Jaime Cochran Accused @MalwareTechBlog




Jaime Cochran Accused @MalwareTechblog
by Susan Basko, Esq.

Note: As disclosure, I was extremely harassed by Jaime Cochran for a number of years, and she also led her followers in the Rustle League to harass me.  Cochran has been posthumously awarded a Lifetime Achievement Stalker Award.

Note: on the continuing cycle of Troll Harassment: A person using the name Kat Valentine, who ran a memorial service for Jaime Cochran (wherein Valentine announced that Jaime Cochran was not a troll) has been posting hate tweets against me -- and using as her "evidence" that I am a bad person a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica that is loaded with lies and defamation about me --  the page having been created by Jaime Cochran years ago as a way to extort and defame me.  The Encyclopedia Dramatica page was a big part of Cochran's years-long campaign of lies and harassment against me!   The ED page says absolutely nothing about me, since it is all lies and nonsense, and says everything about the harassment techniques of Jaime Cochran and that whole gang of malicious cyberstalkers involved in such groups as Rustle League, Encyclopedia Dramatica, GNAA, and others.  Kat Valentine is using Jaime Cochran's harassment and lies to "prove" that I am a bad person.  This is a typical technique of cyberstalkers -- they create a piece of defamation and smears, and then they and their friends refer back to it for years to come, as if it is based in truth or reality.   It was nice of Kat to run a memorial service, and not so nice of Cochran's stalker community to use Cochran's death as a means to renew their harassment of me.   Cochran's lies against others continue to live on after death in places such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, Twitter, Chroniclesu, etc.  Even after death, Jaime Cochran is harming innocent people. Note: Encyclopedia Dramatica is a website that was created years ago by some of the most malicious racist, antisemitic hateful people on the internet to post lies and smears against people they were trying to silence or extort. Jaime Cochran used the site for that purpose.  The Admin for Encyclopedia Dramatica recently terrorized a high school, shooting dead two students and then killing himself. To those of us who have watched this hate group/ hate website, this came as no particular surprise.


WHO was Jaime Cochran harassing before she died?  Marcus Hutchins, aka @malwaretechblog.

If Jaime Cochran committed suicide, as she hinted in a tweet was her plan, her harassment of Marcus Hutchins may give a clue as to why.

Marcus Hutchins is a man in his early 20s, from the UK.  He supposedly ended a rapidly spreading malware attack called wannacry by purchasing a domain that the malware kept referring to - thus, allowing the malware to resolve itself to that domain.  This was hailed as a simple ingenious fix.  Marcus Hutchins was promoted as a hero in the internet security community.

However, since the adage is "No good deed goes unpunished," the FBI in the U.S. felt compelled to fulfill that adage.  Last summer, Marcus Hutchins came to Las Vegas, Nevada, to attend a couple hacking or infosec conferences, including Defcon. He tweeted about staying with a bunch of people in a nice villa, renting a sports car and driving fast, and going to a gun range promoted as a tourist attraction and shooting big guns. What could be more all-American?

When Hutchins went to the airport to return home to the UK, he was kidnapped by FBI agents, questioned, jailed for about a week, and then charged with federal crimes in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, of all places.  The charges claim Hutchins made and distributed banking malware.  Hutchins got some good lawyers and was freed, but told he had to stay in the U.S.  He has taken up residence in the Los Angeles area near the beach.

A week ago, Hutchins' lawyers filed a motion to compel withheld discovery from the U.S. prosecutors.  The lawyers hope to use the discovered material to prove that statements Hutchins gave to the agents were coerced and that the agents were aware that Hutchins had been intoxicated and sleep deprived, as is common at Defcon. You can read about that motion here.

Now, let's get back to Jaime Cochran harassing Marcus Hutchins.

On December 21, 2017, Jaime Cochran picked a twitter fight with Marcus Hutchins aka @malwaretechblog.   Here, Cochran says "I  almost hope everyone gets away with shit in the end, besides those who sat down with c-ciphers --- " 

C-ciphers means "cops" in hip hop talk.

Cochran continues, "much like zeekill, kms, and probably malwaretech--"

Here, Cochran lists two names of notable European hackers and then lists malwaretech.  Cochran is stating that she thinks malwaretech is cooperating with law enforcement agents.


Next, someone named @ValidHorizon asks why Cochran loves picking on Marcus Hutchins.

Hutchins replies that Cochran is upset because, a while back, he linked to a Youtube video of Cochran.  The video is a short clip from a TV show about internet trolling where Cochran admits harassing others for fun.



Next, Hutchins says he is surprised that someone who is a troll is still upset weeks later.



Cochran replies to @ValidHorizons by stating there are "plenty of questionable things about his past/current case/ situation, but he's a VICTIM of the SYSTEM now and automatically a MARTYR! Save him, etc. Regardless of the things he's said since being arrested that would lead one to believe he's actively informing."

Here, Cochran mocks Hutchins, sounds jealous of the widespread support Hutchins has received from the public, and claims that things Hutchins has said make it appear that he is "actively informing."  This seems like pure harassment on Cochran's part, because it seems that Hutchins has refused to say anything about his case.  Further, Hutchins and his lawyers have declared his innocence.

But, keep this in your head -- Cochran was worried that Hutchins was informing on someone.  As the tweets continue on, it appears Cochran seemed to fear Hutchins was informing on her.



Here, Hutchins tweets, "Maybe if I change my career from InfoSec to bitcoin trading, I won't get arrested as much."

To that, Cochran replies, "OR if you didn't get caught writing/ selling banking malware (and regularly poasting (sic) on hackforums)...you *might* not get arrested as much.  Food for thought."

