Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: December 2016



I happened to check into Twitter a short while ago and saw this tweet:


I hardly know where to begin but I will try. The best place to start is with more handwritten gibberish from a motion Deric Lostutter has filed with the court.


The above statement is rather startling for it mentions the name of someone I am quite familiar with. The person’s name is David Spiggle.


Prior to his contacting me, I had never heard of Mr. Spiggle and had no idea how he had found my name on Facebook. I had assumed that he had found it through the various blogs, twitter posts and other internet postings that had taken place over the years. The long standing dispute between me and Ms. Goddard was well known and thus I was not surprised that he had contacted me.

Right after I responded in the affirmative, Mr.Spiggle went into extensive detail as to why he contacted me. For reasons I will not disclose at the moment, I grew concerned with certain details about Mr. Spiggle and after a protracted conversation between us, I ceased all further contact with him.

awr3According to the above brief by Deric Lostutter, David Spiggle contacted Deric, through his wife’s Facebook account,  shortly after he contacted me and most likely gave the same details to her that he had given me.

Mr Spiggle does not exactly have a clean slate which could be used to impeach any statement or evidence he offers to Deric in regards to Ms Goddard. There may be more on this at a later time.

Getting back to the subject at hand. Deric went on to further state his accusation that Olsen had intimidated and threatened his witness:


I did contact Mr Olsen for his side of the story and his statement is as follows:

“I contacted him asking why he was in contact with Deric and feeding him information on Alex. This was done without any knowledge of him being a witness of Deric or then writing affidavits for him, as Deric never released a witness list. If I’d known I never would have contacted him.”

I would suspect that Deric would have added Mr Spiggle to his witness list prior to Mr Olsen contacting him. Otherwise he could not be considered a witness at the time of contact.

Since I am not a legal expert, I am not certain if my point is correct or not. I leave that up to the reader to decide.

As of this writing, it is not known if the warrant will indeed be issued, or if the Judge will throw out his request.

Stay tuned






If things on the internet are not weird enough, the story of a 5 year old dying in the arms of a volunteer Santa Claus seems to have overshadowed the scrutiny of the antics of President elect Donald Trump.

There are probably many who have seen the segment on CNN or read the story about the account of Eric Schmitt-Matzen.

It was a heart warming good news story that demonstrated there are still some good people out there.

Well, that impression changed rather quickly when someone I follow on Twitter decided to play Scrooge and cast doubt the story was real.


I responded that because an obituary did not appear in a newspaper, that did not necessarily mean the story is a hoax.

Immediately after my reply to Mr. Ziegler, I went and did a Google search of the story and found that and others had weighed in on the story and had come to the conclusion that it was disproven.

To me that did not mean the story had been proven to be a hoax but it had not been proven either. Imagine my surprise when Mr Ziegler replied with this tweet:


I marveled at the fact that Mr Ziegler happened to use the same fact checking method I generally use when checking out things like this.

What really got my attention was what he posted next:



With all of the things of more importance going on in the world, this guy spends HOURS trying to prove or disprove the story of a kid dying in the arms of Santa Claus?

I had to shake my head in wonder over the fact that this brief viral story became more important than, say, the possibility of Russia tampering with our election process to such a degree that the wrong person may have been elected President.

To me it is not as important to prove or disprove this Santa story as it is to get to the bottom of who gave the emails to Wikileaks and to answer the question once and for all, “Did a foreign power unduly influence our election process?”


I had forgotten about the connection between Deric Lostutter and the kidnapping of Heather Elvis, an attractive 20 year old woman who disappeared three years ago this month.


Two people, Sidney Moorer and his wife, Tammy Moorer were arrested and charged with six counts including kidnapping, obstruction of justice and indecent exposure.


Based on current information Heather Elvis has not been found. Her fate remains a mystery. There is a Facebook website set up to post current information about Heather and appeals are being made for information that may help find her or at least find out what happened to her and why.

