UPDATE: We’re Back!

Jeromie WilliamsThank you for your patience as this blog was temporarily shut down this week, from Tuesday January 24 to Thursday January 26, after a torrent of false complaints from Jeromie‘s vast network of social media identities about spam on this blog. A “spam blog,” or splog, is a blog that exists only to promote affiliated websites or to simply sell links/ads. In contrast, we are not promoting affiliated sites, and we have no link/ad revenues.

As such, these complaints were judged to be entirely frivolous, false, and vexatious.

Therefore, the blog was restored today. And to ensure that there are no further disruptions, mirror blogs were created on a number of backup servers throughout the world. For example, the latest posts are now available as well at https://jeromiewilliamsisafraud.wordpress.com/.

In addition to the false spamming allegations, one of Jeromie’s possible sock puppets, Paula Neufeld (Twitter, Facebook), has claimed that her lawyer submitted a “cease and desist order” to Blog.com. As far as we can tell, this is false. There is no cease and desist order.

Our curiosity about Paula piqued when we also noticed that:

  1. Paula did not make any noticeable contribution to the Facebook group 100,000 strong to ban Nathan Kotylak from the Canada Olympic team until Jeromie got himself into deep trouble with a false story in December 2011. It is generally a sure sign of sock puppetry when an account appears at the exact moment a controversy starts.
  2. As we have noted previously, when Kim pointed out that Jeromie’s story, about a plea bargain with Nathan Kotylak, was false, Paula described Kim as a terrorist and warned everyone not to speak to her, and to block her, much like Jeromie had done. Accounts which try to create the impression of widespread agreement where none exist are often sock puppets.
  3. Though Paula describes name-calling as a “pet peeve“, which is “unnecessary” and “hurtful,” that apparently only applies when legitimate criticism is leveled at her, or at Jeromie. On the other hand, she has described Kim as a “c*nt” (much like Jeromie), and Topher and Wray as “sh*tty people.” This is apparently her way of “working out issues in a constructive manner.” Accounts that exhibit signs of dissociative identity disorder are frequently sock puppets.
  4. Paula describes this blog as a “vendetta,” much like one of Jeromie’s other sock puppet accounts. Identical wording is another sign of sock puppetry.
  5. She claims, by extraordinary coincidence, to know that another of Jeromie’s sock puppets, Alisha Wicklund, is a real person. Exposed as a sock puppet on this blog, the Alisha account was used to threaten Kim’s green card, and even the immigration status of her sons. Her threats to use IP addresses to track Kim to her “general location” were later echoed by Jeromie himself. Extraordinary coincidences in defence of similar sock puppets are a sure sign of sock puppetry. Alisha, for her part, was last seen making complaints to Hershey’s and Boston Pizza via Facebook, presumably in order to prove that she exists. Sadly for her, Boston Pizza responded, noting that they have no record of her order.
  6. She falsely claimed that she never talked to Topher. She did. Memory problems suggest juggling different accounts, and may be a sign of sock puppetry.

Paula NeufeldAnother sign of sock puppetry is a limited web presence beyond the controversy. Sure enough, as far as we can tell, Paula’s web presence is extremely limited, consisting of:

Therefore, we have commissioned a stylometric examination of the writing of Paula Neufeld and Jeromie Williams by an expert in forensic linguistics. In preliminary results, statistical tests were unable to reject the null hypothesis that Paula and Jeromie’s writing was, in fact, authored by the same person. Since Jeromie is under investigation for cyberstalking and harassing Kim and her sons, we expect that police may very well be interested in the results of this study.

Not to be outdone, Paula has now accused us of cyberstalking her. In the comments, she claims her lawyer has “deemed” certain wording on this blog “illegal under section 1.6 of the criminal code,” apparently forgetting that:

  • There is no section 1.6 in the Criminal Code. Section 1.6 actually refers to a section in a Handbook on Criminal Harassment;
  • Slander and defamation are torts, not crimes;
  • Writing the truth on a blog does not constitute slander or defamation, or cyberstalking, or criminal harassment;
  • Posting links to various social media accounts is not illegal, either.

