Once Fallen
"Through Knowledge and Wisdom Shall We Rise From The Ashes"
<-- Back To Index

“The Troll Patrol:” Protecting yourself against vigilantism
Derek “The Fallen One” Logue
January  19, 2008

Vigilantism is one of the most prevalent concerns among sex offenders, as stories abound regarding the harassment,
vigilantism, and even murders of sex offenders or those merely accused of sex crimes. Sex offenders are so reviled in the
community, even the accusation that a person is a pedophile, untrue it may be, has led to “vigilantism” or “organized
stalking” against the accused. “Vicious lies are circulated throughout the community, and these lies don’t stop. Such lies
as the target is a prostitute, a drug user, a drug dealer, has a long criminal record, or the highly destructive favourite
(applied to men and women,) the target is a pedophile… ‘vigilante stalking’ is sometimes used because of the false
allegations that targets are active criminals.” (Eleanor White, “Organized Stalking- A Taboo Subject.” www.opednews.com,
July 4, 2007). Vigilantism is a real threat; however, there are things you can do to protect yourself from being targeted by
vigilantes.

Vigilantism Defined

Vigilantism is a definition of perspectives: the definition itself depends largely on your feelings about a situation. Do you
feel an action by someone else to be a vigilante act? If so it probably is.
The following definition of vigilantism as it relates to sex offenders is from www.sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com, a
subsidiary of www.geocities.com/eadvocate:

  • “Any actions (generally attacking type) towards persons convicted or accused of crimes, however subtle, which are
    not a part of the court’s sentence, carried out by someone who is not under the sentencing court’s jurisdiction
    executing the judge’s sentence.”
  • “Persons who exact their own form of personal hate and harm, however subtle, to those who have committed
    crimes or are accused of crimes.”
  • Under this definition, certain actions of the media (such as giving out too much unnecessary personal information
    on a sex criminal) or even by legislators (passing legislation that circumvents the constitution, such as ex post
    facto laws) meets the definition of vigilantism (“Vigilantism Defined” Sex Offender Research By A Voice of Reason,
    Nov. 6, 2007)

Vigilantism at its worst

There have been a number of recent headlines shedding light on the real risk of vigilantism at its worst. In Bellingham,
Washington, a man posing as an FBI agent murdered two level three sex offenders he picked off the Whatcom County
sheriff’s sex offender website (“Man Surrenders In Slayings Of Bellingham Sex Offenders.” Komo TV, Sept. 6 2005). In
2004, a Canadian man was convicted in Maine on two counts of attempted murder on two different sex offenders he
pulled off the Registry (Gitika Ahuja, “Sex Offender Registries: Putting Lives At Risk?” ABC News, April 18, 2006). These
are just a few examples of murders linked to the registry.  Eadvocate maintains a comprehensive list of murdered sex
offenders, those accused of sex crimes, and even innocent bystanders; as of October 29, 2007, the list counted 112 total
murders in 103 incidents spread over a number of years (eadvocate, “Murdered In The United States: Registered Sex
Offenders and Others.” Sex Offender Research By A Voice of Reason, www.sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com, Oct. 30,
2007, see also http://www.geocities.com/voicism/harm-master.html). While the aforementioned articles represent the
most extreme cases of vigilantism, at some point we are likely to face some form of vigilantism to a lesser extent. The
more prevalent form of vigilantism occurs online.

Cyber-Terrorism

The television ad for www.zwinky.com epitomizes the Internet culture: “Be anyone, do anything!” Under the guise of
anonymity, Internet surfers typically assume an alternate identity, and in many cases, an alternate personality.
Unfortunately, the Internet has become an ideal breeding ground for would-be terrorists. Cyber trolls and cyber-stalkers
abound over the Internet. While this trend is not limited to sex offenders (any forum or discussion is open game), sex
offender issues are hot button topics and sex offenders are already at a major disadvantage due to our status in society.
In short, we are easy targets.
According to www.flayme.com, cyber bullies can be divided into two classes: trolls and stalkers. Both derive pleasure from
disrupting any organized activity, but vary primarily by degrees of severity. Below is the characteristics of the two groups.

