Derp Slayer

Aurora, IN

#62 Apr 25, 2013
RedFeatherFan wrote:
<quoted text>The law is pretty clear...indulging private information about a child..WHAT PRIVATE INFORMATION??...and ugly bitch is not a name, so there was NO name attached to her face.. CYBER bullying is about as easy to prove as slander. The fact of the matter is, Sheila was banned from wsgs...for cyber bullying. Do you really think a court will hear her whining about cyber bullying when she was kicked off a whole site for just such a thing? GOOD LUCK.
NOOO MADDIE once again you don't understand. Not having a name on it or malicious or not has nothing to do with it.You keep coming up with different things as an out. THE FACT IS a pic of a minor child was posted on a public forum without parental permission. It has nothing to do with no if's or that's. You can't make your own personal additions or exceptions to the law. That's like trying a defense of " I just found that wallet on the ground, so when I made charges on that credit card in it ,it's ok because I didn't steal that wallet.( I'm sure that went right over your head Maddie) Your interpretation of the law doesn't change the law. Once again ...THE FACT IS a pic of a minor child was posted on a public forum without parental permission. Once the mouse button was clicked, the law was broken. No if and's or buts.
Derp Slayer

Aurora, IN

#63 Apr 25, 2013
Derp Slayer wrote:
Now excuse me. but I'm off to the Montgomery Inn for a incredible rib dinner with friends. As you like to say ta ta
AWEEEEEE what's with the wittle judgement? Is it because you don't have 4 and 5 star restaurants or that you have no friends in your HOLLER? Sorry if I offend you because I can sing Bright Lights, big city.While you look at porch lights dimming in the holler haze....once again ..ta ta
Derp Slayer

Aurora, IN

#64 Apr 25, 2013
RedFeatherFan wrote:
<quoted text>What I find stupid is you...and your audience.
What you find stupid is everyone and everything that disagrees with you. You created you're own audience. I don't have an audience because I'm not so insecure that I feel I need one. Unlike you.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#65 Apr 26, 2013
Derp Slayer wrote:
<quoted text> NOOO MADDIE once again you don't understand. Not having a name on it or malicious or not has nothing to do with it.You keep coming up with different things as an out. THE FACT IS a pic of a minor child was posted on a public forum without parental permission. It has nothing to do with no if's or that's. You can't make your own personal additions or exceptions to the law. That's like trying a defense of " I just found that wallet on the ground, so when I made charges on that credit card in it ,it's ok because I didn't steal that wallet.( I'm sure that went right over your head Maddie) Your interpretation of the law doesn't change the law. Once again ...THE FACT IS a pic of a minor child was posted on a public forum without parental permission. Once the mouse button was clicked, the law was broken. No if and's or buts.
Public forum would be this site. This is public. Facebook is like a diary. An open diary that you share with your friends and family...if an outsider spies on my diary and tries to use things I have said and pictures of people I don't like out of it then that is a violation of my civil rights. The FACT of the matter is, this picture was available on a site that many had access to....that makes it public. IT was not "stolen". That would mean someone would have to come into the damned house and take it...it would have to be the ONLY picture. In other words, many posted this picture "without consent" and then it wound up on a facebook site where it could be shared. The FACT of the MATTER is, that once she put that picture out on facebook it was subject to being shared and that is that. That picture was public and was shared on a facebook page, a facebook page that was being monitered and spied on by people looking or something to use against them. That in itself is harassment. This whole thing is nothing but a crock of bullshit.
mind over matter

London, KY

#66 Apr 26, 2013
RedFeatherFan wrote:
<quoted text>Public forum would be this site. This is public. Facebook is like a diary. An open diary that you share with your friends and family...if an outsider spies on my diary and tries to use things I have said and pictures of people I don't like out of it then that is a violation of my civil rights. The FACT of the matter is, this picture was available on a site that many had access to....that makes it public. IT was not "stolen". That would mean someone would have to come into the damned house and take it...it would have to be the ONLY picture. In other words, many posted this picture "without consent" and then it wound up on a facebook site where it could be shared. The FACT of the MATTER is, that once she put that picture out on facebook it was subject to being shared and that is that. That picture was public and was shared on a facebook page, a facebook page that was being monitered and spied on by people looking or something to use against them. That in itself is harassment. This whole thing is nothing but a crock of bullshit.
RFF ....just STFU! ok!.. damn!
THIS IS ABOUT