We presume this “lawyer” is also the one who submitted the “cease and desist order” to Blog.com. Perhaps it is also the same lawyer who advised Jeromie that it would be fine to libel the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, describing him as guilty of crimes for campaigning on election day, which is also entirely legal.

Stay tuned for further details!

UPDATE: The fake Sarah Palin account @ElectPalin2012 apparently reacted with delight that our blog was temporarily suspended:

Topher responded with a helpful suggestion: Comment on this page, with an Alaskan IP. We’ll see how long that takes…

Socialist Fraudster Creates Fake Sarah Palin Twitter, Facebook Accounts

Jeromie WilliamsWarning: The Twitter account “Fire In My Belly” (@ElectPalin2012) and the Facebook account Elect Palin 2012 are fake. They are run by a Canadian socialist, Jeromie Williams, not Sarah Palin supporters.

Jeromie Williams, a socialist and “Occupy Wall Street” activist, who has a well-documented history of deception using fake online accounts, has created fake Twitter and Facebook accounts for a fake “Sarah Palin 2012″ group, likely in an effort to make her supporters appear extreme, racist, homophobic, or generally bigoted.

We have obtained evidence that Williams, a Rachel Maddow-obsessed editor at The Gaily, has:

We believe that he was very likely preparing to use these accounts to create a malicious smear of Palin and her supporters, reminiscent of Tea Party infiltration attempts such as the now-defunct CrashTheTeaParty.org.

Jeromie would have been able to use his platform as a writer at the Examiner.com to spread his false-flag-style smears of Palin, but, fortunately, two weeks ago, on January 5th, he was removed from his position there after this blog exposed his history of fabricating events, people, and even witnesses in his articles for months in order to get on TV, among other reasons.

Briefly, yesterday night, the account @ElectPalin2012 tweeted one of our team members, Topher Mackenzie, to complain about this blog exposing Jeromie’s disgusting behaviour. However, Topher quickly became suspicious, noting that:

  1. Though the account was created in February 2011, it had only 22 tweets before yesterday, almost half of which appear to have been retweets of the official account @SarahPalinUSA from April 8, 2011. Adding seven more tweets yesterday, fully a quarter of the account’s tweets are about this blog, which (until today) had not mentioned Sarah Palin a single time;
  2. It would be incredible for authentic Sarah Palin supporters to devote so much time to defending Jeromie Williams, a Canadian socialist and fraud artist who apparently enjoys decapitating her in the “Tea Party Zombies Must Die” video game;
  3. The person who tweeted from the account used language you might expect from a Canadian socialist desperately trying to imitate how he imagines American Republicans must talk, such as:
    • “Jeepers”;
    • “You’re only draining your soul”;
    • “Go with God”;
    • “We … wanted to … council you on going with God”; and, of course,
    • “what would Jesus do?”
  4. The person who tweeted from the account claimed to represent a “whole group” but, when asked, refused to elaborate on who was in the group; and,
  5. The person who tweeted from the account made a number of factually inaccurate statements to try to defend Jeromie Williams.

Dirty BoySpecifically, on point #5, Topher notes that the account
tweeted that:

The entire @ElectPalin2012-@TopherMackenzie conversation may be viewed here. As you may also note, prior to this conversation, the @ElectPalin2012 account had been inactive for over four months, since September 7, 2011.

Background

Trust No One

As we mentioned above, Jeromie appears to have cultivated quite a vast network of social media identities, many of them false, fake “sock puppet” accounts designed to deceive people for various reasons, but mainly to try to swindle money from honest people, or to threaten and harass anyone who dares to criticise his work, or question his sources.

Wikipedia, which has had an enormous problem with sock puppetry (fake accounts) among certain editors, notes that there are many varieties of “sock puppet”:

