Vigilante blogger Danielle Schneider claims legal victory over her target

When people take the law into their own hands, whether online or in real life, they tend to get away with it, like when Kruska's lawsuit against perverted Justice experienced a setback for many years. So I'm not surprised to see Danielle Schneider gloating over her legal victory, getting away with harassment because her victim is an alleged sex offender. Considering how little these cyber-crimes get punished, I'm not surprised she is allowed to continue. She also proudly gloats her blog will stay "AS-IS." Well, so will my blog. Hopefully there will be an appeal to a higher court, so she might want to keep a cork on that wine-in-a-box (technically, if you buy wine in a box, it isn't corked, but that is a story for a different day. However, you'd think she'd spell Darrell Cochran's name right (she spelled it COCKran, I kid you not). No relation to Johnny Cochran, who would've shredded this vigilante in court. Darrell Cochran is apparently some defender of people like Schneider, who feel she is above the law. The other attorney, Talis M. Abolins, ironically lists "civil rights" as a field of expertise. Really? If online harassment and defamation now a civil right? I suppose that will be the official AZU excuse for the 3 am phone calls. 

Shame on both of these lame excuses of attorneys; it was not a matter of Schneider being allegedly victimized, but an issue of her harassment and meting extralegal punishment. If by chance Rojas reads this, appeal this decision. Lower courts don't amount to shit. 

Danielle Schneider justifies her criminal behavior

It seems Danielle Schneider and her supporters are continuing to waste my time by trying to justify Schneider's criminal behavior. Says Schneider: "The author of the post is assuming I am guilty of something." Allow me to point something out:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.46&full=true

9A.46.010
Legislative finding.

The legislature finds that the prevention of serious, personal harassment is an important government objective. Toward that end, this chapter is aimed at making unlawful the repeated invasions of a person's privacy by acts and threats which show a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the victim.

*** CHANGE IN 2011 *** (SEE 1206-S2.SL) ***

(1) A person is guilty of harassment if:

(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:

(b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication.

(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who harasses another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

Intent -- 1999 c 27: "It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that electronic communications are included in the types of conduct and actions that can constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent of the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to restrict in any way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or stalking." [1999 c 27 § 1.]
This disclaimer is also on the sheriff's office websites around the state of Washington:

Abuse of this information to threaten, intimidate or harass registered sex and kidnapping offenders will not be tolerated. Such abuse could potentially end our current ability to release this important information to the public.
I don't make assumptions. I read the law.

No matter how Schneider feels about Rojas, the bottom line is what she is doing fits the bill for harassment. I cannot support such actions. There is a reason her story is posted on this blog, which focuses primarily on cyber-harassment. Schneider and her followers, like "mssparky," another damned special interest crime blogger (and my loyal readers know how I feel about wannabe crime analysts), have filled my comment board with insults and excuses for her criminal behavior. I can't believe they're still crying because I didn't post their juvenile comments, but that's a beef for a different day. The fact remains that the Rojas family has a valid argument whether Schneider likes it or not.

Someone sent me a few choice quotes Schneider posted on Facebook.

Danielle Jones Schneider
You had asked for people to submit questions or ideas that they would like explored in your documentary... I believe if someone is accused of childhood sexual abuse or rape that they should be required to have a psycho sexual evaluation and PASS it as truthful in order to even be considered eligible for a plea offer....what would need to happen for this to be made into law? Since the abuse in my family occurred, I've noticed that individuals that harm animals seem to get harsher legal consequences than those who harm/sexually abuse children, can the statistic be looked into for this.

Schneider wants to dent someone accused of a crime to be considered guilty until proven innocent and treated as automatically guilty. Have people forgot it is supposed to be INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY? Have we forgotten about false allegations? It happens.

Schneider: I DO NOT BELIEVE a P**** can be cured...althou gh I do believe in a God of miracles, I WOULD NOT be willing to risk an innocent child to test if a convicted p***** has been "healed" would you?

It is hard to read such things without reasonably concluding you are willing to put a slant on your arguments favoring your opinion. I wonder if her God shares her opinion?

Schneider: The recidivism rate comment could be argued. Lots and lots of abuse is not reported!

Who is assuming now? A recent New York state study found 95% of sex crime arrests were of first timers. The recidivism rate is consistently low. Yes it can be argued, but like many comments Schneider makes, it is based upon conjecture and assumption.

Danielle Jones Schneider
I agree with the above statement...of course some are unjustly punished (life is not fare![sic]) In any criminal conviction there is the potential for errors. BUT I do believe that sentences for sexual crimes are not equal to the damage done. THAT is why I suggested that you look into the stats for other crimes that although are bad, in my opinion, don't damage individuals the same as a sexual crime. I THINK THE BIGGEST QUESTION SHOULD BE, WHAT DO WE VALUE AS A SOCIETY? and DO OUR LAWS REFLECT THAT. Yes, I am bias BUT one could argue I have personal experience and that SHOULD make my opinion matter!

Well I have personal experience too, as a victim of cyberstalking and vigilantism. She admits to bias. Bias means she is incapable of looking at things objectively. Bias justifies illicit actions, like running a blog that mixes a few fact with some baseless conjecture. Well I'm a bit biased against my ex but I know the difference between speaking about proven facts and spreading rumors. The fact remains Schneider is inflicting pain and her own brand of justice on another person.

