# I'm finding it hard to sympathize with her



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

I wholeheartedly sympathize with her husband and child. They're innocent victims in all this. She, however, isn't she just reaping what she has sown?



https://www.wired.com/story/how-one-womans-digital-life-was-weaponized-against-her/


----------



## toblerone (Oct 18, 2016)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I wholeheartedly sympathize with her husband and child. They're innocent victims in all this. She, however, isn't she just reaping what she has sown?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.wired.com/story/how-one-womans-digital-life-was-weaponized-against-her/


No.


----------



## BobSimmons (Mar 2, 2013)

No. 

She cheated, the husband deals with it as he sees fit. The OM is a clown and psycho and very beta male. 

A keyboard warrior is in the truest sense.


----------



## SentHereForAReason (Oct 25, 2017)

Holy cow that was a long read ... I'm not sure I sympathize with anyone except for myself after that novel lol


----------



## badmemory (Jul 31, 2012)

That should be required reading for any spouse who gets caught having an on-line affair. You never know when you're dealing with a bunny boiler.


----------



## Windwalker (Mar 19, 2014)

Husband is a smuck and should have dumped her unrepentant ass a long time ago. No one is worth what he went through.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I wholeheartedly sympathize with her husband and child. They're innocent victims in all this. She, however, isn't she just reaping what she has sown?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.wired.com/story/how-one-womans-digital-life-was-weaponized-against-her/


This is just another in a long line of examples of why cheaters are not worth it.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

stillfightingforus said:


> Holy cow that was a long read ... I'm not sure I sympathize with anyone except for myself after that novel lol


Me, too!


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Luckily, this is not me.
If it were:

I am afraid.
I am positive.

Without a doubt.
Someone would, well, have to......

Expire.

Not the wife. She would be flat ass gone out of my life.

I had to choose my word, this word, carefully.


----------



## RonP (Dec 6, 2017)

Man that was a long read and a tangled web.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

She did a stupid thing, but what they all suffered afterwards was awful. What a nightmare.


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn (Feb 21, 2013)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I wholeheartedly sympathize with her husband and child. They're innocent victims in all this. She, however, isn't she just reaping what she has sown?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.wired.com/story/how-one-womans-digital-life-was-weaponized-against-her/


Internet bullying has led to suicides. It' is real and painfully keeps happening. The smart jury agreed that he is a bully, a tormenting sadist and ruled accordingly. Her cheating is an issue between her and her husband, close fiends, family etc. She did not deserve to be harassed over it on the internet to the point where she considered taking her own life as others who have been bullied over the internet sadly keep doing.

So no. What happened to her and her family is not reaping what she sowed. He should be in prison for what he did. She does not.


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

I don’t know why the husband stayed with her ... she’s a pig. I would have dumped her, took the kid and disappeared.

She kinda got what she deserved, expect that she didn’t deserve to keep her husband.


----------



## TAMAT (Jun 20, 2015)

Well the exposure certainly hit the mark good work, and his WW or the OM had no reason to expect to keep her reputation any more than a bank robber can demand anonymity. 

Cheaters take a huge toll on society and exposure and consequences should be more common as they silently attack families which are the basis of a countries stability. 

Tamat


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

If you want to waste some more time, this is the blog the blog of the OM.

https://civilcourtvictimstoddzonis.wordpress.com/


----------



## The Middleman (Apr 30, 2012)

Rubix Cubed said:


> If you want to waste some more time, this is the blog the blog of the OM.
> 
> https://civilcourtvictimstoddzonis.wordpress.com/


I read some of that, he’s playing the poor victim. The videos he posted of her are pretty easy to find.


----------



## Jus260 (Mar 24, 2016)

badmemory said:


> That should be required reading for any spouse who gets caught having an on-line affair. You never know when you're dealing with a bunny boiler.


This is way beyond bunny boiling.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Rubix Cubed said:


> If you want to waste some more time, this is the blog the blog of the OM.
> 
> https://civilcourtvictimstoddzonis.wordpress.com/


An evil genius, this man.
A most dangerous foe.


----------



## Satya (Jun 22, 2012)

I suppose the husband realized that whether with her or apart from her, his reputation was in the toilet from the beginning anyway, so may as well stay in the dysfunction for the sake of seeing if the lawyers could help bring anything gold to the table.