Hyden, KY

#67 Apr 26, 2013
Derp Slayer wrote:
<quoted text> What you find stupid is everyone and everything that disagrees with you. You created you're own audience. I don't have an audience because I'm not so insecure that I feel I need one. Unlike you.
Not really...I have been in many a discussion where I was able to say..I disagree..but YOU...you can't win an argument so you resort to mockery. YOU are only on here because I said I hated live band. That defines you, and if you'd been any kind of man...you would have went about your business and never thought about it...here's ONE person who does not like live band....no you are just a shallow vicious asshole who likes to make fun of people and especially women who are old enough to see you for what you are...and it must be so bad that you assume a woman will see you for what you are thru your words..guess what..they do.
Just sayin

London, KY

#68 Apr 26, 2013
You can reason with insanity. You'll find yourself running in circles for nothing.
Derp Slayer

Watseka, IL

#69 Apr 26, 2013
RedFeatherFan wrote:
<quoted text>Public forum would be this site. This is public. Facebook is like a diary. An open diary that you share with your friends and family...if an outsider spies on my diary and tries to use things I have said and pictures of people I don't like out of it then that is a violation of my civil rights. The FACT of the matter is, this picture was available on a site that many had access to....that makes it public. IT was not "stolen". That would mean someone would have to come into the damned house and take it...it would have to be the ONLY picture. In other words, many posted this picture "without consent" and then it wound up on a facebook site where it could be shared. The FACT of the MATTER is, that once she put that picture out on facebook it was subject to being shared and that is that. That picture was public and was shared on a facebook page, a facebook page that was being monitered and spied on by people looking or something to use against them. That in itself is harassment. This whole thing is nothing but a crock of bullshit.
Ok I tried Ok Maddie, pay your high profiled lawyer his retainer or go see the DA as you said before. Just before you came back and made comments like in the Wizard of Oz. I'll get you my little pretties. Ok don't listen to me. But I can already tell you what a lawyer civil general practicing lawyer will say. Then it will get dragged out until it's snowing again and you have accumulated probably 12 - 18 k in legal fees with no progression in the cause. I see it happen at least once a month when I'm called to be a witness for either the prosecution or defense depending on several variables. I deal with the professional side when these matters occur when they are made on the clock while being logged into their employers network when these crimes are committed and the employer is named as a co defendant. But that's very detailed , way over your head. You have a lot to learn. So go pay a retainer for a good lawyer and find out for yourself. Or just do the easy and obvious thing and just STFU when you don't know what the fug you are talking about.
Attorney Buford Taylor

Hyden, KY

#70 Apr 26, 2013
RedFeatherFan wrote:
<quoted text>Public forum would be this site. This is public. Facebook is like a diary. An open diary that you share with your friends and family...if an outsider spies on my diary and tries to use things I have said and pictures of people I don't like out of it then that is a violation of my civil rights. The FACT of the matter is, this picture was available on a site that many had access to....that makes it public. IT was not "stolen". That would mean someone would have to come into the damned house and take it...it would have to be the ONLY picture. In other words, many posted this picture "without consent" and then it wound up on a facebook site where it could be shared. The FACT of the MATTER is, that once she put that picture out on facebook it was subject to being shared and that is that. That picture was public and was shared on a facebook page, a facebook page that was being monitered and spied on by people looking or something to use against them. That in itself is harassment. This whole thing is nothing but a crock of bullshit.
. Actually, once again your way wrong. For example, if someone penetrates a website and obtains financial info, then they use that info to transfer funds to another account, that's theft. You see, a crime was committed without anyone entering any house. The law does have grey areas, but when it pertains to minors there few and far between. I would say that if its pushed, you've got your "highly intelligent" behind in trouble over something very stupid.
Derp Slayer

Aurora, IN

#71 Apr 26, 2013
RedFeatherFan wrote:
<quoted text>Looks like somebody threw water on the witch to me, and she melted into space.
SO...Lee Epperson..and I quote..."he talked to a friend of mine a couple of times and then turned into a psycho stalker."..........let me just wipe the tears of laughter out my eyes here for a second...and get a grip here. And I said..Hummm must run in the family...and then I hadda to go over and read this big LONNNNNNNG drawn out blab blab from DonnaMikey, who are so pissed that I don't like a homewrecker wanna be.. but what they are really pissed about is their darling hasn't been able to do a darn thing with all that..(trying not to puke here) RIPE BEAUTY she supposedly has.....darn it has been interesting, and amusing, more than you can know. Panic? What for? The same batch of teresa trolls on here, you included, and let me look around here. NUPE, little miss muffin is nowhere to be seen. GUESS SHE'S NOT MADE IT HERE YET. Maybe lee and her are commiserating on stealth tactics and just generally consoling each other. Let me play a violin for the two losers...wah wah wah wah...there you go...have a good day. Its been a good one for me..I haven't laughed so much as I did when she melted off her hair the first time. XOXO, Old boss.
ok is this supposed to make any sense to anyone?
Puntas Inc

