GCHQ and the NSA are consequently able to access and process vast quantities of communications between entirely innocent people, as well as targeted suspects.
You Can Now See All The Erroneous DMCA Takedown Requests Google Gets
Google does a lot of work for copyright holders in the US. Under the DMCA, Google has to delete infringing links from its search results. It used to be not such a bad job, but now the search giant is receiving over 12 million requests per month. All of those requests can’t be legitimate, right? A new tool from Google proves that to be the case.
TorrentFreak reports that Google has quietly rolled out a new feature in its transparency reports that details how many false DMCA takedown requests it receives from copyright holders. Google details these false requests in a newly updated FAQ:
From time to time, we may receive inaccurate or unjustified copyright removal requests for search results that clearly do not link to infringing content. An independent, third-party analysis of how frequently improper and abusive removal requests are submitted was conducted in 2006.Google then lists a number of examples of where copyright holders submitted false DMCA takedown requests. Here’s some of the better ones:
A U.S. reporting organization working on behalf of a major movie studio requested removal of a movie review on a major newspaper website twice.None of these scenarios fell under DMCA regulations, and therefore Google did not remove them. These are just examples, but Google still receives erroneous DMCA takedown requests. Our own Web site, WebProNews.com, was subject to two false takedown requests at the hands of AMC over our coverage of The Walking Dead season 3 premier. Of course, the link was non-infringing as it linked to AMC’s own stream of the premier.
An individual in the U.S. requested the removal of search results that link to court proceedings referencing her first and last name on the ground that her name was copyrightable.
A driving school in the U.K. requested the removal of a competitor’s homepage from Search, on the grounds that the competitor had copied an alphabetized list of cities and regions where instruction was offered.
The takedown request levied at our site, and others, was most likely fueled by AMC looking for links that mentioned “The Walking Dead” and “free.” There’s no thought put into the suggestion that there may be legitimate free sources to watch these episodes. Strangely enough, none of the links were removed despite some links offering illegitimate copies of The Walking Dead.
This latest offering from Google serves to make the DMCA takedown process more transparent, but it probably won’t have any effect on the amount of takedown requests sent by rightsholders. Current laws don’t enforce repercussions for those who send false takedown requests so there’s no reason for rightsholders to use caution. If laws ever do change, it’s almost guaranteed that the amount of takedown requests would drop to the few hundred thousand a month it was at in 2011.
More stupidity from the courts concerning #CyberStalking
As (Volokh) noted last year, a federal prosecutor indicted a man for his campaign of insulting Twitter messages about a Buddhist religious leader, and a federal judge then dismissed the indictment on First Amendment grounds.This is fascism. plain and simple. proving a person has intent to upset another person is no reason to take their free expression away. I have experience with this kind of legal abuse. I'm not allowed to tell you about it apparently... or rather I'd rather not find out how stupid the legal system is again.
Some of the Twitter posts might have been seen as threatening, but the government’s theory wasn’t that they were threatening, but that they where posted “with the intent to harass and cause substantial emotional distress to” the religious leader, and actual caused such distress, in violation of the federal antistalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. The district court correctly held that the statute was unconstitutional as applied, and left open the possibility that it might be unconstitutional on its face as well. The government appealed, but earlier this month decided to drop the appeal.
Now the Senate, rather than tightening the law to prevent its being applied to constitutionally protected speech, is considering expanding it. Section 107 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011 (which (Volokh) blogged about below, as to a different constitutionally troublesome provision) would take the existing statute and have it cover not just speech that causes substantial emotional distress, but also speech that “attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress,” so long as the speaker is intending to (among other things) “harass” the target. Anyone who
with the intent to … harass … uses the … any interactive computer service … to engage in a course of conduct that … causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to [the person or the person's family member]would now be committing a federal crime. If the statute were just limited to conduct and speech intended to threaten someone — which the rest of the statute does cover — there would be no constitutional problem. But trying to outlaw speech that is made “with the intent to … harass” and “would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress” often violates the First Amendment, as the federal judge rightly held in the Twitter case. It seems to me that Congress should be fixing this constitutional problem rather than expanding it.