Personally, I'd have changed identities and moved far, far away from her.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

TAMAT said:


> Well the exposure certainly hit the mark good work, and his WW or the OM had no reason to expect to keep her reputation any more than a bank robber can demand anonymity.
> 
> Cheaters take a huge toll on society and exposure and consequences should be more common as they silently attack families which are the basis of a countries stability.
> 
> Tamat


The one area where I totally agree with Dr. Harley is exposure. I'm in the divorce business and exposure always puts the BS in the best position possible during a divorce. The WS rarely comes out ahead during divorce when the whole world knows why. We even depose the AP when we know who they are. Some cheaters don't realize they can be subpoenaed into family court during their AP's divorce proceedings. A lot of people wrongly think you can't be compelled to appear in civil proceedings. On the contrary, it's easier to haul you before a family judge against your will than it is to haul you into criminal court when no charges have been filed against you.


----------



## RonP (Dec 6, 2017)

VermiciousKnid said:


> The one area where I totally agree with Dr. Harley is exposure. I'm in the divorce business and exposure always puts the BS in the best position possible during a divorce. The WS rarely comes out ahead during divorce when the whole world knows why. We even depose the AP when we know who they are. Some cheaters don't realize they can be subpoenaed into family court during their AP's divorce proceedings. A lot of people wrongly think you can't be compelled to appear in civil proceedings. On the contrary, it's easier to haul you before a family judge against your will than it is to haul you into criminal court when no charges have been filed against you.


Wow, I didn't appreciate that a subpoena was valid in civil proceedings.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

RonP said:


> Wow, I didn't appreciate that a subpoena was valid in civil proceedings.


It's still a court order and much to some people's chagrin when they find out, is very valid and easier to compel testimony than criminal court. The 5th amendment only protects you from government prosecutors during criminal proceedings. Since civil court does not involve prosecution, you have no 5th amendment rights to refuse testimony. That's why OJ Simpson got toasted in his civil trial. He had to take the stand whereas in his criminal case he didn't have to, and didn't.

Where it comes to the benefit of a BS during divorce is that once WS's and their AP's are advised this can, and probably will, happen, they then become very open to any settlement the BS offers. Dragging everything into the light of day, and making it public record, is the last thing they want so they'll usually give up everything, even the kids, to make sure that doesn't happen. When I read posters here, and other boards like this, say that "infidelity doesn't matter during divorce" I always chuckle. It only doesn't matter if your lawyer sucks or you (the BS) doesn't want to drag any of it into the light of day for whatever reason.


----------



## Chaparral (Jul 17, 2011)

Anyone can sue the affair partner for intentional infliction of duress.
Only a few states allow alienation of affection. I wish more people would make the AP pay.
Negative reinforcement works.


----------



## ABHale (Jan 3, 2016)

Husband should have left in the beginning.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Rubix Cubed said:


> If you want to waste some more time, this is the blog the blog of the OM.
> 
> https://civilcourtvictimstoddzonis.wordpress.com/


He seems normal. :surprise:

This seems a classic case of -

Lie down with the dogs. (Benjamin Franklin by the way)


----------



## RonP (Dec 6, 2017)

ABHale said:


> Husband should have left in the beginning.


Hindsight is always 20-20 but I do tend to agree.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Courtney is a pathetic cyber ho but she didn't deserve a crime to be committed against her.

She got involved with a pathetic piece of trash who screws around in an underpoliced environment.

This nobody just needs to be disappeared.

I would have ditched the idiot wife but as soon as the OM cyber attacked my kid......... Well, lets just say there are things you can only do once.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

VermiciousKnid said:


> I wholeheartedly sympathize with her husband and child. They're innocent victims in all this. She, however, isn't she just reaping what she has sown?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.wired.com/story/how-one-womans-digital-life-was-weaponized-against-her/


No. And you are give the Zonis' of the world an accidental free pass for their bad behaviour.


----------



## RonP (Dec 6, 2017)

MattMatt said:


> No. And you are give the Zonis' of the world an accidental free pass for their bad behaviour.


To be honest, I couldn't read the whole thing as I'd already made up my mind by the second paragraph that the author was a fruit loop.


----------



## John H (Dec 10, 2017)

I read the blog, which wasnt easy to do. I do agree that exposure is OK, if it is true. In the transcripts, the Judge changed her mind (if I read it correctly) and had stated that the exposure as suggested by Dr. Harley was not true. If, and that is a big if, the exposure did damage, and the things said in it were not true, then this wack job has a case.
I live in the same state as this crack pot and I am a paralegal, and it may not be right, but he is also correct that what was done to him is against the law in our state, and the warrant for the BS's arrest does show that to be true. I am not taking sides, but to read things objectively, this guy was defending his family, and should have at least been heard. 
This whole thing is a travesty, and no one wins. But it is also true that again, sadly, adultery in any form isn't grounds for divorce in most states but crimes involving defamation are, as is invasion of privacy.