United States

#72 Apr 26, 2013
All I can say is, if Maddies brain ever converts to wifi, WOW!
Lawyers On Retainer

Hyden, KY

#73 Apr 26, 2013
Attorney Buford Taylor wrote:
<quoted text>. Actually, once again your way wrong. For example, if someone penetrates a website and obtains financial info, then they use that info to transfer funds to another account, that's theft. You see, a crime was committed without anyone entering any house. The law does have grey areas, but when it pertains to minors there few and far between. I would say that if its pushed, you've got your "highly intelligent" behind in trouble over something very stupid.
You might have a point if the person had posted their financial information on facebook, for all to see..........we're talking about a photo which was floating around on a open site. I'd say if anyone wanted to try to push this they'd wind up being laughed out of the lawyers' office.
Just sayin

London, KY

#74 Apr 26, 2013
It was a photo from someone's Facebook which you were blocked.
Just sayin

London, KY

#75 Apr 26, 2013
And it wasn't from a. Open site. It's a private account in which only friends can view pictures.
Puntas Inc

United States

#76 Apr 26, 2013
Lawyers On Retainer wrote:
<quoted text>You might have a point if the person had posted their financial information on facebook, for all to see..........we're talking about a photo which was floating around on a open site. I'd say if anyone wanted to try to push this they'd wind up being laughed out of the lawyers' office.
What about defamation of character? I did read where someone had said it was a "drug baby". Now mind you, I don't know anyone involved, but if that were my baby and especially if there was no truth to the statement, I would seek legal council.
Katie friend

United States

#77 Apr 26, 2013
Katie only post pic for Madeline she scare to death of Shelia and wont to kno what she look like what kind car truck she drive it was Madeline who post bad stuff on this topix of baby she say it had a flat head Shelia left it lay piss an chit all day long
Judge Judy

Hyden, KY

#78 Apr 26, 2013
Puntas Inc wrote:
<quoted text>What about defamation of character? I did read where someone had said it was a "drug baby". Now mind you, I don't know anyone involved, but if that were my baby and especially if there was no truth to the statement, I would seek legal council.
defamation of character now huh? I could find so much things that have been written about Katie that are probably lies, probably made up, and all on here. If anyone has a chance to sue for that its Katie. I have read more things about her than I have about anyone. And this has went on for years. DO you not realize that where you post from is in an address that can be gotten by court order? Goes right to your house.
Puntas Inc

United States

#80 Apr 26, 2013
Judge Judy wrote:
<quoted text>defamation of character now huh? I could find so much things that have been written about Katie that are probably lies, probably made up, and all on here. If anyone has a chance to sue for that its Katie. I have read more things about her than I have about anyone. And this has went on for years. DO you not realize that where you post from is in an address that can be gotten by court order? Goes right to your house.
I DO realize I have an IP address, if I knew any of you or anything about you I wouldn't put it on topix! Katie is responsible for her own character, a baby comes with a clean slate. The baby's picture itself isn't so much the problem as is the comments you made with it. Talking bad about a baby is low. It definitely shows your true colors.
Paul

Bellevue, WA

#81 Apr 26, 2013
Maddie made a fake facebook and stole Sheila's profile picture. And Maddie posted it to Katie's wall. I told the truth, I ain't going to jail for Maddie!
Derp Slayer

Watseka, IL

#82 Apr 26, 2013
Lawyers On Retainer wrote:
<quoted text>You might have a point if the person had posted their financial information on facebook, for all to see..........we're talking about a photo which was floating around on a open site. I'd say if anyone wanted to try to push this they'd wind up being laughed out of the lawyers' office.
no Maddie once again .....
NOOO MADDIE once again you don't understand. Not having a name on it or malicious or was floating around has not has nothing to do with it.You keep coming up with different things as an out. THE FACT IS a pic of a minor child was posted on a public forum without parental permission. It has nothing to do with no if's or that's. You can't make your own personal additions or exceptions to the law. That's like trying a defense of " I just found that wallet on the ground, so when I made charges on that credit card in it ,it's ok because I didn't steal that wallet.( I'm sure that went right over your head Maddie) Your interpretation of the law doesn't change the law. Once again ...THE FACT IS a pic of a minor child was posted on a public forum without parental permission. Once the mouse button was clicked, the law was broken. No if and's or buts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hazard Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Candice Combs 5 min jcuruos 14
Molly jan 7 min Funny 6
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 22 min Paula 135,045
hot nurse at arh 53 min prycomo 2
Electric Bill Hike 54 min Pop Train 33
leaving my body this weekend 55 min yep 9
Conservation Fund used for water park! 1 hr Roland 3
Topix---New law 10 hr just me 9
Dr. James A. Chaney update after court 11 hr No dog either 169
Hazard Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Hazard People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]