I really don't care about this case. I merely blogged about it as another bad example of a vigilante feeling justified. Is Schneider a member of the criminal justice system? Doubt it. One of her screen name is fitting -- Totally Cracker. It fits her quite nicely.

Another wonderful example of Schneider's wonderful bias:

B***** wedding. I believe the wedding is to take place in Virginia, May 7th at a Sovereign Grace church : KingsWay Community Church. Some of the R**** family members that have been in the UK are in the United States, RIGHT NOW for the wedding! If you attend the wedding you may even get to meet ****, the convicted level 2 sex offender, whom is suing me because I continue to tell our story.

If you see E*** R*** please call your local authorities and tell them that there is a felony warrant in Washington state for ***** aka***. The police can handle it from there. Can you imagine marrying into this family?

Benjamin is on the witness list to testify on behalf of P*** and J*** lawsuit against myself and my husband. Not sure that this apple has fallen too far from the tree.

I'd love to hear what she meant by that last line. Another example of Schneider's conjecture:

There is also a wanted felon that is all twisted up in our story (E*****) shouldn't I do everything within reason to locate him? Especially because he has children with him that are most likely the victims of childhood sexual abuse.

At least she admits she's again assuming something. It sounds like she's implying the family is full of child abusers. The fact she says this on a blog gives more merit to the lawsuit against her, along with gratuitous use of the terms "predator" and "pedophile." I wonder if she cares her comments may be the only thing hurting the children?

Someone recently brought up a good point I should relate here. This is what I've referred to as keeping someone in victim mode. Instead of starting the healing process for the sake of the Rojas's victim, Schneider decides to obsess, to pick at the scab. After all, people think it is wrong to overcome the abuse. I could even question the motivation to ask constantly for funds. She says she has a FB page to beg for more money. I wonder if she was encouraged by the support Angry Tammy Gibson got for her unprovoked attack on a Level 3 registrant. Its the same location, it was high profile, and the time Schneider began blogging coincides with the outcome of the Gibson case. Jesus stated Love of Money was the root of all evil. It also makes a good motivator for a struggling mother with SIX kids.

Think I'm wrong? Well sue me, Danielle. Maybe I'll start a legal defense fund too.

UPDATE: It is funny Schneider posted this on her blog:

Obsession

: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation

I find it quite befitting her. Obsession also implies the taking over of one's life, which is what her blog does. She truly is no different from AZU.

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.

http://www.king5.com/news/cities/tacoma/Sex-Offender-Sues-Family--122369809.html

by TONYA MOSLEY / KING 5 News

Bio | Email | Follow: @TonyaMosley

Posted on May 20, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Related:

• Convicted sex offender sues mother of victim over blog post

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.

Vigilante blogger Danielle Schneider sued

T

Far too often, people feel justified to commit criminal acts in the name of revenge, retribution, or what they believe to be "justice." Such is the case of Danielle Jones Schneider. If you haven't heard about this story, just read on:

From the Seattle Weekly Blog--

It doesn't take long to look through Danielle Schneider's blog and realize that she really doesn't like Patrick Rojas. She has, of course, good reason not to. In 2007 the then-22-year-old pleaded guilty to reduced misdemeanor charges--communication with a minor for immoral purposes--for incidents involving Schneider's 11-year-old daughter. He's free now, and says that her hate blog is keeping him from getting a job. As such, he and his lawyer would like "unspecified damages" to compensate him for his troubles...

In fairness, Schneider's 277 blog posts go back to March 2009, and are vitriolic as they come. The posts blast Rojas, his father Eddie, wife Kathy, a host of clergy members at their church, nearly all of their children, and just about anyone else who's ever associated with them. She writes about where they go, what they do, and whatever rumors she hears. She accuses them of other crimes, though her documentation backing up the claims is typically lacking. At any rate, it's clear that the shaming of Rojas and his clan is something that Schneider is obsessively committed to.
 We tend to think people are somehow justified in doing this, but we have a justice system for that. However imperfect it is, it is there to punish criminal behavior.What Rojas did was wrong; however, this does not give John Q. Public free reign to harass Rojas. What Schneider is doing today is harassment, plain and simple, and as such, she is a criminal. It remains to be seen whether a judge will do the right thing and rule against Schneider in light of the rants on both her blog and throughout the internet. Some of her other comments really make me question her integrity (a lot of things simple are not adding up):

I believe if someone is accused of childhood sexual abuse or rape that they should be required to have a psycho sexual evaluation and PASS it as truthful in order to even be considered eligible for a plea offer....what would need to happen for this to be made into law? Since the abuse in my family occurred, I've noticed that individuals that harm animals seem to get harsher legal consequences than those who harm/sexually abuse children, can the statistic be looked into for this.

We need to network, come together and make real, meaningful change. I DO NOT BELIEVE a pedophile can be cured...although I do believe in a God of miracles, I WOULD NOT be willing to risk an innocent child to test if a convicted pedophile has been "healed" would you?

She's also begging the public for money to support her legal fees for committing harassment. No doubt she's raking in the funds-- they did the same for Angry Tammy Gibson. I guess what people say about the Pacific Northwest and mental illness is true.


http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/cfapps/linx/calendar/GetCivilCase.cfm?cause_num=10-2-10386-0

I'll be watching this case closely. It is time a vigilante gets deterred from engaging in criminal activity.