  • Standard Sock Puppets exist to create the illusion of more support for a particular position than actually exists.
  • Neutrality Sock Puppets are created to pose as a neutral commentator, when in fact they are there to advance one side of a dispute. Alternatively, the sock puppet can act as a partisan, to allow the original account to appear neutral by comparison.
  • Circumvention Sock Puppets exist to Circumvent Policies or Sanctions, or in this case, the criminal law.
    • Stephen Equality, Alisha Wicklund, Paula Neufeld and Shelly Comeon, all of whom sent threatening, obscene or harassing messages to Kim Johnston, her three sons, their schools, employers and/or business associates, and/or Topher Mackenzie (in addition to Jeromie himself, qua Jeromie). Most of these messages constitute intimidation, if not uttering threats or criminal harassment, which are illegal under the Criminal Code of Canada.
  • Trust-seeking Sock Puppets exist to develop a position of trust for the original person or account.
  • Strawman Sock Puppets argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side.
  • Sleeper Sock Puppets are old, unused accounts, suddenly revived to take a position in a new dispute.
  • Piggybacking Sock Puppets refer to the use of another person’s account, with their consent, for the purposes of advancing your position in a dispute. This could include a friend, acquaintance, or relative.
  • Meatpuppets are actual friends, acquaintances or relatives, who have been persuaded to enter a dispute for the purpose of supporting one side.

We thank you for reading and urge you, should you ever have the misfortune of dealing with Jeromie Williams, to follow the advice of Deep Throat: Trust No One!

LGBT Website “The Gaily” Defends Editor’s Homophobic Slurs, Death Threats, and Stalking of Young Boys


Gaily
We were disappointed today as Erika Jahn (@DearSimone), co-founder and executive editor of The Gaily, has churlishly dismissed our concerns about her contributing editor, Jeromie Williams. Despite the fact that we provided her with evidence that Mr. Williams has harassed, stalked and threatened Kim Johnston and her three young boys — one of whom is only 16 years oldusing homophobic slurs (such as “faggy”), and that Montreal police are now investigating, Ms. Jahn has deleted all links to this blog, as well as our simple question “Is Jeromie Williams still a writer for The Gaily?”, and blocked us from posting on The Gaily’s Facebook group.

Since Jeromie is still listed as a contributor on The Gaily’s site, we must assume that The Gaily is willing to tolerate:

  1. Homophobic Slurs against teenaged boys;
  2. Criminal Harassment and Death Threats against women and teenaged boys;
  3. Fake Stories about Fake Witnesses, Fake Sources, Fake Interviews, Fake Plea Bargains, Fake People etc.;
  4. ChipIn Scams; not to mention…
  5. Yet more outright lies.

Surely this is not consistent with “The New Gay Agenda”… Or is it?

You may notice that Jeromie is no longer employed at Examiner.com after we brought #3 above to their attention. However, when we informed Ms. Jahn about Jeromie’s recent disgusting (and criminal) behaviour (#1-#5), this was her response:

“Hey, We don’t like this post. Please remove it. You spamming of our page has been reported to Facebook and will continue to be as long as it continues.”

Kim Johnston was rightly outraged at this response, asking how Ms. Jahn could possibly be so cavalier in dismissing such serious complaints regarding one of her editors “threatening my sons lives and calling them FAGS. I believe it is an unacceptable term at any time — let alone by an editor of The Gaily. Miss Jahn — your emails about your dislike of my post should be going directly to Jeromie Williams who made the statements (in writing) along with a note saying YOU’RE FIRED.”

Interestingly, Topher Mackenzie noted that Ms. Jahn’s strategy, of dismissing this page as “spam,” appears to have been coordinated with Jeromie Williams himself. Jeromie, who was initially quite happy to link to this blog, has more recently condemned it as “spam” as well, as more of his behaviour has been exposed here.

What makes this all the more incredibly disappointing is that Ms. Jahn, who holds a theology degree from Harvard University in religion, ethics, politics/women, and gender and sexuality, and is also the president of an organisation dedicated to “combat homophobia,” must have some vague idea that it is unethical to harass, stalk and threaten young boys, and call them “faggy.” She must know that death threats and homophobic slurs do not advance the gay agenda. Or does she?

If you would like to ask her yourself, please be civil and direct your questions to her here or here, or e-mail her at erika.jahn@caeoquebec.org, or tweet her at @DearSimone.

UPDATE: Cristina Marrero (marreroCs3@gmail.com), a “Queer as Folk” writer based in Pensacola, Florida, has responded to us by claiming that since she helped Jeromie once by designing the logo for his $20 “Hug a Gay Day” T-shirts, “[our] ‘evidence’ is probably photoshoped.”

