Brian Henderson is the mole

[Unregistered]

Good point.
It’s also pretty concerning that you have people posting about this Alvin guy who seem to have used their access to research this guy in RMS and CAD then air his dirty laundry on a public forum. I would argue that it amounts to cyber stalking. I know VCSO admin isn’t usually very knowledgeable on state statutes, but you fools might want to review that one.

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means:
1. To engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person; or
2. To access, or attempt to access, the online accounts or Internet-connected home electronic systems of another person without that person’s permission,
causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

[Unregistered]

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise of this comment, the main difference is obvious. Because Chitwood is an elected official, criticism and political free speech come with the territory. The others aren’t in that category and didn’t sign up for the kind of verbal abuse they’re taking.

I will agree Chitwood is a public official. However, Alvin has brought these problems on himself in my opinion. I don’t feel bad for him one bit. He’s been nothing but an obnoxious, arrogant, and ****y little prick on here. Alvin signed himself up by not delivering on his promises and talking so much smack. This forum is riddled with nothing but his trash talk. So, we are now supposed to feel bad for this baby who cried wolf all this time and can’t take the heat? I frankly don’t think people are hammering him enough.

[Unregistered]

I don't blame Alvin for being a bit upset over some of the attacks on him and his family that have been posted on here. By the same token some of the attacks on Chitwood have been a bit over the top. But it is a bit crazy how much abuse Alvin, Henry, Szabo, Jenkins, Chitwood and Kyle catch on here.

I agree 100%

[Unregistered]

Good point.
It’s also pretty concerning that you have people posting about this Alvin guy who seem to have used their access to research this guy in RMS and CAD then air his dirty laundry on a public forum. I would argue that it amounts to cyber stalking. I know VCSO admin isn’t usually very knowledgeable on state statutes, but you fools might want to review that one.

"Seemed to access" being the key words here to pay attention to, right? Ask the guy how he got it before you assume something without any reasoning beyond suspicion.
But being as were talking about Alvin's alleged violations concerning improper or illegal accesses, what about his DAVID records accesses? That is disturbing as well, only documented with records. Will those who ran him please stand up...

[Unregistered]

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means:
1. To engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person; or
2. To access, or attempt to access, the online accounts or Internet-connected home electronic systems of another person without that person’s permission,
causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Who contacted who first? Stalking or cyberstalking will be a hard case to prove when he was contacted first and responding to a public post. - but good luck with the fishing expedition JS

[Unregistered]

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(d) “Cyberstalk” means:
1. To engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person; or
2. To access, or attempt to access, the online accounts or Internet-connected home electronic systems of another person without that person’s permission,
causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

The stalker that has harassed and stalked people is now complaining about stalking himself. This keeps on getting better and better.

[Unregistered]

Who contacted who first? Stalking or cyberstalking will be a hard case to prove when he was contacted first and responding to a public post. - but good luck with the fishing expedition JS

Excellent point!

[Unregistered]

The stalker that has harassed and stalked people is now complaining about stalking himself. This keeps on getting better and better.

Nope, just stating facts is all. No complaints here. Different rules for different fools is your defense? I think you better make sure that someone from within the complainants inner circle of friends did not relay the information to me before you throw around baseless claims. Who contacted who is the question to answer here as well.
No one is standing up? Joel Turney, please stand up. Why did you access my DAVID records?

Let's state facts verified by records from this point. Can you prove or disprove what I asserted above? Keep fishing guys and accept the fact that I am very well aware that if I fit any of the criteria defined in the statute you would be giving Chitwood high fives and accepting that promotion.
Now an injunction is another story and I would bet it gets denied without a hearing. Stay tuned theorists, your getting played again.

[Unregistered]

Excellent point!

Excellent facts that are documented.

[Unregistered]

Nope, just stating facts is all. No complaints here. Different rules for different fools is your defense? I think you better make sure that someone from within the complainants inner circle of friends did not relay the information to me before you throw around baseless claims. Who contacted who is the question to answer here as well.
No one is standing up? Joel Turney, please stand up. Why did you access my DAVID records?

Let's state facts verified by records from this point. Can you prove or disprove what I asserted above? Keep fishing guys and accept the fact that I am very well aware that if I fit any of the criteria defined in the statute you would be giving Chitwood high fives and accepting that promotion.
Now an injunction is another story and I would bet it gets denied without a hearing. Stay tuned theorists, your getting played again.

Joel probably accused your license information because you were simply driving in front of him stupid. Happens 100,000 times a day.