Summary of Q&A, Chapter 4

From Sheer Luck, with my gratitude:


ICHAPTER FOUR (minutes 0:45 – 1:00)

TOPICS COVERED: podcasts; proof (or lack thereof) of damages; priesthood; the plethora of patterns in the planets; personal scriptures (go ahead – write your own!); posteriors placed into one’s palms via public hearings; port-a-potties; pregnancy; prophets; Pace’s philanthropy; The patriarch’s philosophy; participation in organized religion

Head-scratching moments:
– Nicole’s statement that Rh incompatibility is only an issue in the event of accidental falls
– I’m pretty sure “hippie Mormon” is an oxymoron
– A comment from a viewer: “Tell that man to stop interrupting.” Puzzling only because by this point Joe would be interrupting himself.

Fun Facts: (or More Head-Scratchers; I couldn’t decide!)

– Kentucky Land Company now joins Sheriff Todd Pate in rating the Blessed Little Homestead Lifestyle as “kinda neat.” (For clarity I would like to point out this is not equivalent to “kinda tidy.”)
– Joe and Nicole are “in good standing” at their church. Which is fine, as they haven’t sat in it for quite some time.

Grins ‘n’ Giggles:
– Joe waxing philosophical in what is supposed to be a question and answer session
– Joe leaning so far forward we expect his nose to press into the windshield
– Joe peppering his philosophic musings with plenty of “whatnots”
– Joe generally acting….well, let’s call it “lofty.”
– “Tell that man to stop interrupting.” The only moment to truly earn two categories. I didn’t write down who said it, but the picture in my head is of a computer class at a senior center.

Summary of Q & A – Chapter 3

From Sheer Luck, with my thanks:


CHAPTER THREE (minutes 00:30 – 00:45)

TOPICS COVERED: McDonald’s manager testimonials (aka My Kids Are Great); Meddling governments; Miracle Moments (ie Nicole’s admission she was disorganized in court); Minions and Their Blessed Little Masters; Mobster laws to be invoked; Massive girth; Martial arts mastery; Malapropisms (“liable and slanderous”); Mishaps at the ball pit (I’ve fallen and I can’t get up); Monetizing the blog; Mature language; and My favorite Actual homesteaders.

Head-scratching moments:
– Nicole’s ideal government would exist solely to settle contract disputes
– Joe discussing anti-racketeering laws and “trolls” in the same sentence
– Joe and Nicole going on at length about how much they love to swear (which has been observed in other situations) without actually swearing: “We love using the F-Word”
– Joe’s “Japanese Water Diet” – what is that? Is it the one where you eliminate water from your diet because your homestead doesn’t have any?

Fun Facts:
– 68 people were viewing this segment
– Joe sports a 42-inch waist and is 42 years old! He ‘s a Mormon who likes rock-climbing and muay thai! Joe wants to see and share your energy (aka dox you), so give him a call!
– Joe’s highest last-known weight was 320 pounds. If we use his last known height of 5’8″ and consult this chart, we find….that we need a bigger chart.
– Joe has dropped 4 inches and 2 pants sizes. But if he ever stands or sits up, we should re-take the measurements.

Grins ‘n’ Giggles:
– Joe inviting us to consider the image of him trapped in a ball pit
– Joe inviting us to consider the image of him “swinging [his] gut around”
– Joe inviting us to consider the image of him swinging his arms and legs around as he practices his martial artistry
– Joe inviting us us to consider the feasibility of him nimbly scaling the rock-climbing wall at the gymnastics center
– Joe inviting us to consider anything at all concerning his romantic and/or sexual attractiveness
– Joe and Nicole’s desire to sue the trolls in order “to see the whole process.”
– The prospect of being charged with “liable and slanderous.”


Summary of Q&A, Chapter 1-2

From “Sheer Luck” we have this.  It’s super and I am ever so grateful and it gets its own pages.  By all means, we await the next chapter.

Thank you ever so much.


This week’s headlines:
Slow-Moving Train Wreck Now Involves Vanload of Manure

As promised, here’s a list of bloviating points from the T & A (for Troll-and-Answer) live Facebook Session on Nicole’s Personal-Profile-Public-Page.