Is It a Crime to Publish Parody Videos That Use “Lewd … Language” Meant to “Embarrass and Emotionally Torment” Police Officers?

(Volokh.com) Yes, the Renton (Wash.) city prosecutor’s office concludes, applying the Washington “cyberstalking” statute — an excellent example of the dangers of the broad “cyberbullying” and “harassment” statutes that I have often condemned. KIRO-TV reports:
The Renton City Prosecutor wants to send a cartoonist to jail for mocking the police department in a series of animated Internet videos.Here’s the potentially relevant text from Rev. Code Wash. 9.61.260:
The “South-Park”-style animations parody everything from officers having sex on duty to certain personnel getting promoted without necessary qualifications.... [Last week, the prosecutor filed] a search warrant accusing an anonymous cartoon creator, going by the name of Mr. Fiddlesticks, of cyberstalking (RCW 9.61.260). The Renton Police Department and the local prosecutor got a judge to sign off as a way to uncover the name of whoever is behind the parodies....
The series of web-based short cartoons feature a mustachioed street cop and a short-haired female bureaucrat. The dry, at times, witty banter between the two touches on some embarrassing insider secrets, some of which seem to match up with internal affairs investigations on file within Renton PD.
Cartoon Character of Officer: “Is there any reason why an anonymous video, with no identifying information that ties it to the department or city is being taken more seriously than officers having sex on duty, arguing with outside agencies while in a drunken stupor off duty, sleeping while on duty, throwing someone off a bridge, and having inappropriate relationships with coworkers and committing adultery?”
Cartoon Character of Bureaucrat: “The reason is that internal dirt is internal. The department will crucify certain people and take care of others.”
A criminal court document, uncovered by Team 7 Investigators, not only shows how badly the city of Renton wants to “out” the cartoonist (who goes by the name MrFiddlesticks), but states some of the fake character’s lines discuss real life incidents....
A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication [defined as transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means ... includ[ing] ... internet-based communications] to such other person or a third party: (a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act ....Under the prosecutor’s view, any statement — including on a blog, in a YouTube video, in a newspaper article, on television, or whatever else — is a crime if it is made “with intent to harass, ... torment, or embarrass” the subject of the person “[u]sing any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language.” A comedian’s joke that “lewd[ly]” or “lascivious[ly]” described President Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky, or for that matter Congressman Weiner’s behavior, would be a crime if it was made “with intent to ... embarrass” the President or the Congressman. The Hustler parody attacking Jerry Falwell, which the Supreme Court held to be protected against civil liability under the “intentional infliction of emotional distress tort,” would be a crime. Indeed, in this very case, the theory is that the videos are criminal because they described alleged police sexual misconduct using “lewd” or “indecent” words with the intent to torment or embarrass particular officers. (The theory expressed in the document — a search warrant application — is that the videos sufficiently identify the particular police officers who were involved in the incidents to which the video alludes.)
If the prosecutor is right that the statute should be interpreted this broadly, then it’s clearly unconstitutionally overbroad. Speech to the public doesn’t lose its constitutional protection because it’s intended to torment or embarrass. (It may lose such protection when it’s intended to be perceived as a true threat of criminal attack, but that’s not the issue here.) Nor does lose its constitutional protection because it uses “lewd” or “indecent” terms. And while one-to-one speech said to an unwilling listener may in some circumstances be restricted — which is the reason traditional telephone harassment laws, if properly crafted, may be constitutional — this rationale can’t be used to suppress speech said to the public, even if the people discussed in the speech are tormented or embarrassed by it.
Moreover, the statute would be clearly unconstitutional as applied to this video, and the prosecutor and the judge ought to know this. (The prosecutor is Renton Chief Prosecutor Shawn Arthur; the judge is James Cayce.) A search warrant can only be issued if there is probable cause to believe that it will uncover evidence of a crime; since the material described in the affidavit can’t be made criminal under the cited statute, given the First Amendment, the warrant ought not have been issued. The government is not permitted to use its coercive power to identify the author of this constitutionally protected video.