This is Cochran harassing Hutchins by implying he is guilty of the crimes of which he has been accused.  This is Cochran harassing, trying to bring relevancy and notoriety to herself by attacking Hutchins on twitter in the most dire way -- by insinuating that Cochran has some special knowledge of the situation and knows that Hutchins is guilty.  This is a typical Cochran ploy for attention with no sense of fairness or decency.  These are actual crimes Hutchins is charged with, his life has been upended by him being forced to live in the U.S.  He has no I.D. to be able to travel within the U.S., and Cochran is making a public spectacle of claiming that Hutchins is to blame for his own predicament.



Cochran claims Hutchins deleted tweets that show he is guilty of something.  "plz. yr deleted tweets say otherwise."  Typical Cochran harassment.

Then Cochran says, "Stop snitching, starboys."  Here, Cochran equates being arrested and charged with crimes, and the notoriety or fame that came to Hutchins from that, with being a "starboy."  Cochran outright accused Hutchins of "snitching."



This tweet is in reply to @ValidHorizon, who suggested there might be other people, besides Hutchins, who might be more deserving of Cochran's attacks.

Cochran's replies is that she already attacked those people on Chroniclesu -- a ludicrous website where Cochran wrote and posted hate rants she thought were "satire."  Cochran then goes on to say that Hutchins "is someone who was allowed into brofessional circles and vouched for." Cochran seems to be saying that behind the scenes, she has been in touch with Hutchins and that he has been allowed into a circle of people that included Cochran.  "So, yada yada yada, he's arrested for banking malware. big deal."

Here, Cochran has upped the ante from claiming Hutchins is guilty, claiming that Hutchins has sat down with law enforcement agents and "snitched," to here stating that Hutchins has been in her intimate circle of "brofessionals." Note regarding "bro": Cochran was transgender, that is, male by birth.

Through all this, one might ask why a supposed computer or information security professional would be putting on such a spectacle in the very public space of Twitter.


Next, Cochran claims that Hutchins has admitted to having a collection of IRC logs from since his raid.  By "'grep' able," Cochran means computer searchable text.  By "raid," I assume Cochran means Hutchins being arrested at the airport.  By "pre-conviction," Cochran seems a bit confused, since Hutchins has not been convicted, has just filed a Discovery motion, and has pleaded not guilty.  "IRC logs" are "internet relay chat."  This is a popular form of internet chat communication where only those people admitted to the forum may participate.

Essentially, Cochran is saying that Hutchins has a lot of chat logs that could be used as evidence against people, and that Cochran believes Hutchins is cooperating with the prosecution.  However, that does not appear to be the case at all, since Hutchins' lawyers have filed a discovery motion.

However, in Cochran's mind, Hutchins had been allowed into Cochran's inner circle of "brofessionals," had been logging IRC chats in searchable format, and is "snitching."  From this, it is easy to extrapolate that Cochran believes she will be snitched upon.

This is real interesting, because this seems like a show, a tossing of blame.  Hutchins has pleaded not guilty to the charges regarding banking malware, and Cochran is acting as if she is guilty.


Then Cochran tweets what appears to be a death plan.  This was posted on Friday December 22, at 5:25 PM.  Cochran states, "anyway, it's about half past five, so i'll see you in a cemetery after noon after monday afternoon, merry christmas i probably won't die, i probably won't die"

At first, I thought these might be song lyrics, but a google search on these words shows only this tweet.  The following Monday was Christmas.  So, Cochran seems to be saying she will be in a cemetery after Monday afternoon. 

MY ANALYSIS of these tweets is that Cochran felt she had been in some way compromised and that she was being "snitched out" by Hutchins, whom she said had chat logs as evidence.

Was Cochran's death a suicide to outrun what she perceived as impending indictment? Or was it something else?  Let's watch and see what other information comes up.


This person tried twice to ask Jaime Cochran about her level of mental health.  There does not appear to be any reply.





Jamie Cochran tweeted casually about using ketamine while tweeting. Ketamine is a drug used as an anesthetic. In the U.S., it is widely used illegally. Ketamine has caused many deaths by overdose, accident, and suicide.  One of Cochran's friends tweeted that toxicology tests are being run.  Perhaps Cochran's admitted Ketamine use should be considered?




8 Women Deserving Justice:
Video and Phone Tech in Unsolved Crimes

Police Sketch of Delphi, Indiana Killer
 8 Women Deserving Justice:
Video and Phone Tech in Unsolved Crimes 
by Susan Basko, Esq.

Several crimes against women over the past couple years involve video and phone tech.  These are examples of how such technology can provide some answers, but does not provide all the answers.

1-2. Liberty German and Abigail Williams.  These two girls were killed when they took an afternoon walk on a wooded trail in Delphi, Indiana.  One of the girls used her phone to get video and audio of a man who is presumed to be the killer.   A year has passed, and the man has not been identified.  With the video, the clear audio, and a police sketch (shown above), the killer has not been found.  How can this be?  A great many middle-aged men in that rural midwest region have a body build and clothing style similar to the man in the phone video and many men in that region share a similar accent.   The video does rule out a whole lot of possibilities and people, and for that, it is highly valuable.  Please look at the pictures and listen to the voice (below) to see if you can identify this man.

