purpose.

Did Margulies and Day publish all those private Union documents on their Rantings blog (since the blackballing scheme didn't work)  the last couple of days because they didn't understand the difference between an ADDRESS AND A BADGE NUMBER and decided while they were at it they might as well change the wording of the International Constitution to include the Freedom of Information Act -  OR... 

DID THEY JUST HANG THEMSELVES?

Al M's been known to change the context and significance of statements written by others on his blogs and through comments he shares throughout the community on other blogs. Something I've been aware he's been doing since 2009.  Day does this as well.

I write my blog for myself because as a victim of cyber abuse it's become my voice as well as a way to reach out to other victims of Internet harassment. But he and his friends come over here, take my words and put their own spin to it - to fit their purpose which is to discredit me. It's another tactic abusers use in order to de-focus you from the facts and validate themselves.  We can debate different perspectives in terms of what we understand about what an author meant, but in those specific instances where reputations and abuse are on the line - it's not debatable.  For Instance, I may write something to deflect the constant barrage of name calling and slander by simply bringing the quote to the forefront.  

Then... Margulies, Chris Day and Jeff Welch through their shared Ellen Fox Slander Blog Watch write: 

"Ellen Fox says Chris Day is "coming after 'you'"   They even apply quote marks which makes the statement appear legit.

But, what I ACTUALLY wrote on that post is:

"WHO'S NEXT ON HIS LIST, YOU?!!!

The context and meaning of my words have been changed because they are trying to control what you think, feel and interpret.  They are changing your mind-set. Every caption to every entry listed on the Blog Watch has purposely been changed for your benefit.  It's another strategy abusers use. Abusers, once exposed will go to any extreme necessary to make sure you don't see the truth. 

While I was talking in the meeting yesterday about abuse I was going through, a woman sitting a few rows up turned and acknowledged me for what I was going through.  At one point she started repeating my words with me. She understood. If you've been there  - you know. She validated my experience.

Another example:

The Watch Blog says: 
"Does Bruce Hansen support Ellen Fox's Slander Blog and her campaign of hate?"

What I wrote was, 
"Time to get your Bruce Hansen for President buttons and t's on."

My Freedom of Speech is that I can make those comments. The difference is Margulies, Day and Welch changed the spin on my statement to make Bruce look bad. They even went so far as to use ATU logo. They did this to control what you comprehend before you read it. It's the same thing Chris Day did as he was gathering signatures for his Preferring of Charges - Blackball petitions against me. He went up to people during rush hour bullpen madness knowing time was a factor with 18 pages of single spaced print, asked co-workers to sign something "for the Union" then interpreted it in one or two sentences that fit his motives.

The words they used in those conversations as well as blog postings and headings are slander - which is hate speech and because it's used to describe and define me to you all - almost 3,000 of ya, I can sue 'em. 

Third paragraph down, "She has been claiming for years now that blogger AL M is and has been 'stalking her' going to such extremes as saying she is 'afraid for her life'.

What I have ACTUALLY been saying is that in Cyber language a 'Cyber Bully' is one who harasses children over the internet and a 'Cyber Stalker' is the terminology used for an adult who harasses over the internet.  Since Al M, Chris Day and Jeff Welch have plastered my picture on their various blogs, people on my bus, on the streets and in stores I frequent are recognizing me - in a NEGATIVE way.  I have concerns about the mentality of someone who isn't capable of developing their own world experiences but rather live though the negativity and words of others.

Last paragraph of this posting is also interesting because THEY accuse ME of Preferring Charges against Khris Alexander.  lol

The truth is that I signed a petition for his RECALL specifically because he misappropriated a Union donation (a fairly new 27" television) which I handed him for Gresham TC. He took it home for his family's private use.  No one Preferred Charges against him to get him blackballed. The signatories simply wanted to rescind his Executive Board position. Each of us had our reasons - many were similar. He didn't deserve to be blackballed and it was never brought up.  But, Margulies went to that Union meeting and took all of the documents provided and published them on his blog in spite of the fact that President Hunt asked that everything be kept private. He went as far as making comments in his various video rants where he acknowledged President Hunt asking that no one secretly record the meeting or take documents from it.  Margulies could have been blackballed for doing it.  But, even then with all his improprieties and outrageous behaviors - AT HIS CO-WORKERS EXPENSE - he wasn't.  He published all the documents that night - but the subject of blackballing him for doing it never came up.