----------



## John H (Dec 10, 2017)

John H said:


> I read the blog, which wasnt easy to do. I do agree that exposure is OK, if it is true. In the transcripts, the Judge changed her mind (if I read it correctly) and had stated that the exposure as suggested by Dr. Harley was not true. If, and that is a big if, the exposure did damage, and the things said in it were not true, then this wack job has a case.
> I live in the same state as this crack pot and I am a paralegal, and it may not be right, but he is also correct that what was done to him is against the law in our state, and the warrant for the BS's arrest does show that to be true. I am not taking sides, but to read things objectively, this guy was defending his family, and should have at least been heard.
> This whole thing is a travesty, and no one wins. But it is also true that again, sadly, adultery in any form isn't grounds for divorce in most states but crimes involving defamation are, as is invasion of privacy.


OMG! I just looked at that blog again, to make sure I understood it correctly, and saw the pics of the BS's penis he sent to the OMW. I completely missed that before. I am re-reading the transcripts now, but am withholding judgement till I finish, after seeing that.


----------



## Rubix Cubed (Feb 21, 2016)

John H said:


> OMG! I just looked at that blog again, to make sure I understood it correctly, and saw the pics of the BS's penis he sent to the OMW. I completely missed that before. I am re-reading the transcripts now, but am withholding judgement till I finish, after seeing that.



:surprise::surprise::surprise: I missed that. Was it legit or just more of the whackjob's web? I guess there would be no way to know without the BS whipping out his junk to prove it wasn't him. This nut is just evil.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

This woman's life, and her family's lives, have become hell because she chose to cheat with some freakin' weirdo scumbag. Working in law, I'm a very firm believer in chain of causation and I remind myself that NONE of this happens to them if she hadn't chosen to cheat with this scumbag in the first place. The easiest thing for the husband to do for himself and his child is to dump this cheater and leave her to the consequences of her actions.

EDIT to add: Then again, as I think more about it, this chick will probably be the safest partner in the world to her husband for the rest of her life. After this experience, she probably won't ever speak to another man besides her husband as long as she lives.


----------



## John H (Dec 10, 2017)

Rubix Cubed said:


> :surprise::surprise::surprise: I missed that. Was it legit or just more of the whackjob's web? I guess there would be no way to know without the BS whipping out his junk to prove it wasn't him. This nut is just evil.


Please keep in mind I am not taking sides, as this whole this is purely academic for me. That said, I read the Court documents when they requested a protective order is court. The support documents provided were sent by Steven Allen, and there was no argument from him regarding that. The protective Order was granted and renewed some time later. There was no mention by Steven Allen of any affair. 

After trying to read this morons blog about the only thoughts of his I could even somewhat follow were that Steven Allen hacked into his computer and that he did serious damage to the guys family. 

I think I missed something however as I couldn't access all the documents as this idiot has no clue how to post a document, so if you have the link to the documents that prove the affair, I would greatly appreciate you posting them for me, because I can't make heads or tails of a lot of the stuff. About the only thing I did find was the pretrial motions, but both sides seemed to agree that none of them had ever met prior to the court appearance. 

I am in the process of reading the court transcripts, but it seems to be taking forever.


----------



## BobSimmons (Mar 2, 2013)

The guy is a loon and he'll never stop. It's ok to be a keyboard warrior but when it came to stand up and be righteous on court he clammed up. Now he's writing novels again.

Loon


----------



## John H (Dec 10, 2017)

BobSimmons said:


> The guy is a loon and he'll never stop. It's ok to be a keyboard warrior but when it came to stand up and be righteous on court he clammed up. Now he's writing novels again.
> 
> Loon


While I completely agreed with your statement when I started reading this story, he claims he was denied equal time to testify and was denied the opportunity. The record does show that to be the case. I am somewhat stunned by the reaction in my office. I am a paralegal and not a lawyer at a firm handles mostly auto injury cases. I have listened to the lawyers debate this case around the watercooler, and they are actually split on this case. Personally, I have no opinion one way or the other. I mean I feel that if you intentionally harm someones family, then you should be held accountable, so I see the lunatics point, especially when there are criminal actions involved, but I also have no idea why he didnt just retain a lawyer earlier and proceed that way. You can't just do as you please no matter what has been done to you, and this case may just be a great example of that.