There is also a Twitter account set up for the same purpose:


   So, what is Deric’s connection to this case? According to a source “Those who support the accused murderers, the Moorers, hired him to harass individuals that support the Elvis family and to hack into their account and Facebook groups. Was also hired to find out the identity of somebody going by the name of The Farmer. Took off from there.”

One of the things Deric did was to start writing articles on his blog that were clearly biased against those who felt the Moorer’s were guilty and needed to be prosecuted for their alleged crimes:

“Terry Elvis and his wife seem compassionate about the search for their missing daughter.

His ex-wife, Karen, tells a different story.

She claims that not only does Terry have a grown daughter named Alyssa he has had zero interaction with, he actually set their house on fire with her inside.

She paints a picture of a violent, and unstable man, full of rage and unpredictable.

His supporters?

A ragtag group of miscreants who call themselves “Moorer Case Discussion“, named after the accused, Sidney and Tammy Moorer.

I was hired to investigate this group for harassing my clients, threatening their lives, and even posting pedophilia style pictures of their children, pictures that I would not dare share here less further harm the minors.”

There has been an ongoing discussion on Twitter and elsewhere regarding the fact that Deric is not licensed nor is he qualified to be a private detective in the State of South Carolina or anywhere else, for that matter.

When this debate came to light, I did some research regarding this issue and wrote what I found out:

I came to the conclusion that Deric was neither properly licensed nor was he qualified to be a private detective for hire.

It is unknown at this time, weather or not Deric is still offering his services as a private detective or if he has any current clients.

In a similar article, Deric took issue with the involvement of Alexandra Goddard with the MCD group:


“Alexandria Goddard, a defendant in a cyber-stalking case in North Carolina wherein I am the plaintiff, has decided to take her stalking a step further, and inject herself in a case to which she has never spoken on before.

This case involves a missing woman, Heather Elvis, from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

I covered this as an investigative Journalist via and even touched on the evidence that could implicate her own father in her disappearance. Recently, the accused murderers, (even though no body has ever been recovered to prove she is indeed dead), have had their charges dropped.”

Deric has, in fact, filed a civil lawsuit against Ms. Goddard and a number of other individuals who have criticized his actions and his involvement in high profile cases such as the Heather Elvis case.

He is currently seeking One million dollars in damages as well as the ownership of website as well as the blog and forum that is found on that website.

In yet another article related to the Heather Elvis case, Deric accuses a news article consolidation Facebook page of being under the control of “A Heather Elvis lynch mob.”


He writes once again making accusations against the MCD discussion group:

“Moorer Case Discussion is a group that targets children, even Photoshopping male genitalia over the faces of the supporters of Sidney and Tammy Moorer.

Photoshopping isn’t their strong suit.

However, it is a tactic they resort to, to harass and incite those who question the motives and goings on of the Heather Elvis case.”

Some of the comments that appear at the Horry Facebook may be the reason Deric has some issues:

“Maybe the self proclaimed PI as he likes to call himself should have gone to the defense with his info. Someone doesnt have one and could sure use one 😂😂😂”

Bye, hacker boy.

“Deric Lostutter I feel as if I should get some tights with that name. Is it supposed to be insulting?

Do you have a cape? Go with teal color, lol.”

“Dude, you do an OPINION BLOG, awful at that. LMAO at claims LE will use it, LSHMSFO ON”INVESTIGATIONS” Laughing all the way to California at you…. HAHAHAHA

The truth about Deric Lostutter”/blog/”

Well Deric Lostutter, I just saw the new sharticle you have written by twisting people’s words. Now where is the one you promised about recorded phone calls with the founder of CUE?

“Deric Lostutter, would you care to talk about the court cases that are pending against you?

It is clear that the visitors to that Facebook page are clearly biased against Deric.

It seems clear that a number of people took issue with Deric’s involvement with the case. I have yet to find any website or individual who has supported Deric against this criticism including the Moors themselves.