Our resident logician Wray Smith is still slapping his forehead in horror and disbelief at this incredible display of illogic.

UPDATE 2 (March 13): The Gaily has disassociated itself from Jeromie Williams entirely.

Disgraced Former Reporter Likens Examiner.com to Sweat Shops

Jeromie WilliamsFacebook users were shocked today as Jeromie Williams (Twitter, Face Book, LinkedIn), until recently a writer at the Examiner, has apparently compared his former employer to Third World sweat shops, which exploit their workers, paying them very little to work in often unsafe and unsanitary conditions.

Williams, who no longer writes for the Examiner after fabricating events, people, and even witnesses in his articles for months in order to get onto Ezra Levant’s show on the Sun News Network (as we have exposed on this blog), wrote that he left Examiner.com after he “simply got tired of busting [his] butt for a company that pays their writers sweat shop wages“:

Concerned former members of the group “100,000 strong to ban Nathan Kotylak from the Canada Olympic team” have noted the irony that Mr. Williams — who co-founded an organization to “change the lives of children and troubled communities through art” — has made comments that appear to trivialize the plight of the real victims of real sweat shops around the world, including children.

RECAP: Jeromie Williams’ Lies Exposed

Jeromie Williams Yet another former member of the group “100,000 strong to ban Nathan Kotylak from the Canada Olympic team” has stepped forward to offer evidence of logical inconsistencies in the statements of Jeromie Williams. Wray Smith, of Calgary, Alberta — a province that Mr. Williams describes as a “red neck province” — was banned from the Facebook group on Nathan Kotylak after he questioned Mr. Williams’ sources, especially in his latest articles.

Now Mr. Smith, an amateur logician, has pointed out that in Mr. Williams’ last appearance on Ezra Levant’s show on the Sun News Network (now featured prominently on Jeromie’s CV on his site), on November 2, 2011, he made a serious of potentially contradictory statements:

A) Nathan Kotylak has been charged, but only with participating in a riot (not arson). [FALSE]
“The fact that he walks away with a simple participating in a riot charge is mind-bloggling at best.” (1:07-1:15)

B) This information did not come from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), but from someone else. [TRUE]
“In fact the Vancouver Police Department weren’t the ones that who confimed the fact he has been charged. That came from another source.” (3:10-3:17)

C) Nathan Kotylak’s community service in the summer was voluntary. [TRUE]
“He chose to work 70 hours at two places of his choosing working in a kitchen…” (5:58-6:05)

D) He has been discussing this case with US immigration authorities. [FALSE]
“The imigration of the US I mean the US immigration athorities are looking at this case … and I have been discussing that with them.” (6:09-6:17)

E) Nathan Kotylak has not yet been charged, but will be removed from the US when he is. [TRUE (on November 2)]
“If a charge is actualy laid against him, he’ll be yanked out of California back to Canada.” (6:18-6:25)

Contradiction #1: E ⇒ ~A

Nathan Kotylak could not have been both charged, and awaiting charges, on November 2. Within five minutes, Jeromie made two statements that could not both be true.

Next, Wray notes that:

F) The VPD announced the latest round of charge recommendations (not charges) on October 31. [TRUE]

G) However, no charges were approved until one month later, on November 30. [TRUE]

H) The VPD also announced, separately, on December 27, charges of participating in a riot and three counts of arson against a “Lower Mainland teen” who was 17 at the time of the riots. This young offender was part of the “first round of 60 charges recommended to [the] Crown.” [TRUE]

I) The first round of 60 charges recommended to the Crown, way back on June 20, included a “17 year old youth from Maple Ridge with no previous criminal convictions,” facing charges of participation in a riot and of arson for allegedly lighting a police car on fire in the 100 block of West Georgia.” [TRUE]

J) Lastly, story H was reported in the Maple Ridge Times along with pictures of Nathan Kotylak. [TRUE]

Contradiction #2: G ⇒ ~A

Nathan Kotylak could not have been charged on or before November 2, because no charges were approved until November 30. Note that if you assume, based on H, I, and J, that Kotylak was the “Lower Mainland teen” charged on December 27 (with participating in a riot and arson), which we will label X (and neither confirm nor deny), then X ⇒ ~A as well, because he did not escape with a single participation charge, as Jeromie stated on November 2.