The most surprising part however came from our appelette department. As I don't deal with appeals in any way, I had my doubts about the appeal this lunatic filed, however do not be surprised if this is overturned. Our appeals lawyers are pretty good and they said that the grounds for appeal are solid, and they would be surprised if this held up. All I know is that our entire firm seems united in the belief that under no circumstances would we want anything to do with either side of this case.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Mar 27, 2017)

VermiciousKnid said:


> It's still a court order and much to some people's chagrin when they find out, is very valid and easier to compel testimony than criminal court. The 5th amendment only protects you from government prosecutors during criminal proceedings. Since civil court does not involve prosecution, you have no 5th amendment rights to refuse testimony. That's why OJ Simpson got toasted in his civil trial. He had to take the stand whereas in his criminal case he didn't have to, and didn't.
> 
> Where it comes to the benefit of a BS during divorce is that once WS's and their AP's are advised this can, and probably will, happen, they then become very open to any settlement the BS offers. Dragging everything into the light of day, and making it public record, is the last thing they want so they'll usually give up everything, even the kids, to make sure that doesn't happen. When I read posters here, and other boards like this, say that "infidelity doesn't matter during divorce" I always chuckle. It only doesn't matter if your lawyer sucks or you (the BS) doesn't want to drag any of it into the light of day for whatever reason.


Wow. GREAT information. This should be posted as it's own thread for all who come to the infidelity section to see.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

Rick Blaine said:


> Wow. GREAT information. This should be posted as it's own thread for all who come to the infidelity section to see.


But in some other places in the world, this is probably not the case. Unfortunately.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

In all honesty...

I hate to say it...........
I am grateful that I have never been put in this situation.

I would not tolerate this. Someone would have to leave.

This Life.


----------



## VermiciousKnid (Nov 14, 2017)

MattMatt said:


> But in some other places in the world, this is probably not the case. Unfortunately.


Good point. Anything I'll ever post about family court, I'm making a presupposition we're talking about the U.S. legal system.


----------



## Jus260 (Mar 24, 2016)

Found this quote from the Zonis blog to be quite funny.



> As it stands our legal expenses have now exceeded the $110,000 mark, and rising!!! This has now cost us our HOUSE, EVERYTHING WE EVER WERE, EVERYTHING WE COULD HAVE BECOME, OUR ENTIRE FAMILY, OVER 100K, WE WILL HAVE TO DIVORCE FOR BANKRUPTCY PURPOSES, WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO ADOPT A CHILD AS WE HAD WANTED, MY ANCESTRAL HOME, OUR VEHICLES, MY JOB, and all JUST FOR THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD AS IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!!


You lost all of that because you decided to trade nudes with someone's wife.


----------



## Jus260 (Mar 24, 2016)

@John H


Do you believe Allen sent emails to his neighbors stating that he has been abusing his own wife for years while including a photo of one of the nudes in that email? That alone doesn't add up.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

Chaparral said:


> Anyone can sue the affair partner for intentional infliction of duress.
> Only a few states allow alienation of affection. I wish more people would make the AP pay.
> Negative reinforcement works.


Actually not. Negative reinforcement builds resentment and drives a deeper wedge between a person and the out-group they dislike. Attempts to negatively reinforce adults (it works for children, but not thinking adults), most often build a desire for revenge. They teach this in law school - judges are actually instructed that incarceration does not rehabilitate, so the thought is that a person should be incarcerated primarily to eliminate the threat they pose to society.

If you want to know how well negative reinforcement works, just read books on how to keep your marriage healthy and read what they say about punishing your spouse. Doesn't work any differently during/after the divorce process.


----------



## John H (Dec 10, 2017)

Jus260 said:


> Found this quote from the Zonis blog to be quite funny.
> 
> 
> 
> You lost all of that because you decided to trade nudes with someone's wife.


I am sorry if I offended you. I was here for advice on marriage issues and have absolutely no feelings about this, as I am not involved. What I do know is that if someone has hurt feelings, that does not give them any right to ruin other peoples lives, including messaging their wives friends and family to call her a ****. Especially when they broke laws to come to that conclusion. How can anyone be surprised when and if they retaliated?

I understand that many out there believe everything they read at first glance, and if me commenting on the opinions of my legal associates provoked that response in you, I am sorry. I have never been one to believe anything without looking at both sides. I find when this woman Courtney propositioned the wackjob and his wife for sex, and they turned her down, to be justification for anything. As wackjobs wife understood was involved with this woman, and saw no issue with the behaviors involved, it makes me question the claims even further.

Which is why I initially said that I was reading the factual record for academic purposes only, having read the magazine story, and seeing disparities between it and the actual documents used in court. My specialty is court documents, and that is the extent of my interest. I am unsure why you believe that I am taking any side in this. I did not think this was a reactionary forum, but rather thought it was one for the exchange of thought and feelings that pertain to us specifically, to obtain advice for making a better marriage.