There were a few private correspondences from me that Hunt included with the packet that night. We discussed them after I discovered they became public.  He said to me, "Oh".  lol  My private e-mail address was even published.  No reason to ask that either Hunt or Margulies be blackballed for exposing those documents publicly against me.  No one ever thought or expected Margulies should work without Union benefits or representation.    

BUT THAT WAS THEN AND THIS IS NOW.

Margulies and Day's behavior is treasonous. There's no question the postings from yesterday and today alone should get them all the negative attention they've apparently been seeking.  Years ago I suggested to Hunt and talked about it in several of my postings that Margulies was giving information to people who couldn't be happier than to see all Unions vanished from this Country.  I wasn't implying he was a spy for them I was simply suggesting  he was behaving irresponsibly with sensitive information regarding our benefits and contract on his rants.  Video after video showed him and others at Beaverton TC talking about it. I believe he was responsible for TM receiving the Golden Fleece Award because the very conservative, anti Union anti rail movement was following his blog.  He knew they were and enjoyed the attention. In fact, Hunt asked him several times to stop talking about these things on his blog.  

MARGULIES AND DAY ACT IRRESPONSIBLY WITH THE POWER OF THEIR BLOGS. 

To my knowledge, the only member who's ever been blackballed in the history of ATU was Tom Wallace for stealing nearly half a million dollars.  

I have NEVER met or talked with Welch or 'J'.

 In fact, I've never even had a conversation with Chris Day.

just sayin...

CHRIS DAY, "I TAKE PRIDE TO INSURE THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE EQUAL."

Originally published 7/22/2011

The following words are from my experience and are the result of being and continuing to be the victim of Cyber Bully/Stalking.

From Chris Day's ATU Presidential bid:

1.)  "I take pride to insure that all members are equal."

update - many of the links referring to his blog no longer work as he's removed the blog.

When ya single out ONE UNION MEMBER through the BLACKBALL process (THREE TIMES) 'cause ya don't have the ability to resolve yer own conflicts that would not exactly INSURE yer intentions to represent ALL MEMBERS EQUALLY!  Mr. Day has a history of filing to have a member blackballed from Union Representation.  Mr. Day wants to be your next Union President AND he's got BlackBall on his mind. Mr. Day additionally has a history of reporting Union members to the former Director of Transportation as well as to the garage manager (while he was a Union Officer) and to HR BEFORE and AFTER he was employed.  (in fact just a mere week ago).  He also has a history of supporting his partner in his partners various and sundry write ups and other forms of abuse against me and other Union members.  THIS IS NOT INSURING ALL MEMBERS ARE OR WILL BE TREATED EQUAL.  Who's on his list next - is anyone safe?

2.) "I am honest about what I am presenting to the membership and use supporting documents to stand behind my statements."

MY DOCUMENTS (as have been published on this site) SUPPORT that Mr. Day more than MISREPRESENTS himself.  Regarding: Blackball petitions, "These guys walked up to us and asked us to "sign something for the Union."  "Read something?  There wasn't anything to read."; "That's the last time I'll ever sign something without reading it. He pressured me into signing it." "He's my friend. We worked together some other place, no, I'd didn't investigate but of course I'm going to support him." (etc).  This was changed to "I didn't know I was signing a petition to have someone blackballed." Additionally, some of the **signatures are different on each of the petitions and one petition lacked a signature making it illegal.  Documents I've collected from his blogs consistently prove  he changes the meaning of words in order to justify his grievances. And he owns THREE (3) websites that claim he is ATU757, So when you click on it you think you're going to ATU but you're actually going to something Mr. Day created to make you think you're going there.  It's waaay deceitful!  He's got the official ATU logo and banner and advertises the Rantings blog as though they're all associated.  The only association between Chris Day and Al Margulies is between themselves.  Will the real ATU 757 please stand up?  ...and they did by sending him a cease and desist letter.    (which, btw....he didn't do)  

3.) "I have integrity and learn from my mistakes" yada, yada, yada.