Stay tuned





dleDeric Lostutter has been angry for quite a long time. The basis for Deric Lostutter’s anger can be directed at one source, the website:

This website was started just short of a year ago by several critical of Mr. Lostutter’s actions since 2013. The primary problem with the group of critics is Mr. Lostutter’s continued seeking of donations for any number of reasons. The first article in the blog makes their criticism quite clear:

Deric Lostutter 16 comments

Deric Lostutter is a professional grifter.  We have compiled a timeline of his begging going back to 2013.  Deric has requested donations for cat scabies, DJ equipment, dog food, vet bills, court fines, a meditation room in his home, and currently is seeking $20,000 in donations for civil suits he wants to file on Twitter users for hurting his feelings.”

Since that first article there have been a barrage of criticism of Mr. Lostutter ranging from his donation efforts to the latest article claiming that Mr. Lostutter has been accused of at least 5 incidents of rape:

“We received information on somebody from Deric Lostutter’s highschool days being raped by Deric Lostutter. This would be the 5th rape accusation we have received against Deric Lostutter so far. Fyi, just because somebody hasn’t been charged with rape doesn’t mean they are not a rapist. Cases around the country prove this. The hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits across the country prove this.”

What is astonishing about the above article is the fact that Mr. Lostutter became involved in the Big Red Rape case because of his stated position of being against rape. He even went as far as to label anyone who cited points of view differing from his as “rape apologists.”

In addition to the rape article, there has been a claim that Mr. Lostutter defaulted on an agreement with the former owner of a business he purchased:

The article reads in part:

“For a couple of months now we’ve been in contact with the owner of Deric Lostutter’s old storefront. You know, the one that rented it to Deric Lostutter. Well, there was a stipulation written into this deal that Deric Lostutter broke.

Deric Lostutter would have the storefront rent free until January 2016. He posted a video to Facebook on 11 December 2015 stating that “trolls shut down his business.” The truth of the matter is that Deric Lostutter left the storefront so he wouldn’t have to start paying rent.”

The gist of the article is that they are accusing Mr. Lostutter of breech of contract. According to sources associated with the website, the former owner of the business is taking legal action against Mr. Lostutter.

Another recent article takes issue with the way Mr. Lostutter is using the court system to fight his critics.

“Deric Lostutter’s $1 million lawsuit spits in the face of the Constitution. Let me tell you why…

He demands information pertaining to this website in recent discovery documentation. This includes email addresses, usernames and passwords, names of administrators, ip logs of those that visited the admin section, ip addresses of website cpanel access, ip logs of all comments, email addresses of all comments, ip logs of all visitors, etc… Basically any and all information on everyone that posts on or visits this website. This is so he can not only sue the 3 listed below, but everyone else. In the process intimidating and harassing anyone and everyone that speaks ill about him. That is stomping in the face of 1st Amendment protected free speech.”

It must be noted at this point the amount in damages that Mr. Lostutter is seeking in his lawsuit. It has jumped to One million dollars from the original amount of One hundred eighty thousand dollars.

The reason is that the lawsuit cited in the article above is a second one that Mr. Lostutter filed after he withdrew the original one.

Mr. Lostutter has chosen to file his latest action in federal court. His original action was filed in state court.

There has been a motion filed by the defendants in the lawsuit to have it dismissed. As of yet, I have not heard of a decision on that motion.

In the meantime, the dispute between Mr. Lostutter and his critics continue with apparently no end in sight.

Stay tuned




admissionThe Deric Lostutter saga continues with the revelation that he has filed yet more paperwork with the federal court. This time he is targeting Thomas Norman Olsen of Northwest Florida.

He is demanding that Mr. Olsen admit to a number of charges outlined in his civil lawsuit against Mr. Olsen, Ms. Goddard and Ms. McKee.

Two examples of the admissions he seeks:

That Mr. Olsen learned of Deric’s association with anonymous.

That Mr. Olsen witnessed or had knowledge of Mr. Lostutter speaking at a function called “614com.”