----------



## John H (Dec 10, 2017)

DustyDog said:


> Actually not. Negative reinforcement builds resentment and drives a deeper wedge between a person and the out-group they dislike. Attempts to negatively reinforce adults (it works for children, but not thinking adults), most often build a desire for revenge. They teach this in law school - judges are actually instructed that incarceration does not rehabilitate, so the thought is that a person should be incarcerated primarily to eliminate the threat they pose to society.
> 
> If you want to know how well negative reinforcement works, just read books on how to keep your marriage healthy and read what they say about punishing your spouse. Doesn't work any differently during/after the divorce process.


I loved this comment. This has caused yet another of the legal theories I contemplate on a daily basis, but that others usually find boring. While the lawsuit angle is a fair idea, the barriers I see are that as it applies to this case, the offending party that can be proven isn't the wackjob, but the woman who sent out images. She is the one with the legal and moral obligation to her own family, moreso than anyone else, which is why the only time I have ever encountered this being used was when a divorce occurred and the man and wife were suing each other in the divorce proceedings. An interesting side not, this fell out of favor in most states at the same time that infidelity was removed as legal grounds for a divorce.


----------



## John H (Dec 10, 2017)

Jus260 said:


> @John H
> 
> 
> Do you believe Allen sent emails to his neighbors stating that he has been abusing his own wife for years while including a photo of one of the nudes in that email? That alone doesn't add up.


As stated before, most of this makes little to no sense. I dont believe that he did that, no. Likewise I don't think that involving other people in marital issues is ever a good idea. We do know that he did contact her friends and family to make his claims, so it wouldnt surprise me in the least if this was her doing this to get even. The testimony showed that he was abusive to her, and while one malicious action seldom justifies another, I find it impossible to tell who did what, when I have no idea how the wacko from the story knew any of the friends. It makes that scenario equally as unlikely. Similarly, when Steven sent out his opinions regarding his wifes adultery out to all she knew, he created a massive list of people who may not have been to happy to have been involved or who may have found his actions to be inappropriate.

In fact, that is an issue I have in my marriage. The unwelcomed interference of outside parties into our relationship. Each side is galvanized against the other, and it seems to depend on who spoke to those people first, as to which side they support.


----------



## Jus260 (Mar 24, 2016)

John H said:


> I am sorry if I offended you. I was here for advice on marriage issues and have absolutely no feelings about this, as I am not involved. What I do know is that if someone has hurt feelings, that does not give them any right to ruin other peoples lives, including messaging their wives friends and family to call her a ****. Especially when they broke laws to come to that conclusion. How can anyone be surprised when and if they retaliated?
> 
> I understand that many out there believe everything they read at first glance, and if me commenting on the opinions of my legal associates provoked that response in you, I am sorry. I have never been one to believe anything without looking at both sides. I find when this woman Courtney propositioned the wackjob and his wife for sex, and they turned her down, to be justification for anything. As wackjobs wife understood was involved with this woman, and saw no issue with the behaviors involved, it makes me question the claims even further.
> 
> Which is why I initially said that I was reading the factual record for academic purposes only, having read the magazine story, and seeing disparities between it and the actual documents used in court. My specialty is court documents, and that is the extent of my interest. I am unsure why you believe that I am taking any side in this. I did not think this was a reactionary forum, but rather thought it was one for the exchange of thought and feelings that pertain to us specifically, to obtain advice for making a better marriage.



Unless you are actually Zonis, this post wasn't directed toward you.


----------



## Jus260 (Mar 24, 2016)

John H said:


> As stated before, most of this makes little to no sense. I dont believe that he did that, no. Likewise I don't think that involving other people in marital issues is ever a good idea. We do know that he did contact her friends and family to make his claims, so it wouldnt surprise me in the least if this was her doing this to get even. The testimony showed that he was abusive to her, and while one malicious action seldom justifies another, I find it impossible to tell who did what, when I have no idea how the wacko from the story knew any of the friends. It makes that scenario equally as unlikely. Similarly, when Steven sent out his opinions regarding his wifes adultery out to all she knew, he created a massive list of people who may not have been to happy to have been involved or who may have found his actions to be inappropriate.
> 
> In fact, that is an issue I have in my marriage. The unwelcomed interference of outside parties into our relationship. Each side is galvanized against the other, and it seems to depend on who spoke to those people first, as to which side they support.



For the record, I can't read either the article or blog without cliff notes. If there was something obvious that I missed, I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that you may be taking sides. I know judges are supposed to follow certain rules in court. That's why I couldn't be a judge. When I saw all of these letters that he sent all over the place that were supposed to be from the husband, I would have had a hard time taking Zonis seriously at all. I know Zonis has rights but I really don't feel bad that the court didn't give a damn.


----------