Next, Wray has concerns about Jeromie’s Examiner story, on December 22, in which he states that:

K) Jeromie was in direct contact with a USCIS source. [FALSE]
“A source within the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has confirmed Thursday exclusively with this reporter…”

L) The USCIS source told him there was a deal to allow Kotylak to escape serious charges. [FALSE]
“…that Nathan Kotylak, poster boy of the Vancouver riots, has struck a deal with with the Vancouver Police Department and the Crown that will see him serve no jail time and carry no permanent criminal record for his actions during the riots.”

M) Kotylak’s 70 hours of community service in the summer was part of the deal. [FALSE]
“Information given by a government employee at the California branch of the USCIS who wished only to be identified as Officer Tony, detailed that a letter supplied by Nathan Kotylak’s lawyers prior to his entry into the US assured American authorities that Kotylak had reached an agreement with the Vancouver Police and the Crown that he would not be charged with a serious crime, and that he had completed 70 hours of community service as part of the deal.”

N) The VPD has not recommended charges against Nathan Kotylak. [FALSE]
“After waiting over four months for charges to be laid against suspects in connection with the Vancouver riots, on October 31st, 2011 Nathan Kotylak’s name was left off the first list of 60 individuals recommended to have charges brought against them, despite the numerous videos and damning evidence against the Water Polo Canada player.”

In updates on January 1 and January 9, and in a new, doctored story, Jeromie added that:

O) He was never in contact with the USCIS. [TRUE]
“Kim Johnston was, and still remains, the only connection between this column and ‘Officer Tony’ and at no time did the Canada Headlines Examiner column have any contact with this officer if he does in fact exist.”

P) His real source was private citizen Kim Johnston, who he called his “verified informant.” [FALSE]
“Information supplied by a government employee at the California branch of the USCIS who was named as Officer Tony by an informant…”

Q) Johnston misled him. [FALSE]
“President of Nature’s Firewall misleads media with false information, claims Vancouver rioter reached deal with Vancouver Police and will not face charges for torching police cars.”

R) Johnston was trying to “discredit” and “maliciously prosecute” Nathan Kotylak. [FALSE]
The article below was based off of information and testimony given by Nature’s Firewall LLC president Kim Johnson, after she supplied false and misleading information in an attempt to discredit and maliciously prosecute Nathan Kotylak.

Now, Wray raises several logical inconsistencies here:

Contradiction #3: O ⇔ ~D, ~K

In the same article, Jeromie claims both that his source for plea bargain story is an Officer in the USCIS, and that he was never actually in contact with the USCIS. Obviously, both cannot be true. If, as Jeromie now claims, he was never in contact with the USCIS (O), then he also lied during his last appearance on Ezra Levant’s show on the Sun News Network, when he said that he was discussing this case with US immigration authorities.

Contradiction #4: O, X ⇒ ~L

Given that Jeromie later confirmed that he was never in contact with the USCIS, they could not have informed him of a secret deal that would allow Nathan Kotylak to escape charges. Additionally, if Nathan Kotylak was charged on December 27 (X), then he has obviously not escaped serious charges, having been charged with three counts of arson.

Contradiction #5: C, G ⇒ ~M

The 70 hours of community service in the summer could not have been part of any plea deal, based on the facts that, as Jeromie himself said on the Sun News Network, it was entirely voluntary (C), and that there were no charges approved (thus no deals) until well after the end of the summer, on November 30 (G).

Contradiction #6: I, X ⇒ ~N

If you believe that the 17-year-old individual from Maple Ridge described by the VPD on June 20 was Nathan Kotylak, then the VPD recommended charges against him as early as five days after the riot on June 15.

Contradiction #7: L ⇒ ~P, ~Q, ~R

Given that Jeromie claimed his source was an officer in the USCIS, it could not have been Kim Johnston, who is (obviously) not an officer in the USCIS. Thus it was not Kim Johnston who was trying to mislead anyone, or “maliciously prosecute” Nathan Kotylak. (Wray also notes that it is unclear how concocting a false story about a plea bargain, allowing Nathan Kotylak to escape serious charges, might constitute “malicious prosecution.”)