In total there are 50 admission demands against Mr. Olsen by Mr. Lostutter.

That is a hell of a lot of admissions.

I have been following court cases for more than a decade and have never seen anything quite like this. Mr. Lostutter apparently has been doing a lot of “research” in the free time he apparently has while awaiting sentencing in March of next year for “admitting” to two of the Federal charges against him.

He is citing Chapter 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as the basis for his demands.

It reads in part:

“Rule 36. Requests for Admission

(a) Scope and Procedure.(1) Scope. A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and(B) the genuineness of any described documents.(2) Form; Copy of a Document. Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.”

It must be understood that Mr. Lostutter is representing himself in this matter. He is not retaining an atty as is the case with his Criminal trial. It is for this reason that I find it remarkable that Mr. Lostutter is able to find such detailed information regarding the process of pursuing civil lawsuits in Federal court.

Apparently he seems determined to move forward with his civil action in spite of the fact that what has been said and written about him by the defendants in his civil lawsuit has been proven to be the truth.

Mr. Lostutter’s complaints can be traced to one particular website known as: website first appeared in January of 2016 after a number of former associates, including those who are defendants in his civil lawsuit, became upset at his repeated requests for donations for everything from his Defense expenses incurred in his Criminal case to his claim of having contracted Cat Scabies.

Since the first article on Deric’s seeking of donations, the website author(s) have detailed various actions by Mr. Lostutter that they have taken issue with over the past year or more. Mr Lostutter, as a result, got mad and decided to sue.

I have a personal experience when it comes to these kinds of blogs so I can understand Mr. Lostutter’s beef to a point. The problem for Mr. Lostutter, however, is that this is protected free speech. Mr Lostutter is a public figure which puts him in a different category than a member of the general public. He is more accountable for his actions and he is also more accountable to the public. Those who choose to write about their take on his actions are afforded more rights under the law than would be the case with someone who is not a public figure.

Mr. Lostutter must also prove that what is being written about him is not true. The problem is that there is a great deal of proof that can be provided through court filings, public records and Mr. Lostutter’s own words and actions.

Now, Mr. Olsen can choose not to respond to Mr. Lostutter’s demands. By not responding, Mr. Olsen may be cited with the admissions by default, or he has the option of answering Mr. Lostutter’s demands by denying them:

(3) Time to Respond; Effect of Not Responding. A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney. A shorter or longer time for responding may be stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.

(4) Answer. If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest. The answering party may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.”

At this juncture, it is not clear what action Mr. Olsen will take in response to the demands for admission by Mr. Lostutter. Early indications were that he was going to simply ignore the requests which might not be the best course of actions based in what I have read so far.

Mr. Olsen may well have to respond to the requests in order to protect his rights as a defendant protecting himself against Mr.Lostutter’s accusations.

Stay tuned





A well known critic of Deric Lostutter has sent a letter to his probation officer stating his position regarding violations on Deric’s probation conditions.

If the probation officer sides with what has been written, Deric may be remanded to prison until he appears in court in March of 2017.

The letter reads as follows:

Mr.  George:

I am writing this on behalf of any and all individuals who have posted anonymous comments on Alexandria Goddard’s blog and on the website. To recap., Mr. Lostutter was instructed he must refrain from harassing other people as part of the terms of his probation which allows him to remain free until his sentencing on March 8, 2017.

Mr. Lostutter has violated that probation term by requesting Alexandria Goddard and whoever is/are the administrator(s) of to turn over all IP addresses associated with any and all comments by anonymous individuals on their respective blogs.

Mr. Lostutter is attempting to unmask anonymous commenters who are not a party to his lawsuit for no other purpose than to harass them. Such actions are prohibited by the terms of his probation. Mr. Lostutter was already warned previously by this probation office not to harass others or threaten to add them to his defamation lawsuit. As seen in <Exhibit A>, Mr. Lostutter demonstrates he intends to harass others who are not a party to his lawsuit as he states he will be asking for IPs from each respective blog as well as private emails, private messages, and information about private phone calls.

