Friday, May 20, 2011

Vigilante blogger Danielle Schneider going broke

I don't pity Danielle; she made her bed, now she's laying in it. No matter what, vigilante actions are criminal acts. Rojas offered to drop the suit if she dropped the blog, but she took the law into her own hands and now she's paying the price.

Bio | Email | Follow: @
Posted on May 20, 2011 at 5:39 PM

TACOMA, Wash. -- A Tacoma mother says her family is going broke fighting a legal battle against a man convicted of victimizing their child.

A sex offender, Patrick Rojas, is suing the mother for negative comments she made about him on her blog. Rojas, 26, was convicted four years ago of inappropriate contact with Danielle Schneider's 11-year-old child.

Danielle spends her days cleaning, cooking and caring for her family, but at night when all six of her kids are asleep, she says she blogs about him.

"His story became my story when he chose to abuse my child," Danielle said. "I just felt if I could save one child from being abused, I could take being vulnerable and sharing my story," she said.

[COMMENT: How often have we heard this battle cry to justify illegal activity?]

But sharing her story has come at a price. Rojas is now suing Danielle for $60,000. He says she's slandering his name. Now mounting legal bills and counseling for their daughter has left Danielle's family almost broke. "My husband and I have had to go to food banks," Danielle said.

KING 5 News spoke with Mike Davis, Rojas' attorney, who said he tried to come to some sort of compromise with the Schneiders before filing a lawsuit. He says there are many details on the site that are private information and simply not true. He also says Rojas served his time and has gone to counseling. Davis hopes to come to an agreement with the family before this goes to trial in December.


Anonymous said...


Once Fallen said...

I agree. Danielle is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Anonymous said...

have you actually read the whole blog, a better question what if it was your child? You have this blog should Danielle sue you for calling her a VIGILANTE? Isn't that slander?

Once Fallen said...

LOL @ the second anonymous. I don't do "what if" scenarios, but I'll play along. If it was my kid, I'd let the justice syatem do its job, and I'd get my kid the help she needs to overcome the abuse so she doesn't remain a lifelong victim like society would expect of her.

The definition of a vigilante is an accurate description of Danielle Schneider. Pull your head out of your ass. This is a site about vigilantes. Let that cunt sue me if she's got any money left after she loses to Rojas:

A vigilante is a private individual who illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.

"Vigilante justice" is sometimes spurred on by the perception that criminal punishment is either nonexistent or insufficient for the crime. Those who believe this see their governments as ineffective in enforcing the law; thus, such individuals fulfil the like-minded wishes of the community. In other instances, a person may choose a role of vigilante as a result of personal experience as opposed to a social demand.

Persons seen as "escaping from the law" or "above the law" are sometimes the targets of vigilantism.[3] It may target persons or organizations involved in illegal activities in general or it may be aimed against a specific group or type of activity, e.g. police corruption. Other times, governmental corruption is the prime target of vigilante freedom fighters.

Vigilante behavior may differ in degree of violence. In some cases vigilantes may assault targets verbally, physically attack them or vandalize their property. Anyone who defies the law to further justice is a vigilante, and thus violence is not a necessary criterion. On the more extreme end of the scale, groups such as People Against Gangsterism And Drugs, (PAGAD), have resorted to tactics that have had them blacklisted as terrorist organisations.

Once Fallen said...

Ms. Sparky/ Debbie Crawford's comments were deleted. This is my blog and I can say and do whatever I want here. That being said, pull your head out your ass and try to prove me wrong. My assessment of Danielle Schneider is accurate. If Danielle does not agree, let her sue, by all means. She'll lose. Do me a favor, Debbie, stick to contracting and government gripes, you have no place here.

Voice of Reason said...

Don't you just love anonymous posters. The reality of the situation is every action we take has consequences. Mr Rojas made a decision to molest a child. That decision had the consequence of him serving gaol time. Mrs Schneider made the decision to publish a vindictive blog about someone who'd served his time and the consequence of her decision could well be that she goes broke. If that happens then so be it. It was her choice.

Once Fallen said...

Her supporters are polluting the comment board on the earlier post I made about her. It is amazing how many people think the laws of harassment do not apply to people harassing someone forced to register.

Voice of Reason said...

That's because they're morons.

Once Fallen said...

They've been drinking the kool-aid of Predator Panic for years. They also have shelves of Oprah book of the Month club books. Hell, they probably sent money to the Angry Tammy Gibson get high on my dime fund.