Neal Rauhauser talks to police in San Jose and Ventura. Two more law enforcement officials that he’s claimed to have talked with. Neal often claims to have talked with law enforcement in the assorted dramas he’s been part of or inserted himself into.
There’s much irony here. This comment is from the ViaViewFiles blog run by Thomas Retzlaff who posted his daughter’s pictures on revenge porn sites and uses an alias “James Smith” that claims to have been an adminstrator on Texxxans, a revenge porn site. Mr Retzlaff also consistently claims to be connected to Rauhauser’s lawsuit though he’s not party to the suit and declared a vexatious litigant in the state of Texas.
There’s much irony here. This comment is from the ViaViewFiles blog run by Thomas Retzlaff who posted his daughter’s pictures on revenge porn sites and uses an alias “James Smith” that claims to have been an adminstrator on Texxxans, a revenge porn site. Mr Retzlaff also consistently claims to be connected to Rauhauser’s lawsuit though he’s not party to the suit and declared a vexatious litigant in the state of Texas.
Neal Rauhauser (@nrauhauser)said:April 9, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Neither police in San Jose nor Ventura are taking that stuff seriously. I’ve had a long talk with the investigating officer at each location, San Jose referred the matter to the FBI after learning that another McGibney victim in the area had already been interviewed, and I believe Ventura followed suit on that.
Governor Jerry Brown signed the anti-revenge porn law in late September of 2013. Kevin Bollaert was arrested eighty days later, but then another sixteen months elapsed before he was sentenced, which was just a few days ago.
Hunter Moore was arrested in January of 2014 and finally plead guilty thirteen months later. The protections in place for victims are interesting.
Defendant shall not knowingly contact, or attempt to contact any of the victims discussed in the indictment, including victims L.B., V.E., K.L., P.K., T.G., S.M., and T.K. (“the Victims”) or their families, including but not limited to their parents, siblings, other relatives, any spouse or significant other with whom the Victims may share an intimate relationship (whether existing now or during the pendency of any term of supervised release), and any children of the Victims (whether existing now or during the pendency of any term of supervised release) (collectively, “Victims’ Families”), directly or indirectly by any means, including but not limited to in person, by mail, telephone, e-mail, text message, or otherwise via the internet or other electronic means, or through a third party.
vii. Defendant shall not attempt to locate the Victims or the Victims’ Families or attempt to obtain information concerning the whereabouts, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, or other personal identifiers of the Victims or the Victims’ Families.
viii. Defendant shall remain at least 100 yards away from the Victims at all times.
Sounds like a pretty good deal for victims and their extended families, doesn’t it? Perhaps there is a light at the end of the tunnel after all.