Man seen in phone video taken by Liberty German before her death.
LISTEN BY CLICKING:  The man's voice:  Delphi_male_voice_loop.mp3 
3. Sherri Papini.  Sherri Papini is a beautiful wife and mom who was kidnapped while out jogging near her home in Shasta, California, about 200 miles north of San Francisco.  Papini's husband, Keith, was able to determine the likely location of Sherri's disappearance because he found her abandoned phone on the ground by using a phone-finder app.  Unfortunately, Sherri's location could not be tracked by gps because of her phone being left by the  side of the road.  About 3 weeks later, Sherri was released from a car in the night, and video from a nearby surveillance camera showed her running to escape.  Apparently, the camera was situated such that it did not gather any information regarding the vehicle.  Sherri said it was two Hispanic women that kidnapped her.  However, sketches made from the information given by Sherri show that one of the "women" looks like a man.  Police have released information stating that male DNA was found on Sherri's clothing.  It seems possible Sherri was mistaken about the actual sex of one of the kidnappers.  In this case, there is the eyewitness account of the traumatized, terrorized victim, DNA evidence, a police sketch, and still, no suspects yet.

Sketch of the Kidnappers of Sherri Papini

4. Missy Bevers. Missy Bevers was a wife and mom in the small town of Midlothian, Texas.  Missy ran a fitness class for women at a local church.  Classes were held in the early morning. While Missy was setting up for the class, a man or woman dressed in a police tactical uniform entered the building and killed Missy, bludgeoning her in the head with a tactical hammer. Church surveillance video captured the killer.  The video has been widely shared.  Other video showed a car circling in a nearby parking lot a few hours before the killing.  Despite the existence of both surveillance videos, the killer has still not been found.


Below, a Youtuber slowed down the video of the car in the parking lot


5. YingYing Zhang.  Ms. Zhang was a Chinese scholar who had traveled across the globe to work and study at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC).  Several weeks after her arrival, YingYing was going to sign a lease for an apartment.  She was running late and had just missed her connecting bus, when a car pulled up -- probably to offer YingYing a ride.  That was the last she was ever seen alive.

By using video captured by a surveillance camera across the street from the bus stop, police were able to identify the make and model of the car that picked up Ms. Zhang.  A camera at a different location showed the driver.  The car was a fairly rare type, and with diligent police work, the car and its driver were tracked down. Brendt Christensen, who had been a UIUC graduate student, allegedly admitted that he picked up YingYing Zhang. Brent Christensen has been charged with kidnapping resulting in the death of YingYing Zhang, with a trial set for late February 2018.

The mystery here is: Where is YingYing Zhang?  The FBI has issued statements that they believe Ms. Zhang is dead.  Let's assume the FBI has checked other cameras around town to see if there is video of Brendt Christensen continuing on this drive, where he went, and drives he may have taken in the days after YingYing Zhang disappeared.  This makes it all the more mysterious that her remains have not been found.

Notice below how clear this surveillance video is. If we assume that other publicly-mounted cameras in the area produce equally crisp video, it seems likely that Christensen's movements could be traced.  The area outside the town is one of farm fields and forests, which can provide plenty of hiding spots.  For the sake of YingYing Zhang's grieving family and boyfriend, may she be located so she may be given dignity in her death.



6-7-8. Rhoden Family.  In April 2016, in rural Peebles, Ohio, eight  member of the Rhoden family were shot dead in one night, in four trailer home locations.  Those killed included 5 men and 3 women.  The women killed included the mother of the clan, 37 year old Dana Lyn Rhoden.  Also killed were two young mothers - Hanna Mae Rhoden, 19, and Hannah Hazel Gilley, 20.  Both of them died with their babies nearby.  The babies were not harmed.  The notable thing about video evidence in this case is that there is not any.  Reports are that at least several of the locations had video cameras installed, but that those cameras were off or disabled at the time of the killings. A law enforcement official stated that the killers took steps to remove evidence that could have identified them.  This sounds like the killers were familiar with the properties, familiar with the locations of the cameras, and familiar with how to disable them.  Police have stated they believe 2 or more killers are involved.  The killers obviously had to know their way around that rural area in the dark.  May justice come for these three mothers - Dana, Hanna, and Hannah, as well as for the men who were killed.




Get Smart! and the U.S. Mint


Get Smart! and the U.S. Mint
by Agent 99

This was emailed to the U.S. Mint:



and this reply came within minutes.


Tattling on a Terrorist

Alligator, a common site in Florida, the location of Pulse Nightclub
Tattling on a Terrorist
by Susan Basko, Esq.

If someone you know is a terrorist wannabe, are you required to report them?  From several recent cases, the answer would seem to be, "Yes."  Federal law does not require you to report them, but if a terrorist act takes place, the FBI will sure come knocking on your door to find out what you knew and when, how your finances were shared, and whether you gave any encouragement.  If you tell investigators you did not know, and it looks like you had reason to know, they will probably say you lied to them about whether you knew.  This is all very tricky, so let's look at three examples of cases where family or friends of the terrorist have been charged with crimes, and one case where that has not happened.

The first example is of Noor Salman, the widow of Omar Mateen. Mateen terrorized a gay nightclub, killing many.  He was killed by police, so he is not around to be put through a trial.  Instead, his wife is being put on trial for aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice. It sounds like she did not actually know exactly what he was going to do, but that there were enough major red flags that she should have alerted some authority.  Reporting on him would likely have broken up their marriage and would likely have put her in personal jeopardy.

From a distance, Omar Mateen probably looked very good:  He was a U.S. citizen, as is his widow, Noor Salman; he was very handsome; he was employed in a responsible job; he was of her same background and culture; he was her husband.  That's a whole lot to give up.  The U.S. law enforcement stance at this time does expect someone to read the warning signs and report in advance to avert a terrorist act.  Let's look at this expectation more closely.