Mr. Lostutter filed a pleading for preservation of evidence <Exhibit A> stating he would be seeking IP addresses of anonymous commenters and other communications with non-parties to his lawsuit after he attempted to extort Alexandria Goddard with a settlement offer in which he stated he would not pursue anonymous commenters if Ms. Goddard would meet his settlement terms. In other words, Mr. Lostutter is attempting to extort Ms. Goddard into caving to his terms by threatening to unmask her supporters. The relevant section of this extortionate settlement is attached as <Exhibit B>. I believe Ms. Goddard may have already forwarded a copy of the entire pleading to this office.

Mr. Lostutter has failed to meet even the barest minimum legal standard required to unmask anonymous commenters. He has submitted no Prima Facia case <as required by law> showing that any anonymous commenter has in fact defamed him, or by direct association caused any damages for which he can state a claim for which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Even more troubling, Mr. Lostutter is filing pleadings in his bogus defamation case insisting these blog owners produce confidential information to which he is not entitled on a matter in which the court has not yet ruled.

The established law specifically states that the plaintiff <Mr. Lostutter> must: <1> give reasonable (legally acceptable service) notice to the anonymous speaker(s); <2> allege with specificity the speech or conduct that has allegedly violated his rights; <3> show that the alleged speech or conduct gives rise to a viable cause of action (whereby he is entitled to relief); and <4> produce evidence supporting each element of his claim <proof of defamation and proof of directly related damages>.

Mr. Lostutter has not met any of the four aforementioned requirements, not even partially. Therefore any and all requests produce evidence related to anonymous third party commenters who are not a party to Mr. Lostutter’s lawsuit are in fact a violation of Mr. Lostutter’s probation terms. It is a violation in that Mr. Lostutter is attempting to leverage his baseless civil lawsuit in a blatant attempt to skirt the courts rules and established constitutional law to unmask anonymous commenters who have done nothing but engage in publicly sharing their constitutionally protected opinions of Mr. Lostutter.

Furthermore, Mr. Lostutter’s sole purpose of targeting anonymous commenters is so that he can menace and harass them once unmasked. Whether Mr. Lostutter approves of what is posted about him publicly online is irrelevant, the anonymous commenters he is seeking to unmask have engaged in constitutionally protected speech. In each and every prior situation where Mr. Lostutter has identified someone critical of him, he has threatened and harassed that individual, up to and including filing baseless lawsuits in a pro-se capacity, forcing the individual(s) he is harassing to spend money to defend themselves in court. Such actions are considered by the court system to be vexatious in that they have no merit and are for the sole purpose of harassing the opposing party. There is no reason to believe Mr. Lostutter’s motive in unmasking the anonymous commenters on these two blogs is any different based on his long established history of harassing and threatening his critics.

I ask that your office intervene and put a stop to Mr. Lostutters willful abuse of his probation terms. I ask that you force Mr. Lostutter to strike his motions seeking to identify anonymous commenters or otherwise determine that he has violated the terms of his parole and place him in jail until sentencing in order to protect innocent parties from his ongoing harassment.  Mr. Lostutter should be focusing his attentions on his upcoming sentencing and making plans for taking care of his family after he goes to jail, not trying to track down and harass people who have done nothing but express their constitutionally protected opinions.

Deric may be getting the court’s version of coal for Christmas. Time will tell.

Stay tuned



When Henry Ford was making his famed Model T ford, he had a problem. They were too expensive to make making it hard for his customers to buy them.


At that time the wages for workers in his plant was $2.25 per day which was a good rate at the time. The problem is that even at that wage level, Ford was unable to retain workers at his factories and his turnover rate was high as workers would leave for easier jobs for the same or near the same wages.