Thanks to Cory Andrews for the pointer. UPDATE: I originally said I didn’t know which judge signed this warrant, but that was a mistake on my part — Judge Cayce’s signature is right there on the last page.
Cyberbully and Cyberstalker Loren Feldman 1938Media, Hackers, GoDaddy and MediaTemple are still Cybersquatting, Cyberbullying and Cyberstalking. Hacker and so called Successful Women Involved
...the enraged reaction shows that this certainly registered an emotional response...
![]() |

![]() |
| ...This was what was seen on Noah David Simon dot com on Wednesday September 23rd 2009. GoDaddy was warned that Loren Feldman was Cybersquatting and Harassing with bigotry and continues to promote his hate speech. ...here is an example of the harassing messages Loren Feldman sends to me from the domain name he is stealing and defaming. This is not parody. this is harassment.... |

Here is a another video of Loren Feldman harassing Igor Berger and buying his name as well as mine. Please allow me to buy my own name. What you are doing with the cybersquatting is enabling Anti-Semitism by allowing Loren Feldman to broadcast his bigotry from my name and business name. It should not take a legal team for you to do the right thing. Noah Madieros of your company suggested I take this action, but I am hoping that in light that Loren Feldman is breaking the law and is harassing the Jewish community through Anti-Semitic jokes from the domain, that action should be taken because of principle. I am also sending a copy of this email to Jewish Groups like the JIDF [PROOF] cordially, NoahDavidSimon ...This was the original beef that I had with Loren Feldman. he defended a Hiemietown joke on Strumpette known as @AmandaChapel on twitter that I complained about. I had the Amanda Chapel name on facebook destroyed because it isn't an actual person. @AmandaChapel is really a man named Brian Connolly who tried to frame myself "Noah" for rape. Strumpette is BrianConnolly's blog.
backup: The data contained in GoDaddy.com, Inc.'s WhoIs database,Registrant: 1938 Media Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: NOAHDAVIDSIMON.COM Domain servers in listed order: NS1.MEDIATEMPLE.NET NS2.MEDIATEMPLE.NET
Loren Feldman 1938media.com ICANN Abuse
Loren Feldman is a Cyberbully who abuses ICANN policy against Anticybersquating. See the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Loren Feldman abuses people on the Internet by hateful attack on them via his website and domain names of his victims. Some of the prominent web people that he attacked are Dave Winer, Robert Scoble, Jason Calacanis, and Shel Israel (Loren Feldman bought and registered www.shelisrael.com with GoDaddy.com), so GoDaddy was aware of his behavior before they allowed him to by Noah and Igor's property. Loren Feldman attacked and made fun of Shel Israel via a Puppet parody, both on 1938media.com and Shelisrael.com ...Because Noah David Simon and Igor Berger stood up to Loren Feldman and alerted the Internet Social Media community of his Cyberbullying, he started attacking. He registered Noahdavidsimon.com and Igorberger.com with Godaddy.com (Loren Feldman stated in his Ustream live video that he will use the sites for parody to attack) He even said that on Igor's domain that he will make fun of Igor's dead mother who passed away a month before Igor's and Noah's name was bought. Here are the videos where he claims to have bought the domain in order to terrorize. Loren Feldman's video message to Noah David Simon and Loren Feldman's video message to Igor Berger These videos were originally posted by Loren Feldman on seesmic. Igor download the videos from Seesmic and uploaded them to his Youtube account as evidence. Noahdavidsimon.com is registered by 1938media Loren Felman. @salzano Corey Salzano bought Igorberger.com with Loren Feldman. He works together with Loren Feldman @1938media Loren Feldman in his Ustream live video asked Corey Salzano to buy Igorberger.com then he in Seesmic video said Loren Feldman of owned Igorberger.com
Salzano and Feldman's relationship was recorded on Twitter. Whois record of Igorberger.com registrant is Salzano. Loren Feldman Tweeted and tormented Igor about his dead mother in a video right after his mother died by threatening to speak Latin Curses on his name by buying Igor's and Noah's intellectual property. Loren Feldman gloated on Twitter over getting the domain name. Corey Salzano admited he and Loren bought these domain to terrorize. Loren Feldman and Corey Salzano must return these domains to the registrar because as per Anticybersquating he cannot use these domains of other people names to profit from. Loren Feldman promotes his brand 1938media through the domains he Cybersquates on.
yes, Hackers do try to frame you
Wiener's Wiener: Dem. Rep's 'Hacking' Story Falls Apart?