Noor Salman, the wife of Omar Mateen, has been indicted on Obstruction of Justice and other charges.  She was the wife of Omar Mateen, man who killed 49 people and injured nearly 70 people in June 2016 a Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida.  Her indictment is below for you to read.  The first Count claims that Noor Salman aided and abetted her husband's material support for ISIS. Count Two claims Noor Salman made misleading in statements to police and FBI agents.

If Noor Salman is convicted, she will face life in prison.  There is no trade-off to make in exchange for testimony, since her husband is dead. It sounds like Noor Salman made a huge error in answering FBI questions and signing a statement written by an FBI agent, all without a lawyer present. It sounds very much like the agent put words into her mouth and false meanings into her words.  Let's wait and see what develops in this case.

The second example is Joseph Meek, who was a friend of Dylann Roof, the young man who gunned down nine Black people at a Church Bible study in Columbia, South Carolina. Dylann Roof attended the Bible study, pretending to be interested.  Then, Roof pulled out a gun and started killing the people who had warmly welcomed him to their learning circle.

The FBI claims that Joseph Meek knew about Dylann Roof's plan to kill the church people, and offered him a lesser sentence in exchange for testimony.  In the weeks before the killings, Dylann Roof was living at Joey Meek's house. The FBI claims that three men got drunk and high together and played cards --  Dylann Roof, Joey Meek, and another man.  During that long night of drinking, Dylann Roof told the other two men his plan to kill people at the Church.  After the Church attack, the third man wanted to call police immediately and alert them that Roof was a suspect, but was stopped by Joey Meek from making that call.  Meek has been sentenced to two years in prison.

According to the Guardian, "In a deal with prosecutors, Meek pleaded guilty to concealment of a crime and lying to the FBI.  Meek was not charged for failing to tell police about the impending attack, since that is not a crime under federal law. Instead, he was prosecuted for stopping a friend immediately after the attack from calling the police to report Roof as a suspect."

The third example is Enrique Marquez, Jr., who was friends with a married couple who went on to commit a terrorist massacre shooting in 2015 in San Bernardino, California.  The married couple,  Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and injured many others who were at a holiday party held by Farook's employer.  Farook left the party, went and picked up his wife, Malik, and returned to the party armed to kill his co-workers. After the attack, they fled in an SUV and were later stopped and both were killed.

Enrique Marquez, who was a friend and neighbor of the couple, was charged with "material support of terrorism and making false statements in connection with purchase of a firearm."  Marquez purchased the 2 guns used in the attack and had given them to Farook. Shortly after the shootings, Marquez said that he was staying with his mother, who told him to get the guns out of the house, so he gave them to Farook for safekeeping.  That may have been true, but the prosecutors called it a "straw purchase," meaning Marquez bought the guns with the intention of passing them to Farook.  

As evidence that Marquez would materially support terrorism, the FBI pointed to Marquez's admissions of shit-talking with Farook when they were both in community college, where they talked about shooting up the cafeteria and attacking people in rush hour traffic.  The FBI also claims that Marquez joined the mosque Farook attended and spent time at Farook's house watching terrorist indoctrination videos.  

Marquez was also charged with immigration fraud because he was in a sham marriage with a woman who was a relative of the two married killers.  Allegedly, Marquez married the woman so she could live in the U.S., and in exchange, he received a monthly payment. She did not live with Marquez and had a different man who was her "real boyfriend."

Enrique Marquez entered into a plea agreement, which can be read in full at the link The charges against him regarding the sham marriage were dropped, though the other people involved in the sham marriage were charged and sentenced.   Sentencing for Enrique Marquez is scheduled for February 26, 2018.

From these three examples, we can get a handle on what is expected and of what is wise and unwise:

1. It is unwise to speak with FBI agents without having your own lawyer present.  No matter what you say, they will make it into what they want it to say.

2. Number two contrasts with number one.  If you know someone that is planning a terrorist attack or other killing, you should report it, because that can prevent people being killed.  You are not legally required to report an upcoming crime, but you are not allowed to lie to FBI or police about knowledge of a crime, either before or after the crime takes place.

3. It is unwise to talk stupid with anyone, even a good friend, about terroristic plans, even if it seems like you are just shit talking or shooting the breeze.  If you don't mean it, don't say it, and don't take part in such discussions.  That goes for online discussions, too.

4. It is unwise to give a gun to anyone else, for any reason, unless you check out the laws behind gun transfer and transfer it officially with required paperwork.

5. It's unwise to hang out watching terroristic videos, unless you want to be perceived as a person planning an attack.

6. If someone wants to report something to police or FBI, don't try to stop them.

LET'S LOOK NOW at how to decide if you should report what seems to be someone planning some kind of attack on others.  Obviously, the closer the person is to you -- a family member or close friend -- the more difficult it will be to make that decision.  I think the decision-making factors can be listed in three simple steps:

1. Has the person said they are going to attack a place or a person or a group?

2. Does the person own or have access to weapons, including a gun(s), ammunition, a knife, bomb-making materials, poisons or acids?

OR

3. Has the person not said they plan an attack, but it seems likely they might have such a plan because they are stockpiling guns, ammunition, buying a large quantity of fertilizer, buying a big knife, or doing other things that seem like preparation for an attack?

In those instances, you may be saving lives by making a report.  You may also be saving yourself from criminal charges and prison.

 The instances where you might make a report of suspected terrorism or suspected planned terrorism fall into five general categories of people you might report:

1. People you know well, such as family members, close friends, people living or staying with you.  These are the most gut-wrenching to report and the most likely to get you charged with crimes if you do not report it.