Cyber-trolls

Named for a fishing technique, not a mythical creature, “The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest
question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group” (Andrew Heenan, “Internet Trolls,“ www.flayme.
com/troll/, 2007). The site finds the following to be characteristics of the cyber-trolls; with permission I adapted specifically
for sex offenders:

  • Lack of Imagination: Posts comments just to inflame
  • “Pedantic to the extreme:” Rather thorough posts that, while appearing as ludicrous, elicit sympathy and leads to
    division. A typical tactic is posting threads that simultaneously attack sex offenders as “pedophiles” and paint
    themselves as a victim of your post.
  • False Identity: Will never reveal real names due to cowardice, though these days, security reasons have led many
    to use pseudonyms. Many cyber-vigilante “non-profit organizations” do not have physical addresses, and they tend
    to have multiple screen names as well. (stitches77-Jacey-Wasp Ohio-Derek-Marina) It begs the question, “If what
    they do is right in the name of justice and the law, why hide your identity?”
  • Cross-posting: Trolls tend to post the exact same post everywhere they go, and tend to post it whether it is relevant
    or not.
  • Off-Topic Posting: Can be genuine errors; “a BRIEF opposite response is simply "netiquette;" if it’s a troll post, you
    have denied it its reward.” In other words, don’t get goaded into arguing
  • Repetition: Trolls tend to repeat the same rhetoric everywhere they go. Trust me, I’ve heard the same sex offender
    myths repeated by the same few people in every post in the last two months
  • Missing The Point: “Trolls rarely answer a direct question- they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle…” My
    experience has been either they do not have a source to quote or the post a link to their gossip sites as “evidence”
  • Thick or sad: They “rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation,” but brag of having a
    high IQ.

The general consensus from www.flayme.com, www.corrupted-justice.com, and the experiences of many I have talked to
is this: IGNORE THEM! It is better to not engage them at all, and if you do, keep it brief and to the point. If you counter an
“F*** You” with your own “F*** you,” you are merely goading them. If you ignore them, most will give up. Many are merely
attention seekers, seeking others who will give them sympathy, justify their actions, and make them feel important. Thus,
ignoring them hurts them.

Cyber-stalkers

The more active you are in sex offender activism, the more likely you will become a target for the myriad of cyber-vigilante
organizations online. While this form of cyber-vigilantism is less prevalent, it is more dangerous because it is more
intrusive.  The www.flayme.com definition is:

  • “At its mildest, a stalker is simply a troll that has attached itself to an individual. At worst, boring, at best, flattering.
    But a stalker can be a serious predator, using the Internet to pursue a real or imagined vendetta, or other perverted
    agenda. Risk assessment is an essential first step.” (Andrew Heenan, “Internet Stalkers.” www.flayme.
    com/stalker/, 2007).

Traits of a cyber-stalker, according to www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/definition.html, is as follows:

  • Malice: The desire to hurt you
  • Premeditation: The presence of planning or organization
  • Repetition: The activity is not a one-time incident
  • Distress: The activity causes you fear or distress
  • Obsession: Harassment won’t stop, despite repeated warnings
  • Vendetta: Wants “revenge” on you
  • No Legitimate Purpose: No valid purpose aside from causing you harm
  • Personally directed at you
  • Disregarding warnings to stop
  • Harassment: As defined by state statute
  • Threats (www.wiredsafety.org, “Cyber 911 Emergency: Definition, 2008)

In the realm of sex offender activism, many (but not all-some are copycats) of the current cyber-vigilante groups are
affiliated in some way with the controversial www.perverted-justice.com, or “Pee-J” for short (Not surprisingly, it, Pee-J
even made the list of "controversial cults/ groups" from the Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey, www.rickross.com). Thus,
it meets the criteria of “organized stalking” (Eleanor White, “Organized Stalking” http://www.opednews.
com/articles/opedne_eleanor__070704_organized_stalking__.htm). Recently the founders of this controversial group has
expanded its horizons into a number of other notorious projects under the umbrella of a larger organization: The
“Perverted Justice Foundation, Incorporated,”  http://www.pjfi.org/, boasting of being  “the most aggressive and active anti-
pedophile organization online.” Among their nefarious projects is the “Wikisposure Project” (http://www.wikisposure.
com/), a data base for alleged “pedophiles organizations” and individual “pedophiles” who use them. If you are an active
member of certain RSO activist or support networks, such as www.sosen.us, www.soclear.org, or www.roarforfreedom.
com, there is a chance you will be listed in some way at this website; also, anyone who has spoken out publicly against
sex offender laws (such as Sarah Tofte of the Human Rights Watch and even Patty Wetterling of the Jacob Wetterling
Foundation) have become Wikisposure targets. This site has become a breeding ground of vigilantism activity, either
directly via membership, or indirectly via the “copycat” phenomenon, where others are inspired to follow their bad
example. Thus, in the world of RSO support and activism, you will likely hear Pee-J as an euphemism for cyber stalking.
Whatever the case, there are a number of cyber-stalkers out there. Below is a summary of various tactics cyber-stalkers
have been known to use:

  • Publishing your personal info online at their website: This is done primarily to incite members or supporters to
    harass targets by mail or phone (Julia Scheeres, “They Wanted To Teach Him a Lesson.” www.wired.com, March
    19, 2004)
  • Hacking into computers, websites, or servers: Done for a variety of reasons, such as to obtain your personal
    information or to disrupt your activities (http://www.corrupted-justice.com/article6.html). Of deeper concern is the
    possibility of “browser hijacking,” as a few cases have surfaced where computers were allegedly embedded with
    porn without their knowledge (John Leyden, “Child porn case highlights browser hijack risks.” The Register, UK,
    May 13, 2004, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/13/browser_hijacking_risks/print.html) ( see also http://www.
    wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,63391,00.html)
  • Impersonation: The creation of identities, screen names, or websites with your name and likeness. For example, a
    troll targeting me put up www.derek-logue.blogspot.com/, posting up personal information obtained from the Ohio
    Registry, doctoring up the picture from my SO flyer, and using my name as a screen name.
  • Harassment: can be though any media- phone, mail, or e-mails sent either to you directly OR to people you know, I.
    e., friends, family, co-workers, etc. (Marcell v. Perverted Justice.com, CV-06-0693 [US Dist Ct New Mex., Aug 3,
    2006)
  • Mobbing/ ganging up: A favorite tactic of members of stalking groups, members of that group (or perhaps even
    multiple screen names of one individual) will flood chatrooms, forums, or other places you post your opinions,
    either in an attempt to drown you out, or to attack you en masse.

So you may have a cyber stalker, so the question is how do you handle it? The hard part is the nature of the Internet itself,
along with a lack of consensus on the seriousness of cyber-terrorism, as evidenced by the recent high profile case of the
13-year-old who committed suicide after she was targeted by a cyber bully. See also the 1999 Report on Cyber Stalking
(www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cyber crime/cyber stalking.htm). In short, local law enforcement may lack the capacity to handle
internet-related cases. There are a few general tips derived from various sources:

From www.flayme.com/stalker/ (used by permission)

  • Ignore them as you would a troll: most get a rise out of your reactions, and if you ignore them or at least not directly
    address them, most will get aggravated and give up.  Noted as the best of the approaches
  • You could stand up to them without retaliating. Bring to light their actions. For example, if they post derisive
    remarks online and they attack you in a later forum, provide a link to the original post and remind them you’re onto
    them. Use restraint however, as many play the “blame game,” making YOU out to be the aggressor. If you do
    choose this approach, just be careful with your words.
  • Minimize your personal attacks and communications while maximizing your public response; make interactions
    impersonal.
  • The “Tit for tat” approach: The organized stalkers tend to troll your every post and use everything you say against
    you, so you should use their techniques. Keep a log of their posts, and if you wish, open up a webpage to
    showcase their foolishness. Many of them use Google’s free “Blogspot” page, so feel free to do the same.

Tips from www.corrupted-justice.com/facts

  • Remove personal info from all public Internet sites, such as Yahoo! Profiles.
  • Save all online activities, including chatlogs. On the newest versions of Internet explorer (I have Vista), saving is
    relatively easy; on the web toolbar, click on the “Page” tab, go to “Save as,” and I suggest you store it by date and
    time in the “Web archive format” (.mht). I say this because saving it as an .html file tends to add extra folders in
    your file folder.
  • DO NOT believe anyone in these groups are trying to help you. In fact, they are trying to obtain as much information
    as possible to use against you later.
  • If this leads to phone harassment, trace every threatening call, even if you have to pay for it. You could block calls
    from unlisted numbers, and pressing *59 will keep a log in the phone company computers in case you  need to
    call the police later. Also, in most cases you can record phone conversations; recording laws require only the
    consent of one party to record a conversation. Thus, you are one of the two parties in a phone conversation. I
    actually used my camcorder to tape a conversation in a civil case, which helped me win. (see Reporter’s
    Committee for Freedom of the Press, “Can We Tape? Introduction” http://www.rcfp.org/taping/intro.html, 2003)
  • You can also take legal action- civil or criminal

Legal issues with cyber stalking

Like most issues concerning the Internet, cyber stalking laws are difficult to enforce, given the anonymity of the Internet
and the lack of general knowledge of the very nature of the Internet itself. For example, though many networks and service
providers have “Acceptable Use” policies against harassment and stalking, in most instances, it is difficult to get certain
activities such as bogus web pages of you removed. For example, consider the following disclaimer from Google’s “Blog
spot” service, in which they effectively claim no responsibility :

