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.