On Wednesday, Google admitted that some Gmail users--including senior U.S. government officials, military personnel and Chinese political activists--had been the target of a hacking campaign. And they believe that the attack came from the Chinese city of Jinan. This is the second time China and Jinan have been in Google's crossfires. Last year it traced another attack to Jinan--the site of an important military installation--and China's actions caused Google to decide not to cooperate with China's censorship demands. The latest hacking offense seemed to aimed at monitoring particular users' emails and creating unfettered access to hacked accounts by forwarding mails. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images via nymag.com and Google Says Chinese Hackers Stole Gmail Passwords [NYT]
It's possible. After all, we know the Chinese intelligence services are very adept at hacking. And Weiner has been a critic of China's human rights record for years, so China might have a motive.
And we are being told that what is possible and what might have happened must be what happened.
was that offensive?
Here have some...
Nazi Porn
But what is possible may not be what has happened.
It is now up to you to prove that I am wrong about the Chinese hacking theory. If you can't disprove it, then I am right. And Weiner is in the clear. Right? I said, right? via legalinsurrection.blogspot.com
This elaborate "I was hacked" story does not ring true?
![]() |
Weiner Calls for |
![]() |
Failing to Recognize |
Wiener's Wiener with GoAnimate.com by CriticalAnalyst
Twitter hacked by Iranian Cyber Army;
signs off with poem to Khamenei
go figure... Washington State again with the accusation against men... particularly Jewish men. I hope Wiener learns a little about what goes on in this liberal state and changes his politics. I didn't comment before because I felt my dislike of Macho Spaz Anthony Wiener would make me biased, but after reading this you know this is a sexual lynch mob as usual from the usual place. They accuse this guy of being a predator online because they refuse to acknowledge that accounts can be hacked. http://xrl.us/WienersWiener
YouTube death threat against Rep. Eric Cantor nets two-year prison term
![]() |
| Apparently he was stalking the Jewish Internet Defense Force before he went postal on Youtube... |
Guess Laboon's background!

teachers to stalk your kids on Facebook now?
-Woody Allen....
When did the Department of Education become the Department of Speech Monitoring? Add the Dept of Ed to the list of Obama agencies that need to be reined in, hard and fast.
Education Department officials are threatening school principals with lawsuits if they fail to monitor and curb students’ lunchtime chat and evening Facebook time for expressing ideas and words that are deemed by Washington special-interest groups to be harassment of some students.It’s no great surprise that federal bureaucrats, Facebook, and the ACLU are on board with this. But…the teachers’ unions are fine with teachers and administrators being put in legal jeopardy for what kids do on Facebook, on their own time? Really?
There has only been muted opposition to this far-reaching policy among the professionals and advocates in the education sector, most of whom are heavily reliant on funding and support from top-level education officials. The normally government-averse tech-sector is also playing along, and on Mar. 11, Facebook declared that it was “thrilled” to work with White House officials to foster government oversight of teens’ online activities.
The only formal opposition has come from the National School Board Association, which declined to be interviewed by The DC.
Even creepier than the policy itself, is who has been charged with overseeing it.
The leading advocate for the expanded rules is Kevin Jennings, who heads the Education Department’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.Jennings’ is a name that just keeps popping up in the Obama era. He ran that White House bullying summit last week. As Zombie wrote at the time, Jennings brings quite a history to the field of education — a history that includes child porn in the classroom, failing to report a child predator, and proclaiming to have been inspired by NAMBLA’s Harry Hay. Quite a history the so-called “safe schools” czar has brought to the table. Now he’s advocating that your kids’ teachers Facebook stalk your kids.
And the teachers’ unions have nothing to say about this? Don’t the teachers; unions have teachers a) who will wind up in court over this, and b) kids in school who may end up running afoul of whatever insane rules the likes of Kevin Jennings comes up with?