Mr. Day not only abused (me) a co-worker and Union Sister publicly - in the workplace - through e-mail to a multitude of co-workers and others in Portland on his blog and the Rantings blog but he was investigated for "RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE VIOLATIONS and INTERNET VIOLATIONS" (HR-171 and HR 202).

Day NEVER approached me with an apology.  He's never apologized to the Union  including over 3,400 Union members from all properties for forcing a discussion regarding his personal problems INSTEAD of allowing the Union to conduct Business during regularly scheduled meetings AND I'm not aware if he apologized to any of the signatories of his petitions for not being up front with them.  He took the entire month of April away from every Union member DURING a time when EVERY meeting was essential.

4.) "I believe with transparency..."

One of the ways we have of determining someone's ABILITY and QUALITY to run for office is by looking at their support -looking at who's backing them -  be it financial or personal.

A.) Mr. Day's biggest supporter is his life partner (*John Olsen) who writes up and calls in on Union members on a fairly regular basis. He wrote me up to HR SEVEN times.  The life partner of a wanna be Union President should share similar values.  I believe they do and I believe Mr. Day AND Mr. Olsen (regardless of how they portray themselves) share the same set of moral values.

B.) Mr. Day receives legal and personal advice from Jeff Welch, former blogger from the Peugeot Sound area.  Mr. Welch is an outspoken ANTI-UNION FEE OBJECTOR.  "Thank you again for your support...  Check out the comments under both letters.  Mr. Welch referred to me as a 'bitch' which is a statement that supports his belief that ALL women are 'bitches'.

Additionally, Mr. Welch refers to the ATU attorney as "incompetent".  Again, another derogatory comment against a woman he's never met or talked with. Whether you like her or not isn't the issue, but at the very least you gotta respect someone who's spent years working in the background to better conditions for Union members against the bureaucratic anti-Union system.  She's also published two books from a series.  A far cry from 'incompetent'. 

C.)  Al Margulies.  Margulies' list of controversies is a growing testament to the character of a man who has no use for anyone unless they can benefit him.  He has a history of secretly recording and video taping co-workers and others without their knowledge and publishing them on his blogs. He has and continues to Cyber abuse me through his blogs and through partnering with Chris Day to create a hostile work and community environment for me. Margulies and Day partnered up in the publishing of their respective blogs for the BLACKBALL effort.  Margulies Blog provided information about our Union benefits to those following him which ended up with Trimet receiving the highly publicized Golden Fleece Award.  His videos caused many of the anti-union conservative anti-tax sentiments we're feeling today regarding contract issues.  

Everything Day publishes is also published on Rantings.  The latest show of Margulies character would be his continued open support for Chris Parker.  Mr. Parker is the former bus operator admitted sexual abuser of a ***14 YO child.  MARGULIES is now requesting his viewers contact Parker's attorney to let him out of jail because he believes:    

"1-He is not a violent man. 2-He is not a threat to society."

FEAR NOT THE INDIVIDUAL RUNNING FOR OFFICE AS MUCH AS THEIR FOLLOWERS FOR WITHOUT THEIR FOLLOWERS THEY WOULD CEASE TO EXIST.

*But Olsen can because he's NOT a Union Officer, nor is he trying to be one.  My objection remains with Day who acted before he was hired and while he was a Union Officer and is currently a wanna be Union President.  

**Image below depicts Margulies admission that he was drunk (or legally incompetent) while signing one of the petitions. 

***(...and the child continues posting on Ranting's blog)

...ON DEFENDING A MINOR'S SEXUAL ABUSER

Saturday, May 7, 2011

On Defending a Minor's Sexual Abuser.

Interesting stuff happening over at the Ranting's blog.  For those of you who aren't aware, the Rantings guy - aka Al M, is the same who's been Cyber Stalking, harassing me for nearing two years.

