Funny how when she does it on pwl its satire and protected free speech but boy when the shoe is on the other foot it bothers her.
Hey Tara, you think you are mad? How do you think all this girls felt when they found not only their names but that of their families and minor children posted on pwl?
Sucks huh….
Another cockroach hit by the light starts scurrying.
20 Responses
Mike, I told you that I don’t run this site. This is harassment and the FBI, the City of Doraville, your local Sherriff’s Dept, and police department have been notified.
WAAAAAAAA GO CHANGE YOUR DIAPER, CRY BABY.
Thanks for adamantly telling everyone you don’t “run this site.” Problem is, not one person said you did. They’re saying you posted there. And you did. You can’t sue someone for stating the truth. Didn’t you learn anything from PWL?
Here’s a list of every police department in GA. http://www.usacops.com/ga/
Call them all. Apparently it’s “Talk to A Stupid Cunt” day so they’ll appreciate your call.
How’s it feel Tara? Pretty awful, right? By posting on PWL you indirectly supported them in jeopardizing the lives and livelihood of thousands of people. Unfortunately for you, you will now be one of the examples for others.
Oh, and some advice for you. You want your info down? Threatening people and posting their personal info ain’t the way to go about that. You need to start with a public letter of apology and spill every single thing you know about anything related to PWL. Will your name come down? Not right away. But once this is done and PWL is gone you’ll have a much greater chance of Mike and others taking your name down. But the way you’re behaving right this second it’s going to be online for the rest of your life.
Till next time, bitch.
P.S. I’ve got some free time today. Gimme this butt-ugly bitch’s family members names and email addresses and facebook accounts. I’ll blast out some messages informing them all of this bitch’s actions.
yea tara. how about u write a public apology.
Tara Akinlose? More like Tara Akinloser. Did you know Tara Akinlose is the only Tara Akinlose in the whole US?
We all know how it works by having dealings with Porn Wikileaks. Its all fair game in love and war is what they said. So take that story somewhere else about lawsuits,etc. Its not going to work. Call 911. We are coming for you.
Lynch the bitch!
How do we posts our pics in our Avi Mike. Not to change the subject or anything. Would love to post a pic on my avi make it have some swag.
Also, porn stars if you see your pics anywhere on her fucking site. Demand this bitch to take your pics down. You own em. The porn industry owns them not her fucking ass. What the fuck is she doing giving out porn star pics for free anyways. We should sell her pics for free, but no one will want them.
So when she takes down all the porn stars pics that she didnt get any fucking permission to have on her site, than we will take your fucking pic down.
Sorry Mike for posting so much. As you can see I am pissed! All the way around.
It needs to be a video public apology.
How is posting the truth “harassment”, Tara?
Your own actions got you into this. You posted on PWL, didn’t you??
Way to waste taxpayer money on any time on trying to interfere with the 1st amendment. Nice move, cunt.
Mike, See your email.
The law is on my side. Michael Whiteacre and Monica are based in California and can be named in various cyberstalking complaints with different departments like the LAPD, Sheriff’s Department, and FBI.
Cyberstalking Laws
California
Cal. Civil Code § 1708.7
SECTION 1. It is the intent of this act to clarify that electronic communications are included in the actions that can constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent of the Legislature, by adoption of this act, to restrict in any way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or stalking.
SEC. 2. Section 1708.7 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
1708.7.
A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort:
The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff. In order to establish this element, the plaintiff shall be required to support his or her allegations with independent corroborating evidence.
As a result of that pattern of conduct, the plaintiff reasonably feared for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member. For purposes of this paragraph, “immediate family” means a spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any person who regularly resides, or, within the six months preceding any portion of the pattern of conduct, regularly resided, in the plaintiff’s household.
One of the following:
The defendant, as a part of the pattern of conduct specified in paragraph (1), made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member and, on at least one occasion, the plaintiff clearly and definitively demanded that the defendant cease and abate his or her pattern of conduct and the defendant persisted in his or her pattern of conduct.
The defendant violated a restraining order, including, but not limited to, any order issued pursuant to Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prohibiting any act described in subdivision (a).
For the purposes of this section:
“Pattern of conduct” means conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “pattern of conduct.”
“Credible threat” means a verbal or written threat, including that communicated by means of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family.
“Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
“Harass” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
A person who commits the tort of stalking upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages pursuant to Section 3294.
In an action pursuant to this section, the court may grant equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an injunction.
The rights and remedies provided in this section are cumulative and in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.
This section shall not be construed to impair any constitutionally protected activity, including, but not limited to, speech, protest, and assembly.
SEC. 3. Section 422 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
422. Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
For the purposes of this section, “immediate family” means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
“Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
SEC. 4. Section 646.9 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
646.9.
Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
Any person who violates subdivision (a) when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subdivision (a) against the same party, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
Every person who, having been convicted of a felony under this section, commits a second or subsequent violation of this section shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.
In addition to the penalties provided in this section, the sentencing court may order a person convicted of a felony under this section to register as a sex offender pursuant to subparagraph (E) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 290.
For the purposes of this section, “harasses” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
For purposes of this section, “course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”
For the purposes of this section, “credible threat” means a verbal or written threat, including that performed through the use of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct made with the intent to place the person that is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family and made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section.
For purposes of this section, the term “Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
This section shall not apply to conduct that occurs during labor picketing.
If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of a sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section, it shall be a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling, as designated by the court. However, the court, upon a showing of good cause, may find that the counseling requirement shall not be imposed.
The sentencing court also shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, that may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any restraining order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations, and the safety of the victim and his or her immediate family.