Mr. Smith suggests an alternative explanation, based on Occam’s razor: Jeromie Williams, who has changed his story several times throughout this process, has tried to mislead us all, first by concocting a false story about a plea bargain that never happened, hoping to get back on TV, and believing that his lies could not be refuted because of the YCJA’s publication ban.

Then he has tried to mislead us all by pinning the blame on someone who was entirely innocent, Kim Johnston, presumably because she refused to send him free “Dirty Boy” facewash products for his parties in Montreal, among other things.

However, we invite readers to suggest alternative explanations.

Investigation Demanded on Jeromie Williams’ ChipIn Accounts

PTS?Concerned citizens are demanding an investigation today after troubling reports emerged that Jeromie Williams, the Director of Operations for Pet Pardons Canada, may have violated the rules of the organization by posting links to personal ChipIn accounts using the official Facebook Pet Pardons application. As some concerned animal lovers have noted, this is not allowed.

As Michele Diane Radics Sherk notes, “Pet Pardons site does not ask for monetary funding for animals … There are many … (unfortunately) with not so pure intentions & take peoples money without actually helping these poor babies!” Teresa Thomas added, “some sick people are mis-useing [ChipIn] and have created false accounts and/or taken the money without actually saving/helping the animal it was created for… it’s really sad!”

Concerned former members of the group “100,000 strong to ban Nathan Kotylak from the Canada Olympic team” have noted that Jeromie appears to have directed people interested in donating to Pet Pardons to donate instead to his personal ChipIn accounts, which appear to be commingled with ChipIn accounts to support his personal website, and to support a proposed rally at Water Polo Canada so that Jeromie could get back onto Ezra Levant’s show on the Sun News Network (now featured prominently on Jeromie’s CV on his site).

Note that, although these events are “organized by Animal Action” and are also hosted at Jeromie’s account at http://animalaction.chipin.com, they have nothing to do with Pet Pardons.

Concerned readers of this blog have also noted several apparent discrepancies between the amounts raised through Jeromie Williams’ ChipIn accounts, and the amounts he actually donated through Pet Pardons Canada. For example, a ChipIn account set up to assist puppy mill victims raised $3,544, but only $3,000 was donated:

A concerned citizen, who does not wish to be named given Mr. Williams’ recent threats, asked: “Where did the other $544 go?” Particularly given Mr. Williams’ promises that “This money will go directly to the animals and to the shelter they are currently housed in.”

In another case, Mr. Williams raised $2,777 for a certain dog through a ChipIn account, but may have donated as little as $1,600. Noting this discrepancy, Liz Schiavone asked that people donate directly to the Linda Blair World Heart Foundation, an organization dedicated to rescuing animals in California.

Concerns have been raised because of the notorious abuse of ChipIn accounts, which Jeromie himself has acknowledged:

  • WARNING: please be careful of fraud being committed online using ChipIn. Unless you see a ChipIn being promoted on a legitimate website for a legitimate charity, do not give them your money. There are many people who are circulating ChipIns on Facebook and saying it is for animal rescue when really it is just to make money preying on unsuspecting animal lovers. If a ChipIn is not connected to a legitimate charity, be careful!”
  • “Chip-In’s are the new scam of the internet predator, BUT not all chip-in’s are fraudulent, you must do your homework, donate ONLY to a trusted source or a 501(c)”
  • “As I have said before unless you know the rescue, or the chip in goes directly to a vet, it is never a good idea to donate, you never know who these people are and she is an example of the underbelly that seeks to steal your money, and let down these dogs! Very sad!”

Concerns have also been raised in light of Jeromie’s recent behaviour, which has been exposed on this site in the past week, including his history of fabricating events, people, and even witnesses in his articles for months in order to get on TV (for which Jeromie was fired from his position at the Examiner).

For example, given Jeromie’s many fake online profiles, concerns have been raised about whether profiles such as “Deborah”, who have urged others to donate to Jeromie’s ChipIn accounts (“Is there someone that we can trust to do the right thing with the donations to send it too? … Jeromie would be my pick.”) are, in fact, actual people, or merely “sock puppets” of Jeromie Williams.