Chris Parker, 53 Parker is charged with third-degree sexual abuse, first-degree online sexual corruption of a child and violating a stalking order (5 times).

The Rantings guy is defending his friend,  fellow blogger and bus operator Chris Parker from charges that he *(confessed - video below at 1:28)  sexually abused a 14 year old girl and violated at least 5 protective stalking orders over the last year.  Rantings comes to Parker's defense for the *confessed sexual abuse by accusing  local media of "lynching" his friend before he has his day in court. If you've been following his blog postings/comments, you'll see where he appears more concerned with local media for 'going after a Bus Driver' than Parker's predatory behavior.

From Al M,

"However, there was no "scandal", that was another example of the bloodthirsty media looking for a way to make Trimet bus drivers look like shit."

Did it not occur to Rantings that when these types of abuses come forward the media double and triples their coverage in case there are other victims.

Most of Rantings quotes below can be found here, What Does the Victim in the Chris Parker Case Think. ...and here, Interesting Comments Click the 'comments' section.

According to blog entries, Rantings knows and has discussed the issues with the child and Chris Parker.  He indicates he's had previous knowledge of the 'relationship'by stating,  "it's complicated." 

From Al M,

"We are not talking about an 11 year old child, we are talking about a teenager in today's world, a completely different world from the world in which most of us grew up in."I know the young lady, quite well as a matter of fact. I can tell you with 100% confidence that she is not 

damaged forever by this."

Since Al M came out in defense of Parker even AFTER Parkers *confession, I am sadly reminded of the abuse Elizabeth Lynn Dunham, endured by then Governor Goldschmidt, which started when she was just 14 years old. She passed away January 16, 2011.  RIP, Liz!!!

Willamette Week Reveals Name of Goldschmidt Victim This all comes as no surprise. Based on my experience, Rantings has a different perspective.  In his world he doesn't 'see' situations like the (confessed) 'sexual abuse' of a minor as being wrong. Having monitored his behavior via his blog over the last couple years I came to believe he considers even the most repulsive of acts against another as 'free game'.  Initially I thought he was creating drama to increase his popularity but as time has gone on and more and more despicable behaviors came forward I found myself more than disturbed that his followers UNTIL NOW, apparently  haven't caught on but instead continued to support and encourage him.

In my estimation, the only one who's damaging Bus Operators is Mr. Rantings himself with his various and highly publicized antics on and off the blog.

According to him,  the 14 year old doesn't see herself as a victim which isn't unusual. She's questioning who pressed the charges against Mr. Parker in the first place and is asking they be dropped.  In criminal cases that would be the DA. The thing is we don't know her past. We don't know if there were other adults who may have victimized her but that could explain a lot. What we do know is that what happened to her is not only against the law but an act of perversion.  Regardless of her statement of permission, young victims tend to protect their abusers - for a myriad of reasons.  My question is, was Mr. Parker 'grooming' her for the whole kit and caboodle or was he being dishonest about the degree to which the relationship progressed over a years time.  According to The Today Show MSNBC he's being held on $275,000.00 bail.  Seems like a lot of bail for "kissing and fondling" her breasts. One thing is certain. Al M is playing 'dumb' about his knowledge of "sexual abuse".  That's something that warrants investigating. Some of Rantings friends confronted him online. There might be hope for the World yet. If you wanna know what someone's all about, hang back and watch how they treat others. Watch their behavior because it's not about what someone says but about what they do.  'Actions speak louder than words'.

Who's behavior is more appropriate?  The one who act's out on a child or the one who defends the one who acts out on a child?

The image placed here is not intended to imply the teen referenced in the article is as young as the one depicted here. I put it up because both children - the one in the image and the 14 year old are, waaaay below the age of consent,  emotionally, physically and mentally.

CYBER ABUSE - JEFF WELCH

Saturday, March 5, 2011

CYBER BULLY/ STALKERS

CYBER ABUSE IS MORE DANGEROUS FOR THE VICTIM AS IT'S A MEANS TO CONNECT WITH OTHER ABUSERS :

FROM JEFF WELCH, BLOGGER FROM THE PEUGEOT SOUND AREA.  