Turnover in a business is expensive. Employees have to be trained to do their jobs in most cases. This means that productivity is going to be lower than a fully trained worker and there is also the costs associated with hiring the workers such as advertising for the jobs, interviewing applicants and so forth.

The process today is far more expensive and time consuming than it was in Ford’s day but it was still costly for him. Because of these expenses, he could not price his cars low enough for the average person to be able to afford it.


Ford came up with a novel way of solving this problem. He doubled the daily wage to $5.oo per day plus bonuses. Along with some of the reforms he was making with mass production, this became an incentive for workers to stay with Ford.

The average Ford car at that time was $450.00. With the advent of credit reforms that allowed a buyer to pay for a car over time and these new wages, thousands of people could now afford to buy his cars.

It was not long before other large companies were forced to raise their wages in order to compete with Ford. That and mass production led to the industrial revolution that has resulted in the way we live our lives today.

That lesson seems to have been lost among the business community which has gotten into the habit of paying low wages and putting up with the resulting turnover as workers get frustrated and go where they can make the most amount of money for the least amount of work.

A growing number of workers find it is worth more to simply not to work and drop out of the labor market all together.

The business community needs to learn from the past and learn new ways to decrease turnover and find ways to eliminate worker frustrations with their jobs.

Increasing wages is one important step. The reason is simple, the more a person makes, the more they can afford to buy. The more a person makes, the more he can eat. He can afford a better place to live. He can have more discretionary income to spend on things he may not need but may still enjoy.

Rather than coming up with ways to make the most profit by paying the least amount in wages, businesses should be finding ways to make the most profit while looking for ways to pay the highest wages as well.

With the price of automobiles going into the tens of thousands of dollars, fewer and fewer people can afford to own one. This trend is also present when one wants to own a home.

These are the two most important and common products that are the goals of most of the working class. Unless the business sector understands this and does something that would allow more people to buy more cars and houses, this economy will collapse.

It is time to learn the lesson of history. It is time to learn the lesson of Henry Ford.

Stay tuned


pres1Once again, I find myself inducing eyestrain by trying to discern yet another filing Deric has made in his ongoing civil dispute with his critics. For some strange reason, he refuses to invest in a typewriter or printer.


This time around, Deric has filed a request with the court to require that the defendants in his case preserve all their records both on and off the internet that involve any mention made about him to anyone.

Let me go through this filing to see exactly what it is he is demanding.

The introduction is rather broad in that it is demanding that virtually everything the defendants have done through any form of electronic and non electronic communications be preserved.

Take, for instance, the sentence, “Digital and physical records..” One would gather from reading it, that Deric is demanding even paper records of personal phone and utility (cable or internet access) invoices be preserved. This could amount to a great deal of man (and woman) hours spent on sorting through what is covered and not covered under the preservation order.

There are also legal and constitutional issues that arise from such an order but more on that later.


In the next screenshot, Deric defines on who has to preserve their records. Again the requirement is rather broad. It would appear that a lot of people will be getting notices having to do with Deric’s request if granted by the court.


This is the first of a number of mentions of what exactly is covered, device wise, under Deric’s preservation requests. Considering the number of people included in his request, that is a hell of a lot of material.


If the preservation of device content was not enough, Deric demands that virtually all of the social media activities of the subjects of the orders be preserved as well. Again this covers a wide range of social media accounts ranging from Facebook to a multitude of image and other multimedia websites the subjects may be involved with.


Deric is also demanding that comments of subscribers to various blogs and forums be preserved along with any identifying information as to who those commenters may be. This appears to be an attempt to identify those individuals for further litigation purposes.


Deric is leaving nothing to chance by including, phone calls, faxed documents, Wordprocessed documents and as if to make sure nothing is left out “any and all digital communications data.”


Deric, at this point, seems to want to school the subjects as to the rules of legal procedure when it applies to E.S.I:


While Deric has set Feb, 1, 2015 as a center point date in his demands, he seems to be leaving an opening for preservation of records prior of that date as well.