2. People with whom you are acquainted, but are not close with.  This may include co-workers, fellow students, neighbors.  In these instances, you are probably reporting to keep yourself and others safe, but you probably don't want your name known as the one who reported.

3. Strangers you see out in public - on a street, bus, train, public building, park, parking lot.  Go with your gut. The more factual details you can provide, the more likely it is that the situation can be effectively investigated.  The closer in time you report it, the more likely your report is to be useful.  If you can say, "I just saw this -- minutes ago," your report is much easier to check out than if you are reporting something you saw out in public last week. But, if that event from last week is still on your mind, do report it.

4. People you see on the internet making statements about their plans or actions. Their "statement" might be a tweet, a post, a video, a picture, audio, email, etc.   It helps to get screen shots and the URL where it is happening.  If it actually looks like a threat, you can report it to https://tips.fbi.gov/

Making reports to Facebook, Twitter, and other social media does not help in getting information to any law enforcement agency.  In fact, Facebook or Twitter are likely to tell you the post does not violate their rules; just ignore that and make your report to law enforcement.

5. People with whom you have dealt in a business or professional capacity.  Examples: You work at a truck rental place and a suspicious person rents a truck.  You sell fertilizer and a suspicious person buys a lot of fertilizer.  You work in housewares and unlikely people buy a pressure cooker.  You work in a public building and someone is asking prying questions.  You run a flight school and a person inquires about pilot classes but says he does not need to learn how to land.  In such instances, you may have a professional obligation to make a report.


REPORTING SUSPECTED TERRORISM: Let's say you want to make an FBI report about what you think seems like a possible terrorist attack or possible terrorist activity. You can do that online here: https://tips.fbi.gov/  You can give as much or as little information about yourself as you want.  You do not have to fill out all the spaces, but I think it is a good idea to give them some means to contact you, such as an email or phone.

If you think you may need a record later to show you have made a report, you can save a copy of the report.  The FBI tipline no longer sends a receipt email - which is good, because it means you can make your report without risking that someone else might find out.

The reports sent to the FBI tipline will be read immediately and will be assigned as appropriate. There can be an immediate response if something seems urgent.  If something is in the process of happening, then give as much information as you can. Information that is useful includes such things as:

WHAT is happening.
WHERE it is happening. Name of street, city, state,  Name of building.  Name of bus or train line and car number.
WHO is doing it.  How many people? What does each one look like?
WHEN? Now? Two minutes ago? An hour ago? Last week? Last year?
NAMES of people, if known.  You might also see IDs, or hear people speaking to each other by name.
DESCRIPTIONS of people - what do they look like? What are they wearing? What kind of shoes are they wearing? What are they carrying?
VEHICLE license numbers, makes, models, descriptions.

NOW, LET'S LOOK AT A CASE where there is no apparent intent to charge any family or friends of the attacker with crimes.  That is the Las Vegas mass shooting by Stephen Paddock. Paddock rented a luxury suite in a casino, brought many guns into his hotel room, and shot through the windows at an outdoor concert below, killing 58 people and injuring about 550 other people.  Paddock then killed himself.

Stephen Paddock had a girlfriend, but there is no indication she is being charged with any crime. Paddock sent his girlfriend, Marilou Danley, to be with her family in the Philippines prior to the attack.  He wired her $100,000 to buy a house there.  She said she feared this was his way of breaking up with her.  She has stated, through her lawyer, that she had no knowledge that Paddock planned the attacks or was capable of such an act.

Make note of these factors: 1) Danley was far away during the attacks. 2) She had her lawyer prepare a statement and speak for her.  3) She said she had no knowledge he was capable of such an act and she knew Paddock as a quiet, kind person. 4) That she has a lawyer who has made her public statement indicates that she would have a lawyer present during questioning by authorities.  5) There are no known overtones of political, racial, or religious motive in the attack or in the lives of Stephen Paddock or Marilou Danley. 

Investigators in the Las Vegas killings have issued search warrants for many items, including email and phone records of Stephen Paddock and Marilou Danley.  If Ms. Danley had prior knowledge of Paddock's plans to kill, that would likely come to light.  The investigation is still ongoing,  A hearing is expected for mid-January 2018 with regard to news media requesting access to search warrants.

Update January 19, 2018: Sheriff issues report that states Marilou Danley will not face charges - but someone else might.

Stephen Paddock's family -- his brothers and mother -- do not seem to have been knowledgeable about his recent life, other than knowing he had wealth and liked to gamble for high stakes and enjoyed traveling.  It is highly unlikely any of them would be charged with any crimes regarding his attack.

The motives behind Stephen Paddock's attack also appear to be unknown. No motive has been mentioned by investigators.  It has been discovered that Paddock had previously booked rooms in hotels overlooking major outdoor events.  That looks like he was planning a mass killing for quite some time. There has so far been no indication to the public that Paddock was motivated by politics or religion or race.  Since the investigation is still ongoing, more information on motive may come up later.


Monsarrat v Zaiger - Order on Motion to Dismiss


Monsarrat v Zaiger - Order on Motion to Dismiss
by Susan Basko, Esq.

On December 21, 2017, Chief Judge Patti Saris entered an order dismissing the Copyright infringement complaint made by Boston video game developer, Jonathan Monsarrat, against Brian Zaiger, owner of Encyclopedia Dramatica, on the basis of the claim being time-barred, or beyond the statute of limitations.  You can read the Order below.  The Order allows the Defendant's Counterclaim to continue.