Based on Welch's Freedom of  Speech Behavior, he's probably one of those guys who goes home,  kicks the dog, beats the kids and the wife. He refers to women as Bitch, (above screen shot) Cunts and Whores.

Mostly, Cyber Bully/Stalkers WANT And NEED their activities publicized.  That way they can find online friends who share their abuses and can validate and feed off each other.  Kinda like 'boys night out' except they're grown men mostly with mortgages, kids,  a wife or two on the side, a lawn to mow and a responsible career.  

Cyber abuse is all about personal gratification. They hide behind a monitor but no longer care who's watching. There's no boundaries. Their victims could range from very young children to the elderly.  Their minds convince themselves that as long as they're hidden behind their monitor - in the privacy of their domain they aren't culpable. 


Abusers who act out emotionally or violently in their homes go to great extremes to protect their identity.  And, although perpetrators of domestic violence and perpetrators of online abuse are similar, the online abuser can be far more dangerous.  Once the abuser is exposed they can literally snap.  Not by destroying their precious monitor but by leaving the domain and acting out on their victims.  These are people who don't believe they've done anything wrong. They themselves feel victimized by their victims.  In my case, Rantings spent nearly two years creating a false persona of me in the mind of his viewers.  Constant rantings created to brainwash his viewers perception of another person without evidence.  Constantly referring to me as one with mental problems and other deficiencies  because he feared the truth about himself coming out - as it has.  The abuser, on and off line discredit their victims to protect themselves.  

Most of the screen shots and postings on this blog depict the abuses I've experienced from Rantings. But, he has now incorporated with two more who share his interest in people bashing.  One who decided to act out on his behavior in our workplace and the other a a blogger (Jeff Welch) from Peugeot Sound, Washington who calls me a 'bitch' and other choice names through screen shots and e-mail.  

One of the blogger's behavior is similar to the 'talk show' groupies. A bunch of viewers without an identity who latch on to someone else's and claim it as their own.  These are the ones who end up hanging out in Mall parking lots or McDonald's looking for someone to assassinate.  

Welch, on the other hand appears to keep his abuses to a minimun at least publicly. He's sends me threats through e-mail and as the above screen shot shows he quietly comments on other bloggers postings.  He uses profanity.  I don't know this guy from adam but that's the scary part. You get people together like that who don't know how not to HATE and you wonder how many other lives they've infected?!

From his blog, "Having a prior career in nonprofit organizations (many of which contracted with King County to provide services to people with disabilities) I have always had a positive view of King County  Government’s commitment to families."

So, he wants everyone to 'think' he cares about people with disabilities and he's a family kind of guy but then you realize what he secretly writes is who he really is.  

So, I write about Welch, Rantings and Day because their viewers need to understand they aren't quite what they seem.  I want others who've been violated by these three as well as countless others throughout the internet world to know they're not alone and here in Oregon we're getting increasingly closer to prosecuting these criminals.  

The last several screen shots on this blog were taken from Welch's blog.  His and another viewers comments validate everything I've been saying about Rantings for the last nearly two years.  When Welch realized I posted those comments he became quite enraged.  It later became clear, he didn't want his comments seen by others as he was 'cyber stalking Rantings.  He later posted, after the two actually met that Rantings was a, "decent guy".  I suspect the two recognized their commonalities over their differences and decided to feed off each other as Rantings did with Day and Alexander.  Kind of like ameba's  - each creating off shoots of their own.  

"If democracy and self-rule are the fundamentals, then why should people give up these rights when they enter their workplace? In politics we fight like tigers for freedom, for the right to elect our leaders, for freedom of movement, choice of residence, choice of what work to pursue—control of our lives, in short. And then we wake up in the morning and go to work, and all those rights disappear. We no longer insist on them. And so for most of the day we return to feudalism. That is what capitalism is—a version in which capital replaces land, and business leaders replace kings. But the hierarchy remains. And so we still hand over our lives’ labor, under duress, to feed rules who do no real work."

Kim Stanley Robinson, Blue Mars