Deric wants to be certain that the records are not moved or destroyed.


In this next chapter, Deric seems to be warning the subjects that they should no longer use their cellphones and other devices where the existing records may be stored. This might create a problem for people who use these devices for ongoing personal and business purposes. pres12

Deric does not want any evidence destroyed. Obvious request.





The last paragraph makes it clear that Deric would seek punishment from the court should any “evidence” be deleted and destroyed.





The question one has to ask is, will the court grant his request?

One would think the answer would be an automatic NO, but it might not be as simple as that.

There are areas in his filing that just might be granted and other areas that may be rejected by the court. I will try and get into the specifics in a later article.


One thing remains clear. Deric is not being deterred by the fact that he may be on the way to jail next year. With a December 20th, 2017 court date looming, it is clear he intends to make the most of the time he has left.

Stay tuned



As if to prove my point, on the very day I wrote about the fake #pizzagate debacle, Tim Holmseth, the blogger I discussed in the article, linked a youtube video on the subject on his Twitter account.


Mr. Holmseth did not bother to inform the public that this is a fake news story. The reason is simple. Tim believes the story because he is obsessed with conspiracy theories about missing children.

Ever since he started “investigating” the Haleigh Cummings case, he has come up with increasingly outlandish reasons why the child vanished and in the process, defamed innocent victims by naming them as accomplices in the various criminal actions he theorized had something to do with what happened to her.

Under normal circumstances, people like Tim Holmseth would be ignored as out of this world fringe lunatics. These times are not normal, however.


Because of the strong political divisions in this country, any wacko fake news story is picked up and shared by those who are biased against the subject of the fake news story. The stories get shared with no consideration for the truth.

The net result is that people with no self control take it upon themselves to react to these stories in dangerous ways.


#pizzagate is a prime example. A man takes a gun into a pizza parlor and shoots it into the air because someone like Tim Holmseth writes a completely bogus story about a child trafficking ring.

Creating these fake news stories is akin to shouting FIRE!! in a movie theater and it is time to put a stop to it.

Stay tuned



The so called “fake news” movement is nothing new. This sort of thing has been going on for years, as far back as two or three decades on social media.


There are many examples but one that is most interesting is a multiple platform website run by a self proclaimed journalist out of the state of Minnesota.


He has made claim after claim of human trafficking and pedophile rings run by local state and federal officials for years. He has made outrageous and unproven accusations against a prominent Florida lawyer and a well known internet personality that has landed him into the courts on more that one occasion.

He and many like him write these stories without any proof to back up their accusations. In cases where there is so called proof, that proof turns out to either be completely made up or the author is unable to provide the source of the alleged proof used in their blogs.

The net result is that there are scores of blogs all over the internet that contain outright lies about people and there is no way to get rid of these blogs without a protracted legal battle to get them removed.

The problem, however is twofold. First by the time the articles are removed, the damage to the innocent victims has already been done and is beyond repair. Jobs are lost, reputations are destroyed and lives are shattered.

The second problem is that far to often, the website providers will resist the removal of the material citing first amendment grounds. It is legal to lie as long as the lies are done in “good faith.” or that it is a “civil matter” is the common argument from  WordPress, Blogger etc. When demands are made to police these kinds of social media sites.


Another example of a fake news site is one where the author hides behind the guise of satire or parody.

The author uses this excuse to perpetuate lie after lie with the disclaimer that she is “just kidding.” and that nobody should take her seriously.

The problem with that author is that she abused the format and not only published highly private and personal information about the targets of her abuse, but was alleged to have created scores of sock accounts pitting various individuals against each other using the same unproven propaganda sources found on other abusive blogs and websites.


That blogger was soon exposed and is now shunned. Many of us now recognize how easy it is to spread false narratives and how easy it is to be believed when we allow our biases to cloud our common sense and better judgement.

Now it is the general public that needs to learn that lesson when it comes to fighting the trend of fake news reaching a national and international level.

Stay tuned