Concerned citizens have also noted the irony that the Director of Operations for Pet Pardons Canada, which ordinarily saves animals from shelters, has also threatened the beloved pet dogs of the creator of this blog, Kim Johnston:

Until this investigation is completed, we urge concerned animal lovers to donate directly to legitimate animal charities, such as the Humane Society, and to avoid the ChipIn accounts of Jeromie Williams.

UPDATE: Jeromie also asks for donations through PayPal, using the e-mail address schlamobic@gmail.com. We ask that you avoid this as well.

BREAKING NEWS: Internet Pornographer Jeromie Williams Under Investigation for Stalking Young Boys

Jeromie WilliamsJeromie WilliamsWe have received confirmation today that Jeromie Williams, a “Social Media Specialist” at Playboy Plus Entertainment Inc., is under investigation by the Boulder Police Department, SPVM, and the Sûreté du Québec for stalking Kim Johnston and her young sons in Colorado.

This news, confirmed by Jeromie Williams himself, comes as an informed source has identified potential charges under the Criminal Code of Canada for criminal harassment, uttering threats, and intimidation:

Criminal Harassment

Section 264.(1)-(2) of the Criminal Code prohibits “repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, [another] person or anyone known to them” that “causes that
other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.” As we have noted previously, Jeromie has spent much of the past week threatening to come to Boulder, Colorado, and “fuck up” Kim Johnston and her “faggy” sons. Jeromie also e-mailed us links to YouTube videos of Kim’s 16-year-old son, playing basketball at his high school:

These links, and contact information for Kim’s sons, their schools, employers and/or business partners, were also posted on Jeromie’s personal website. They have received dozens of threatening, obscene and hateful text messages and e-mails, and their employers and business partners have also been contacted. A collection of other threats may be viewed here. According to the Criminal Code, punishment for this offence may include “imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.”

Uttering Threats

Section 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code prohibits “knowingly utter[ing], convey[ing] or caus[ing] any person to receive a threat (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person; …
[or] (c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.” As we have noted, Jeromie’s “campaign” against Kim and her sons has included a number of messages that can only be interpreted as threats of harm or death. He “knows where we are” and he’s going to make sure we “get it”:

Although Jeromie currently serves as the Director of Operations for Pet Pardons Canada, which ordinarily saves animals from shelters, even Kim’s beloved pet dogs were threatened:

The punishment for threatening people could include “imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years,” while the punishment for threatening animals could include “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”

Intimidation

Section 423.(1)(a)-(b) of the Criminal Code prohibits “threats of violence to [a] person” or her children, or intimidation by “violence or other injury,” “for the purpose of compelling another person to abstain from doing anything that he or she has a lawful right to do, or to do anything that he or she has a lawful right to abstain from doing.”

Jeromie is angry that we have exposed his history of fabricating events, people, and even witnesses in his articles for months in order to get on TV. No doubt he is also angry that he was fired from his position at the Examiner as a result of this evidence. He is also angry that we have exposed his latest threats.

He has promised to come to Colorado to “get” Kim unless she deletes this blog, exposing his shameful activities, which she has an absolute
right to do:

Of course, exposing the truth is not defamation, and it is not illegal. We think of it more like a public service.

Punishment for the offence of intimidation could include “imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.”

We are particularly concerned by the apparently prurient nature of the posting of personal pictures of Kim’s young sons on Jeromie’s personal website. This has included pictures and videos from high school basketball games (when Kim’s son was 16) and graduation ceremonies.

Concerned former members of the group “100,000 strong to ban Nathan Kotylak from the Canada Olympic team” have noted that Jeromie Williams also maintains an active Stickam account. This site, which the New York Times has described as “icky”, is notorious as a playground for internet predators and pedophiles.

In light of ongoing investigations, we demand that Mr. Williams remove all pictures of Kim’s sons from his personal website, and all contact information for them or for their schools, employers or associates.

Meanwhile, Jeromie has complained that this website, exposing his fraudulent and illegal activities, constitutes a violation of international law. It unclear whether Jeromie is alleging this site is a war crime, crime against humanity, or, possibly, a violation of the Geneva Convention, or all three, but Kim’s legal team is awaiting confirmation as they formulate a defence strategy to deal with these very serious charges.