What's next?  Jonathan Monsarrat has 30 days from the entry of the dismissal order to file a Notice of Appeal.  That date would be about January 20, 2018.  It looks like there would be a solid basis for an appeal, since Judge Saris went with the narrowest, oldest view of how to calculate the date of accrual on a Copyright claim, and newer methods of technology are involved in this case.  As the saying goes, the opera is not over till the fat lady sings.  If an appeal is filed, the question will be whether the counterclaim litigation is stayed until the outcome of the appeal, or if it will continue on.

Meanwhile, two big things have happened:  Brian Zaiger claims he no longer owns Encyclopedia Dramatica.  That might limit his capacity to engage in the counterclaim litigation.  In more tragic news, an Encyclopedia Dramatica sysop or admin named William Edward Atchison terrorized a high school, shooting and killing two students and then killing himself.  Atchison may have been radicalized online on Encyclopedia Dramatica, Kiwi Farms, and The Daily Stormer.  Atchison was known to use a variety of screen names on those sites (see comment on linked page), making posts portending his final acts of terroristic violence.

Analysis: Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) is a cesspool of lies, defamation, obscenity, and hate, operated in the most irresponsible way possible.  According to one source, the site does contain a few satirical articles.  With the news that Brian Zaiger no longer owns the site, and that a budding school killer used the site as his platform, a question arises of whether law enforcement might finally care that this site is being used to harm and cyberstalk so many innocent victims.  Only time will tell.

I have long suggested to the people of Encyclopedia Dramatica that they have memberships, and then allow any member to write any lies or garbage about any other member -- and leave everyone else out of it.  It's real simple -- if you think the site and what it does are good, then you join and all of you do it to each other, and leave the "normal" people out of it. Make ED a consensual activity.

This may sound silly to the "kids," who hang out on ED -- though many of them are actually adults, albeit immature ones.  How would you "kids" like it if your friends on ED were calling your father a pedophile or posting sexual lies about your aunt?  How would you like it if those lies were keeping your family member from getting a job, or a business opportunity, or a place to live?  Do you understand the concept of empathy?  How about the concept of respect for others?  How about the idea of respecting the dignity of others and allowing them their good reputations, without you harming them?  These are basic human rights you are being asked to respect.

 For years, the ED site has been used by the very worst internet creeps and cyber criminals to post lies, defamation, revenge porn, revenge defamation, character assassination, racial hate and antisemitism, attacks and lies about peoples' sexual activities, etc. to coerce and extort and cyberstalk the victims.  The ED site contains shocking obscene photographs..  The victims have their names and photos and reputations mixed up with all this filth generated by the users of ED.  Jonathan Monsarrat was one of those victims.  He tried to litigate this in a relatively weak sauce Copyright claim.  This is what happens when law enforcement agencies have failed for so long to prosecute the owners of this website, which appears to be involved in internet crimes against so many victims.

Note: It's not just what is on the face of ED that makes it so dangerous -- it is also what goes on off the pages.  For example, I was stalked and harassed for several years by "Jaime" Cochran, an admitted and known cyberstalker, who tried to extort and silence me about his/her crimes against me (such as posting my personal and financial information online and relentlessly stalking me) before s/he created an ED "page" in my name and loaded it down with defamation and cyberstalking materials.  The face of the page may appear to be harassment and lies, but the crimes of extortion and cyberstalking underlie the page.  Long-term internet stalkers like Cochran have relied on their victims being cowed into silence, while using sites such as Encyclopedia Dramatica to embed their lies and defamation and harassment of their victims.  That is what makes ED a predatory extortion website.  I am, by far, not the only such victim of the site. (Cochran admitted in at least one television interview, which can be seen on Youtube, that s/he cyberstalks and harasses people for fun and thinks it is funny.  S/he blamed the victims for not enjoying having these crimes committed against them.)




Encyclopedia Dramatica Admin
Commits School Terror Killings


Encyclopedia Dramatica Admin Commits School Terror Killings
by Susan Basko, Esq.

Big special Hello to all the folks coming here from Encyclopedia Dramatica Forums, sent by likeicare, my darling friend of so many years.

As reported in the Daily Beast, William Edward Atchison, an Admin for the defamation/ hate website Encyclopedia Dramatica, terrorized a New Mexico High School on December 7, 2017.  According to a CNN report, Atchison shot and killed two students and then killed himself.

The Daily Beast article follows closely with information reported earlier by UK writer, Matthew Hopkins (pen name), aka Sam Smith.  Hopkins tracked Atchison online through his appearances on several websites.  It looks like Atchison spent much of his time being radicalized on hate websites such as The Daily Stormer, Kiwi Farms, and Encyclopedia Dramatica, where he was a Sysop, or Admin.

The Daily Beast reported that, "In November, Atchison wrote on Steam, “How am I supposed to function in this world? Wherever I go, I see degeneracy. Pointless materialism, hedonism, sexual decay . . ."   If "wherever" he went was The Daily Stormer, Kiwi Farms, and Encyclopedia Dramatica, that is exactly what he saw.  You become what you put into your mind.

Is it time for the FBI to worry about white people being radicalized on such hate websites?   Or are they only concerned about Muslims being radicalized online and led to acts of violence?

IN OTHER ENCYLOPEDIA DRAMATICA NEWS, Brian Zaiger, the owner of Encyclopedia Damatica (ED), told me a few days ago via email that he no longer owns Encyclopedia Dramatica and that he does not know who does own it.   This seems unlikely, since Zaiger is involved in a lawsuit with Boston game developer, Jonathan Monsarrat.  It seems like it would be illegal for Zaiger to divest the asset that is the subject of the lawsuit without asking permission of the Court and without notifying the Court and other party.  A check of the docket shows no such documents have been filed.