Education Department officials are threatening school principals with lawsuits if they fail to monitor and curb students’ lunchtime chat and evening Facebook time for expressing ideas and words that are deemed by Washington special-interest groups to be harassment of some students.
There has only been muted opposition to this far-reaching policy among the professionals and advocates in the education sector, most of whom are heavily reliant on funding and support from top-level education officials. The normally government-averse tech-sector is also playing along, and on Mar. 11, Facebook declared that it was “thrilled” to work with White House officials to foster government oversight of teens’ online activities.
The only formal opposition has come from the National School Board Association, which declined to be interviewed by The DC.
The agency’s threats, which are delivered in a so-called “Dear Colleague” letter,” have the support of White House officials, including President Barack Obama, who held a Mar. 10 White House meeting to promote the initiative as a federal “anti-bullying” policy.
The letter says federal officials have reinterpreted the civil-rights laws that require school principals to curb physical bullying, as well as racist and sexist speech, that take place within school boundaries. Under the new interpretation, principals and their schools are legally liable if they fail to curb “harassment” of students, even if it takes place outside the school, on Facebook or in private conversation among a few youths.
“Harassing conduct may take many forms, including verbal acts and name-calling; graphic and written statements, which may include use of cell phones or the Internet… it does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents [but] creates a hostile environment … [which can] limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school,” according to the far-reaching letter, which was completed Oct. 26 by Russlynn Ali, who heads the agency’s civil rights office.
School officials will face lawsuits even when they are ignorant about students’ statements, if a court later decides they “reasonably should have known” about their students’ conduct, said the statement.
Following the discovery of “harassment,” officials may have to require mandatory training of students and their families, according to the Ali letter. “The school may need to provide training or other interventions not only for the perpetrators, but also for the larger school community, to ensure that all students, their families, and school staff can recognize harassment if it recurs and know how to respond… [and] provide additional services to the student who was harassed in order to address the effects of the harassment,” said the letter.
Facebook is developing new features that will make it harder for principals to miss episodes of online “harassment,” and so will increase the likelihood of government action against the teenage users of Facebook and other social-media. “We’re adding a unique feature, developed with safety experts, that lets people also report content to someone in their support system (like a parent or teacher) who may be able to address the issue more directly,’ Facebook declared Mar. 11. “It is our hope that features like this will help not only remove the offensive content but also help people get to the root of the problem,” the company statement declared.
Cyber Bullies and Hackers Targeting Successful Women?
![]() |
![]() |
| women are more likely to be Cyberbullies! |Lori Drew a.k.a. "Josh Evans" on the witness stand |
WIPO: Cybersquatting Hits Record
The number of cybersquatting complaints reached a record in 2008, the World Intellectual Property Association reported Monday.
Geneva-based WIPO, which is charged with resolving such disputes, said there were 2,329 complaints filed with the WIPO Administration and Mediation Center last year. That’s an 8 percent increase from the year prior.
And the numbers are likely to skyrocket as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is expected to launch new top-domain spaces by year’s end.
"Cybersquatting remains a serious issue for trademark holders. Supported especially by registrar and registry stakeholders, the sale and broad expansion of new top-level domains in the open market, if not properly managed, will provide abundant opportunities for cybersquatters to seize old ground in new domains," Francis Gurry, WIPO’s general director, said in a statement.
In the last decade, when the WIPO commenced the dispute process, there have been 14,663 cybersquatting case covering 26,262 domains.
The WIPO said 30 percent of all cases were settled prior to decision. About 85 percent of the cases favored those filing the complaint.
please report this harrassing FAKE account:
based on the context of these tweets months ago. why didn’t she go to the authorities then? Maybe because @AmandaChapel would have to use her real identity. Shows where her priorities are… why would @purplecar be giving me twirl advice if she believed I was really stalking? that would make her an accessory
noahdavidsimon: @PurpleCar I’m now following you three times. still deciding on my girls name. I need something to stalk with
2 months ago · Reply · View Tweet · Hide Conversation
PurpleCar: @noahdavidsimon Having an @MailOurMilitary pal CAN be hard. It’s WAR. I may offer some thoughts to the ‘orientation’ eMOM pages, maybe blog
2 months ago · Reply · View Tweet
PurpleCar: @noahdavidsimon click on the twhirl logo/word at the top left corner of the twirl window. The instructions will come up in a little window.
about 2 hours later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @PurpleCar I’m now following you three times. still deciding on my girls name. I need something to stalk with
about 1 hour later · Reply · View Tweet
PurpleCar: @noahdavidsimon *sigh* /me shakes head.