“We do not remove allegedly defamatory content from www.google.com or any other U.S. dot com domains. US domain
sites such as Google.com, Blogger, Page Creator, etc. are sites regulated only by U.S. law. Given this fact, and pursuant
to Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act, we do not remove allegedly defamatory material from U.S.
domains. The only exception to this rule is if the material has been found to be defamatory by a court, as evidenced by a
court order.  The language of Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act fundamentally states that Internet
services like Google.com, Blogger and many of Google’s other services are re-publishers and not the publisher of that
content. Therefore, these sites are not held liable for any allegedly defamatory, offensive or harassing content published
on the site.” (“Defamation Definition.” www.blogger.com)

If you truly feel threatened by an online stalker, the best course of action (according to both eadvocate and wiredsafety.org)
is file a report with local law enforcement. The police may not have the tools to fight the stalker. They don’t have to- The
main goal is to subpoena the ISP to provide the information necessary to uncover the identity of the cyber stalker. You
might want to contact cyberstalking@wiredsafety.org for assistance, though I’m unsure how willing they would assist a
sex offender. Eadvocate suggests you DON’T use the “Cyber Tip Line,” because they affiliated with the NCMEC and
controversial founder John Walsh. It may be possible to file a complain though the FBI’s Internet Crime Complain Center
(IC3) at, http://www.ic3.gov/, though the site seems made for Internet fraud. (eadvocate, “Laws and Contacts to Assist
Registrants (former sex offenders) in Filing Complaints of Harassment, Stalking, Cyber-Stalking or Property Damages.”
www.sexoffenderresearch.blogspot.com/ Sept. 4, 2007)

Each state has their own laws regarding stalking or harassing communications. Again, www.wiredsafety.org has a list of
links to individual laws regarding stalking laws. It is important to check the applicable laws in your state.  In Ohio, for
example, the requirement is three occurrences are necessary to file a harassing communications complaint. A state-by-
state guide to cyber-stalking laws can also be found here:

www.haltabuse.org/resources/laws/index.shtml

Police have an obligation to investigate cases of cyber stalking. “It is the policy of the US to ensure vigorous enforcement
of federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of a computer”
(47 US Code Ann. Section 230-b-5)

You may also wish to consider suing in civil court for damages. Civil court has a lower burden of proof, plus monetary
repercussions tend to make most people reconsider their position. Consider the recent case Marcell v. Perverted Justice.
com, CV-06-0693 [US Dist Ct New Mex., Aug 3, 2006] (http://www.corrupted-justice.com/article23.html). While even hate
organizations like the KKK have constitutional rights of their own, they have limits on their actions.  Essentially you are free
to hate all you want but you cannot put your hate into action. Typical civil charges may include charges of slander,
defamation of character, harassment, impersonation, libel, and dissemination of personal information. Considering Pee-
J’s recent 501[c] 3 status, now there is at least a physical address should your harasser be one of them.

Keep in mind, however, the likelihood of winning a defamation suit is slim. The schema for defamation is:

  1. False and defamatory statement regarding another
  2. Unprivileged publication of the claim to a third party
  3. Rising, in the case of matters of public concern, to at least negligence by the publisher, or worse,
  4. Damages to the subject (Kelly O' Connell. "Internet Law- Understanding Internet Defamation." IBLS Internet Law,
    www.ibls.com, Oct. 10, 2007)

There have been only a handful of victories regarding Internet defamation:

  • Scheff v. Bock, CACE03022837, 17th Judicial (Broward Co. FL 2007): Woman was awarded $11.3 Million in
    damages, but the case was won by default as defendant failed to appear in court to challenge it
  • Marcell v. Perverted Justice.com, CV-06-0693 [US Dist Ct New Mex., Aug 3, 2006]: Again, won by default


Real Life/ Physical Confrontations

I spent a lot of time on cyber crimes not only because of the complexity of the issue, but also because much of the advice I
described above should apply to harassment in real life as well. If you are being harassed by a neighbor, it is even more
important to take the issue to the police and/or civil court, and be prepared to provide proof-- video, physical evidence, call
logs, etc. Keep in mind that most states place disclaimers on online registries prohibiting using the information obtained
on a public registry to harass or any other illicit activity against the registrant.  In one recent case, a Wisconsin couple was
cited for posting up signs around a sex offender’s home (“Couple cited for posting sex offender signs.” Fond du Lac
Reporter). Recently I politely compelled a local business to take down a flyer of me under threat of legal sanctions. Works
like a charm when dealing with a business.

However, when dealing with an individual citizen, I would advise you NOT to confront that person lest you be perceived as
threatening that person whether that is your intention for not. The best course of action is to contact law enforcement.
Under penalty of law they MUST treat you the same as anyone else with a legitimate complaint.