Of course, it could just be that Brian Zaiger was lying to me, because I was telling him to remove my name off his disgusting website.  I then told him that if my name is not fully removed off his website within 24 hours, that I was reporting him to the FBI for the crime of Cyberstalking me using his website.

Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) is a website chockful of obscenity that is used to cyberstalk, extort, defame, coerce, and harass people.  To this list can now be added that Encyclopedia Dramatica is used to radicalize people to turn them into school shooting terrorists.

I have long suggested that the people who inhabit the twisted world of Encyclopedia Dramatica stop harassing and defaming those of us who find abhorrent the content of the site and the people who frequent it.  Just take our names off your demented website, Brian Zaiger.  Stop trying to twist our reputations up with your deranged garbage.

That Encylopedia Dramatica would breed a school shooter was likely or inevitable.  Many others known to frequent the site are hackers, stalkers, and other criminal types  The site is a cesspool of lies, defamation, revenge pornography, revenge defamation.   The site is used by criminals and stalkers to torment and degrade those who object to their crimes.  My own name was put onto the site by a depraved hacker/ harasser who uses the site to extort and coerce their victims.

Those running Encyclopedia Dramatica like to claim it is "satire." But, satire is actually defined in the law.  You cannot just post lies and hate and call it "satire."  There are specific legal definitions of what satire is, since satire is a Fair Use in Copyright law.  There might be a few articles on the site that are satire.  The bulk of the site is defamation, hate, and shocking obscenity. As has been chronicled in the Monsarrat lawsuit, Encyclopedia Dramatica is run in an irresponsible way with disregard for the law and disregard for the reputations and safety and well-being of those being attacked and harassed on the site.

If you would like to read more about the Monsarrat v Zaiger lawsuit, I have chronicled it and posted many of the court documents on these posts:

Disney "Let it Go" Lawsuit: Think Again


Disney "Let it Go" Lawsuit: Think Again
by Susan Basko, Esq.

Disney's movie "Frozen" made famous the song, "Let it Go."  The song was written by husband and wife songwriting team, Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez.  This duo has written many of the famous Disney songs.  A man named Jaime Ciero has filed a lawsuit claiming the Lopez songwriting duo copied a song he wrote in Spanish called "Volar," which was released in 2008.

Some people think the Lopez song does have similarities to the Ciero song.  But, hold on a second! A while back, I was mildly swamped with people saying that "Let it Go" was stolen from their song!  That got me to looking up other songs that sound very similar to "Let it Go," -- and there are quite a few.  I won't post any of the songs from the different people that contacted me, but I will post some of the many that I found that also sound like "Let it Go."

My conclusion is that "Let it Go" is not a very original song, and that it became famous because it was in a terrifically famous and beloved Disney movie.

Listen to some of the songs below and see what I mean.

You can listen to the Disney "Let it Go" above and to Jaime Ciero's "Volar" just below:



From 1974, we have Eric Clapton's "Let it Grow." Pretty similar, huh?

"Let it Go," written by James Bay, covered here beautifully by Austin Precario:

From 1978, Dave Mason, "Let it Go, Let it Flow":


From 1995, "Let it Flow," by Spiritualized:


"Let it Go," Ziggy Marley:

"Let it Go," John Kee:

"Let it Flow," Gates Praise:

"Let it Flow," Toni Braxton:

A Korean song, "Let it Flow," 2006 video:

From 1976, "Let it Flow," Tamiko Jones:

en Vogue, "Let it Flow":


In fact, the Harry Fox songfile has about 100 songs titled, "Let it Go."  The ones I have located tend to have lots of similarities to the Frozen song.  Below are the songwriter names and file numbers for the listed songs titled "Let it Go."

Who copied whom? Or did no one copy anyone?  I think a lilting chorus of "Let it go," or "Let it flow," or "Let it grow," or "Let it show" is going to sound similar in any context. In copyright, this might be known as "stock" or possibly as noncopyrightable material.  In the world of music or art, this might be known as building upon a genre or tradition.

The Lopez/ Disney song is famous and financially successful, not because it has similar words or music to many of these other songs, but because it is in a super famous Disney movie.

"Let it Go" songs from Harry Fox Songfile, with songwriter names:


L24848
S. HOFF, D. PETERSON, V. PETERSON, M. STEELE
L16365
STEVE TURRE
L24859
JOSEPH ELLIOTT, RICHARD SAVAGE, RICHARD JOHN CYRIL ALLEN, PETER ANDREW WILLIS, STEPHEN MAYNARD CLARK
L22269
TOM RUSSELL
L1906O
IAN STANLEY, ROLAND ORZABAL, KIRK FRANKLIN
L11742
JOHN P. KEE
L09527
ANGELA STONE, G. DEVEAUX, C. MOLE
L2011X
NICOLE ALBINO, NATALIE ALBINO, ELIJAH WELLS, LIONEL BERMINGHAM
L01879
KYLE, RAMBEAUX, BLOOM
L24855
LUBA KOWALCHYK
L24854
DON COOK, RAFE VANHOY
L16644
DAVID BURRILL
1001RE
DAWN TALLMAN
L16449
JERRY DOUGLAS, RONNIE BOWMAN
L2318X
M. RAE, S. CHRISTIAN, D. BENOIT, E. WILCOX, R. ROBINSON
L2445P
SCOTT BLASEY, GREG JOSEPH, DAVID MINARIK, ROBERT HERTWECK
L24857
JOHN ROSS LANG, STEVEN P. GEORGE, RICHARD JAMES PAGE
L24860
AKIRA TAKASAKI, MINORU NIIHARA, MASAYOSHI YAMASHITA, MUNETAKA HIGUCHI
L08445
B. FLOYD, I. NEVILLE, C. DRAYTON
L21699
K. MANTRONIK, J. FRANK
L01739
GERALD DASH TUSO, CHRISTIAN FUHRER
L2432P
LASHAWN AMEEN DANIELS, RODNEY JERKINS, KENNY PRATT, FREDDIE JERKINS
L01537
TENDER FURY
L1973M
JUSTIN SMITH, STEPHEN FISHER, DANIEL MURILLO, KRIS COMEAUX
L2281M
GORDIE SAMPSON, BLAIR DALY, ALAN THOMAS DOYLE
L24853
RICHARD RAYMOND FINCH, HARRY WAYNE CASEY
L2456G
DAVE BASSETT, DANIEL CHRISMAN, GRAHAM PATRICK COLTON
L24847
BILLY SMILEY, TOMMY SIMS, MARK GERSMEHL, RICK FLORIAN, GORDON KENNEDY
L16398
M. MARTINEZ, SCOTT STORCH, TRACEY MOORE
L01007
MIDGE URE
L01842
GARY RAMON GIPPS, GARY RAMON
L14744
T. FARAGHER, D. FARAGHER, B. HOWARD
L2114K
GLENN HUGHES
L1914D
ALONZO WANG, ROB WELLS, RUPERT GAYLE
L23972
DURRELL BABBS, S. ANDERSON
L2017N
S. MENDES, D. AMARO, S. NETO, R. POUNDS, N. WATTS, M. WATERS, B. AMARO, C. RODGES
L00004
FULL FORCE
L2276U
NICK BOLD
L19624
D. LILES, R. ALTIZER
L23088
JASON SELLERS, STEPHONY SMITH
L18725
ZIGGY MARLEY
L2221J
BEAN DOZIER, HOWIE DOROUGH, DAVID RYAN HARRIS
L2301W
DANIEL ALEXANDER HAVERS, CHRIS PAGE
L17447
PRIEST BROOKS, RICARDO BROWN
L2337Y
TODD RONNING, MARKUS WOLFE
L11169
BRAD, ANDY
L2395L
GABRIEL RIOS
L24850
M. SHARP
L1923X
RUSSELL TAN, KIMBERLY DEL FIERRO-HUFFMAN
L23431
EDWARD GREENEBAUM
L11513
DOUG HAVERTY, ADRYAN RUSS
L1962C
KENNETH NAVARRO
L2268G
ALEXANDRA DENNY
L24856
MICKEY NEWBURY
L24865
BENNY DANCY, DAVE GUSSOM
L24851
GREG SAGE
L24849
KROKUS STORACE, VON ARB, KOHLER, VON ROHR, GRIVELLI
L1921X
CHRISTIAN MOLLER NIELSEN
L2134F
ANDY ANDERSON, JEFF ADAMS, RENEE JACKSON
L2467D
FRED WILHELM, KEVIN FISHER
L1964I
PATRICK M. LANDREVILLE
L24846
AUSTIN CUNNINGHAM, THOM MCHUGH
L24852
JERRY FOSTER, BILL RICE
L2367Z
RICKY HANLEY, KURT RUSSELL
L2395X
GEORGE TEREN III, JASON BLUME
L24858
JERRY REED HUBBARD
L00919
CHIP KINMAN, TONY KINMAN
L2231C
DONNIE YALE, GYMMY THUNDERBIRD, FRANK BACKGAMMON, MURPHY UPSHAW
L10991
KARON PENNING
L2249S
MARK BENT, INGO NYAKAIRU, BOBBY ANDERSON, ANDY LOWE, ALAN AKEHURST
L25190
JIMMY CLIFF
L1927D
KAREN ASHE, GORDON DUKES
L2108E
KEVIN VONDERHOFFEN, CHRIS GRAFFAGNINO, RONNIE FREEMAN
L2231H
DAVID BALL, INGO VAUK, CHRIS BRAIDE
L2418L
STEVE DIAMOND, REBEKAH RYAN
L24861
JEFFREY DRESHER, DEIRDRE STEINSCHNEIDER
L2546W
ARISU SATO, TAKASHI SHOUJI
L1671I
GREG MATHIESON, RICK WHITFIELD
L1999Q
ROBBI ROBB, RICHARD STUVERUD
L2097H
LISA SIMMONS, CARSTEN SCHACK, KENNETH KARLIN, EDWIN SERRANO
L2122C
MATTIAS HALLBOM, JAKOB LARSSON, EMIL STENSTROM, DAVID LOFQVIST, JOHANNES HALLBOM
L2246S
SOLA ABDUL, GRAHAM KEARNS, MAGNUS HUBERT TWISLETON WYKEHA FIENNES
L2247V
PAUL TAYLOR, JOCELYN GUERIDON
L2260X
SANDRA NORDSTROEM, RICHARD ANDERSON
L2296T
WARREN HUART, MIKE FLYNN, NIKKI FLORES
L2334R
NICKOLAS G. CARTER, BRIDGET LOUISE BENENATE, MATTHEW GERRARD
L23430
EDWARD GREENBAUM
L2356R
DWAYNE NESMITH, PIERRE MEDOR, RICHARD PRESTON BUTLER
L2389F
TANYA LEAH, BRIAN NASH, KEVIN PAIGE
L2427O
SANDRO RUSSO, CECE ROGERS
L24770
BRENDA RUSSELL
L2516K
JUERGEN KRESCHEL, ROBERT MICHAEL NEUMANN