1 minute later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @PurpleCar go to bed then! the fun will continue!
29 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @PurpleCar problem with this s that my updates r going 2b funny n facebook. do U think f I use twittervision on dif account it’ll work?
1 minute later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @PurpleCar the people of eMOM do not have the maturity or behavior 2 run n operation like that. I will not endorce it n neether should you.
about 14 hours later · Reply · View Tweet
and here is @AmandaChapel trying to defame me:
amandachapel: @noahdavidsimon None of the women you stalk here find is funny, artistic or free speech. You’re just scary. You’re forced misogyny.
27 minutes ago · Reply · View Tweet · Hide Conversation
noahdavidsimon: @AmandaChapel put ur guard down. I’m not a bad guy. Don’t libel me n call me names (online assassination and u know it)
about 20 hours ago · Reply · View Tweet
amandachapel: @noahdavidsimon “my other avatars are to stalk people” | 18 U.S.C. 875 (c) up to 5 yrs in prison; 47 U.S.C. 223 punishable 2 yrs in prison.
about 4 hours later · Reply · View Tweet
amandachapel: @noahdavidsimon http://tinyurl.com/68z8se (expand) “my other avatars are to stalk people” | 18 U.S.C. 875(c) + 47 U.S.C. 223 – up to 5 yrs in prison.
16 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel come and join the fun here at @NoahDavidSimon! but I would prefer to see you on Seesmic ;-p
about 15 hours later · Reply · View Tweet
amandachapel: @noahdavidsimon | Noah, SEE THIS 18 U.S.C. 875(c) + 47 U.S.C. 223 !!!! http://tinyurl.com/5a22uy (expand)
11 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel and if I announce it publicly… it isn’t a stalk dumb ass! your worse then @Scobleizer when you don’t get a joke.
4 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel twitter is public by nature…admiting a stalk here is within the context of the architecture that is also public.
less than a minute later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel tell me what is the jail term for wrongful prosecution and libel? you don’t want to be in public? Go 2 facebook
less than a minute later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel oh yes facebook… where they kicked you off for lying and saying you were a person that didn’t exist.
half a minute later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel how can I stalk you if you don’t exist? I dare @AmandaChapel to call the police as @AmandaChapel.
less than a minute later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel see if the police like your little frat joke
half a minute later · Reply · View Tweet
amandachapel: @noahdavidsimon None of the women you stalk here find is funny, artistic or free speech. You’re just scary. You’re forced misogyny.
3 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel nonsense. I have a right to speak out and make art. stop it with the lies. go harass geniuses like Robert Crumb or something
4 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel perhaps my art partner Gregory Hergert is also a misogynist? http://tinyurl.com/5rqbuf (expand)
3 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @AmandaChapel this is beyond belief that you would grasp at such a desperate measure. try it again and I will organize a censorship boycott
2 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
amandachapel: @noahdavidsimon AGAIN see http://tinyurl.com/5a22uy (expand) . You are an admitted stalker! http://tinyurl.com/68z8se (expand) IT’S A FEDERAL CRIME!!
2 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @AmandaChapel thinks keeping as many blue state brown shirt Juden Rotts around justifies her persuasion of endorsing Jew Killers.
less than a minute later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @AmandaChapel thinks keeping as many blue state brown shirt Juden Rotts around justifies her persuasion of endorsing Jew Killers.
less than 5 seconds later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel want to try to summize other comments out of context. your worse then @Scobleizer
4 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet
noahdavidsimon: @amandachapel take it to court. I relish counter suing you
5 minutes later · Reply · View Tweet



