Law Enforcement and the “Public Duty Doctrine”

Of particular concern with Law Enforcement is a general reluctance to assist with your case based on a sex offender
label. Police officers are usually covered by the “public duty doctrine,” which basically states the police have an obligation
to protect the public rather than any individual. In other words, police have a rather large amount of discretion in deciding
to investigate a complaint. However, there are exceptions to this doctrine which can make police officers civilly
responsible for failing to protect you as a citizen (Karen J. Kruger, “Duty To All- Duty To No One: Examining the Public Duty
Doctrine and Its Exceptions.” The Police Chief, IACP, May 2007, www.policechiefmagazine.org).


  1. “Danger creation exception: a complainant must show that the government’s action or inaction “affirmatively placed
    the plaintiff in a position of danger, that is, where state action creates or exposes an individual to a danger which
    he or she would not have otherwise faced.” Gross negligence does fall under this category.
  2. “Special-Relationship Exception:” a principle of law that allows for suits based on negligent police protection
    where the plaintiff can demonstrate that there existed a special relationship between the injured person and the
    police. Generally, such a relationship will be found “where the government singles out a particular party from the
    general public and affords that person special treatment.” I’m not fond of calling the relationship between RFSOs
    and LE “special,” but it may be worth it in cases of gross negligence by the police.

Conclusion

  1. In most cases, it is best to ignore most Internet trolls and stalkers.
  2. If you cannot resist the urge to converse with them, be very VERY V-E-R-Y!!!!! careful with your words, since twisting
    your words is a typical tactic of such individuals.
  3. Log all instances of harassment of any form for future reference. Use anything-- cameras, cell phones,
    camcorders, whatever you  have handy
  4. Local law enforcement agencies are usually the agency you will have to file a charge with, rather than the FBI.
    HOWEVER, you should also file a complaint with the FBI Cyber-crimes unit at www.ic3.gov.
  5. Also, a civil case against the harasser may be of help as well.
  6. Whatever you do, NEVER confront a harasser on  the street, and get away from that person should (s)he approach
    you on the street.

Information sites on stalking and cyber stalking-- Please note, these are general information sites on the subject and
there is no endorsement nor guarantee of assistance of any kind from of the listed organizations below:

  1. www.ic3.gov: The FBI Cybercrime reporting site. I know it appears mostly like a place for ID theft, but trust me, if you
    call the FBI this is where they send you to file a complaint
  2. www.flayme.com: A general and rather useful information site regarding Internet trolls and stalkers, such as
    characteristics and examples of each
  3. www.corrupted-justice.com: A site run primarily by former members of the controversial “perverted justice (Pee-J),”
    exposing the tactics of “Pee-J” and its affiliates, including the so-called “Wikisposure Project” and “Corporate Sex
    Offenders.” The vast majority of organizations that harass those active in sex offender law reform, such as the
    absolute zeroes group, are either directly linked to Pee-J.
  4. www.wiredsafety.org: An organization devoted to stopping cyber-crimes, and may even offer assistance to LE in
    cyber stalking cases
  5. www.haltabuse.org/resources/laws/index.shtml: This page has a tab allowing you to look up cyber stalking laws
    by state
  6. www.johnru.com/active-whois/trace-email.html: An article teaching you how to find the IP address of those
    annoying harassing emails.
  7. www.rickross.com/groups/perverted_justice.html: The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey is a non-profit
    database of cults, controversial movements, and controversial groups, and offers a wealth of articles on these
    groups. Not surprisingly, Pee-J made the list; above is the link to the Pee-J page from the site.

All quotes from other sites are copyrighted by that site owner, and used by permission. Special thanks to all individuals
and organizations who helped me piece this together in a manner of a couple of weeks.

Please contact me if you have any more information to add here.

Addendum 1: When the Violence Against Women Act was renewed in January 2008, an attachment to the law made
"anonymous" cyberstalking a FEDERAL offense, punishable by up to 2 years in Federal Prison! For more information on
this new provision, read the following article:

Declean McCullagh, "FAQ: The New 'Annoy' Law Explained." CNET News, Jan. 11, 2008

http://www.news.com/FAQ-The-new-annoy-law-explained/2100-1028_3-6025396.html?tag=st.nl

Addendum: Info on Cyberstalking Websites

If you have been harassed by members of Perverted-Justice, Absolute Zero United, Stitches 77, or any of their other
affiliates and need more information on their tactics for litigation against them, or just want to see how insane they are,
simply check out the following websites:





Last Updated July 17, 2008
Copyright (c) 2007-2008 Derek "The Fallen One" Logue
All rights reserved. No part of this website may be used in any way without expressed written consent of the site owner.