For purposes of this section, “immediate family” means any spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
The court shall consider whether the defendant would benefit from treatment pursuant to Section 2684. If it is determined to be appropriate, the court shall recommend that the Department of Corrections make a certification as provided in Section 2684. Upon the certification, the defendant shall be evaluated and transferred to the appropriate hospital for treatment pursuant to Section 2684.
SEC. 5. Section 653m of the Penal Code is amended to read:
653m.
Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.
Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.
Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith. This subdivision applies only if one or both of the following circumstances exist:
There is a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or any other court order, or any combination of these court orders, in effect prohibiting the behavior described in this section.
The person makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work, totaling more than 10 times in a 24-hour period, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, and the repeated telephone calls or electronic contacts are made to the workplace of an adult or fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the person has a child or has had a dating or engagement relationship or is having a dating or engagement relationship.
Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to have been committed where the telephone call or calls were made or received. Any offense committed by use of an electronic communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed to have been committed where the electronic communication or communications were originally sent or first viewed by the recipient.
Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is violated when the person acting with intent to annoy makes a telephone call requesting a return call and performs the acts prohibited under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) upon receiving the return call.
If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section, the court may order as a condition of probation that the person participate in counseling.
For purposes of this section the term “Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
SEC. 6. This act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 2351 is also enacted and becomes operative on or before January 1, 1999.
SEC. 7. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution.
422.4. (a) Any person who publishes information describing or depicting an academic researcher or his or her immediate family member, or the location or locations where an academic researcher or an immediate family member of an academic researcher may be found, with the intent that another person imminently use the information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence against an academic researcher or his or her immediate family member, and the information is likely to produce the imminent commission of such a crime, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both a fine and imprisonment.
(b) For the purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
(1) “Publishes” means making the information available to another person through any medium, including, but not limited to, the Internet, the World Wide Web, or e-mail.
(2) “Academic researcher” has the same meaning as in Section 602.12.
(3) “Immediate family” means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, domestic partner, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
(4) “Information” includes, but is not limited to, an image, film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, or any other computer-generated image.
(c) Any academic researcher about whom information is published in violation of subdivision (a) may seek a preliminary injunction enjoining any further publication of that information. This subdivision shall not apply to a person or entity protected pursuant to Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.
(d) This section shall not apply to any person who is lawfully engaged in labor union activities that are protected under state or federal law.
(e) This section shall not preclude prosecution under any other provision of law.
I don’t remember ever posting a thing about you, Tara. I’ve never even addressed you directly prior to this comment. Filing a false complaint will cost you dearly.
Mr Whiteacre – if you’re not part of this witch hunt, say so now. The next time Michael Thomas Strother has a brush with the law over shooting porn, authorities (each state attorney general, local sheriffs, and FBI) in three states where he shoots (FL, GA, OH) will know exactly who he is. They will have my cyberstalking complaint from the CA Attorney General. They will also have years of print outs from the Internet that show his bragging commentary on shooting porn with immunity in states where it is illegal. Will they arrest him next time he has a brush? Probably not. But they will known exactly who he is and how he operates. They may suggest he find another ‘hobby’, if you catch my drift. Mr Strother is little more than a hobbyist with a camera.
What witch hunt? I have never written negative anything about you, nor do I own a website that published anything about you. My tweets are public — feel free to read through them. Screen-cap ’em. Go to town.
The only public statement I’ve EVER made that even relates to you is from LIB — poster “origen” wrote: “there is no smoking gun showing that she [Tara] helped to create PWL.” I replied, “The charge is that she contributed to, not helped create, PWL.”
That’s a factual statement — that IS the charge.
What’s my pattern of conduct? Reading about you on public boards? I’ve never spoken to you at adult events; I’ve never even been to your site. There’s nothing you can do to me.
So go ahead and file a false, baseless cyberstalking complaint against me. Bringing a false or malicious action against me will bring about disastrous, extremely costly legal consequences for you.
And know this — anything I should choose to write about you from this point forward will be based upon my constitutionally protected OPINION of what has been published about you AS WELL AS BY YOU, including your false charge that I am involved in a witch hunt against you and could properly be the subject of a cyberstalking complaint by you.
It’s pretty funny how Tara thinks that some of the people contacting here on twitter are me. Sorry hun but you don’t occupy my mind like I do yours 🙂
Quite a few people have seen what you’re about, not just me…
I already posted this on the other site (AWM) but it bears repeating. Mike has said what city he lives in on here and it is (likely) not Doraville unless he has moved in the past year or so. I am not going to make Akinloser’s life easier by posting where he actually lives, but it is on this site. As for shooting porn in Florida, unless you shoot in Polk County you probably will be left alone. As for Ohio, he was on Cincinnati TV talking about his filming there a couple of years ago, if the prosecutor would have wanted his ass on a platter like Akinloser does, he would have made an attempt by now (probably unsuccessfully, I think Michigan and maybe Utah are the only state where fornication and adultery are still a felony and I have already warned him not to film here because of that law)! Most of the other 48 states (other than Polk County, FL) are pretty clear to film nowadays even though there is not a specific law or court decision allowing for porn in many of them. Federal law does not apply as his porn is pretty tame and not obscene in any manner (Akinloser, look up the John Stagliano case if you need proof, his porn is rather tame as well but more risque than Mike’s). Now that I think about, PWL woman — go do a shoot for a kinky sex site such as Facial Abuse and make sure it is a gangbang with caning, a few fists to the face, whipping and suspending from the ceiling by the neck!