[This article is written by Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Rebecca, Ruth, Marcia, Betty, Cedric, Wally, Mike, Elaine and Kat.]
Remove the damage done to C.I. kids by Gutter Trash's posting (and set aside the feelings of Jim, Dona, Jess, Rebecca, Mike and C.I.) for a second and look at the rest of what she Gutter Trash did last week.
A judge would wonder, "She found this upsetting? She really found this so upsetting that you broke the law?" A jugde might recommend she get an evaluation to determine her mental health.
Those e-mails from Jess, Dona and Jim are not threatening. Those e-mails do not express violence. The most Gutter Trash can argue is that they disagreed with her. Disagreeing with her sends her into rages? Again, a judge might recommend she receive an evaluation and might also sentence her to counseling.
The judge would also point out the very obvious fact that if she found Jess' e-mail so upsetting, why did she continue e-mailing?
She broke the law by posting Jess' e-mail and it apparently brought her no satisfaction. She continued e-mailing and she never notified that she was posting those e-mails.
That's where, if e-mails fall under the regulations for telephone calls and not letters, she is in serious trouble because her actions would be the equivalent of taping a conversation without informing the other party they were being taped.
Did we all miss something and she's actually part of the police force or a federal agency? We're having a hard time believing she got a warrant for that sort of behavior.
Most likely her boring, little life got too much for her so she decided she needed some self-created drama. That's how it plays on the outside. Her comments she posted to her own entries express very clear malice. That's not good for her either.
The judge would wonder, "All of this because someone didn't rush to praise you?"
Read the e-mails.
Don't read them with all the vective she has surrounding them. Just isolate the e-mails, without her interpretations. She broke the law. But if you just read the e-mails themselves, you'll wonder what had her so outraged to begin with. Someone doesn't like her? Was this the first time someone didn't like her in her entire life? Someone didn't want her to e-mail?
On that point, a judge would ask her why she continued e-mailing when she was told not to?
A judge would say, "You were informed that they didn't have time for your e-mails but you wrote how many times before Dona responded? And then, after you posted her response, you continued to e-mail. Ma'am, could you explain to me what you were thinking when you were doing that?"
Because clearly, if you don't like an e-mail response, if it so upsetting to you that you break the law, you don't keep e-mailing.
Clearly, if you're as outraged as you say, you don't keep e-mailing. You say, "Well screw them." And you get on with your life. (Of course, there is the possibility that Gutter Trash has no life to get on with.)
If you look at the difference in comments from when she first posted Jess' e-mail to when she posted Dona's, you see a serious decline in the quality of comments and that those who were exploring the issue (in agreement with her or opposed to her) disappear. You're left with only her tiny cheering section. Why do you think that happened?
We know she refused to allow Rebecca's comment (Gutter Trash moderates comment) up at her site and possibly she received many complaints (we know she received some from the e-mails that have come in to all sites). But equally true may be that those willing to explore the issue of whether she was right or wrong with regards to posting Jess' e-mail (she was wrong) no longer felt it was worth it to even bother with her site anymore because there was no longer even her pretense of being torn about posting.
She posts the first e-mail (from Jess) and plays injured party. Then it's time for Dona, then it's time for Jess. From the outside, it becomes a question of, "Why did you keep e-mailing them?" Even with all her lies, it's very clear that each e-mail she posts is in response to what she's been sending out.
She wasn't harassed. No one (that includes Rebecca and Mike in 2007) ever initiated contact with her. If she's truly so outraged and insulted why does she keep e-mailing?
And what lunatic excuse does she make for herself for posting Mike's e-mail (from 2007!) at her site without his permission?
There is no excuse.
When the cat's finally out of the bag about what she did, she proposes the novel defense of 'I have an evil twin.'
That may just be the voices in her head or possibly her sock puppets.
She is asked to take it down and she refuses to do so.
She plays injured party even after she is aware of how much pain and suffering she has inflicted.
She treats it all as a joke at her site.
Even after she can't claim to be unaware of what her actions caused.
Sociopath is the term that should be applied here for how Gutter Trash comes off looking.
The 'organization' depends upon confidientiality when exchanging e-mails with anyone in the US. If the 'organization' can't guarantee that, they aren't a great deal of help in their single issue.
But the 'organization' has expressed no concerns or remorse that their representative is posting private e-mails without permission that were sent to their representative in her role as their representative.
One of the people they 'help' became 'concerned' on Saturday. He had joined in on the trashing. He has trashed on Saturday. He has blogged at his own site on Sunday. He should have been concerned the second private e-mails went up if he gives a damn about his organization.
For the 'organization,' that's where the damage starts.
It certainly doesn't help that they're not involved in attacking a woman with cancer. It certainly doesn't look good that, even after being requested to take down the posts, they haven't.
What it looks like is the 'organization' refuses to take any responsibility.
Not surprising when they allow complaints on this to be 'handled' by Gutter Trash's boyfriend.
No, that doesn't look 'good' or 'professional' either.
Nor do his responses attacking people who e-mail the 'organization' to complain about what Gutter Trash has done.
The 'organization' depends upon making a plea for sympathy and justice.
Their actions last week (which are still ongoing) are likely to create a backlash against them.
That's THEIR actions.
We didn't create this problem. They did.
And no judge will see it any different.
Of Gutter Trash, the question he will ask himself is, "Even after she knew the harm her postings had caused, even after she knew the woman had cancer, she refused to take her posts down? She broke the law, she created a scandal for the 'organization' and none of that bothered her?"