CHAPTER ONE (minutes 0 – 15:00)

Topics covered:
Corruption, crooked cops, and circumcision (aka What Nicole Posts About); Charles and other socks; Court case; CPS; and Chopper flyovers (something about having photos of Al’s helicopter).

Head-scratching moments (ours, not theirs):
– “Animals have died; we have killed them…and eaten their bodies.”
– It’s not squalor if Nicole says it’s not
– “I don’t have to see someone stalking to know they’re stalking”

Fun Facts:
The Latest Animal Inventory – sing it if you like:
On the Nog Crazy Shitstead, here is what I see:
1 absent horse
4 barking dogs
2 tethered goats
3 mystery Cats
2 Pet rabbits
4 Breeding Rabbits
And A whole bunch of roosters and hens….

CHAPTER TWO (minutes 00:15 – 00:30)
Topics covered: Troll geography; TRUTH; Todd Pate; The True Career Criminal (Joe says it’s Nicole); Termination of moving plans; Talking about new plans (it’s the same as doing them); and more about Tsqualor (It’s not misspelled if I say it’s not)

Head-scratching moments:
– Joe looking to purchase the adjoining 65 acres
– Joe abruptly leaving the car with no explanation

Fun Facts:
– Nicole’s baby is due in July…unless it’s due in August.
– The woman seated next to Nicole in court was a domestic violence counselor, who now has new empathy for those trapped in untenable circumstances.

Grins ‘n’ Giggles:
– Joe dropping the g’s from all his verbs – so folksy!
– Joe on being the stay-at-home parent: “I do make it look easy.”


While she was in court, Nicole used the word “stress” or “distress” about a dozen times. She said it so often it was noticeable.

I suspect her word choice was purposeful, because she was trying to convince the judge that if she had hurt feelings, Lisa should be punished, but it’s still interesting.

One of her continual mantras is that they’ve embraced this minimalist (meaning “ain’t got a pot to pee in,” literally) and that in doing this, they have gotten rid of all the stress that imprisons all of the “rats in a cage.”  You know, normal people.  We’re all subject to the stresses of daily life, so we’re unfortunate and unenlightened like her and Joe.

This sort of thing.


They are “minimalists.”

We all know what she’s talking about. We all swear we’re gonna do it one of these days when we finally get up to here with all of it and clean out that closet and get rid of all that stuff.

I have lived both ways, at both ends.  We’ve had full-sized houses and too much stuff.  We’ve also lived in an RV and couldn’t have much stuff at all, in fact, hardly any stuff.

What I’ve discovered is that we typically expand to fill whatever space we are living in, so to keep it more or less manageable, we have a smallish house.

I refuse to discuss the basement.  🙂

And there is no question that materialism can be a negative thing. But that’s not what I am writing about here.

Nicole and Joe Naugler are poor.

They are not minimalists who have consciously chosen to live without a lot of material possessions.

They are poor.

Dirt poor.

Really poor.


Raising a dozen children on approximately $34,000 annually is very, very poor.

While Nicole is wrong – poverty is not subjective at all – the perception of poverty can be.

The issue is this: what does your balance sheet look like?  How much is coming in?  How much is going out?  If you have more going out than you have coming in, either you have to reduce the amount going out or you have to increase what is coming in to find balance.

If you don’t, if you can’t, the result is. . . . stress.

When Dave and I were much younger, and Nathan was a baby, we made a decision that I would stay home with him.  It meant living as a one-income family, and it meant tightening up pretty severely, probably more than most people would have wanted to do.  I stayed home until he was four, and then we were able to arrange for him to go to day care a couple of days a week, which ended up being pretty much staying in my mother’s kindergarten class, and I went back to work.

When he was six, Dave turned the tables on me and went back to school and we were back to the one-income family thing for a couple of years. After that, Dave worked a full-time job, went to school for those last two years of college at night, and then held down a part-time job doing back-up tapes at the local courthouse until about 2 a.m.

It was pretty brutal for a short while but all of it paid off handsomely in the end.

But the deal is that we lived for a while in conditions I considered “poor.” My son was in school before he found out what a Happy Meal was.  I doubt he ate at McDonald’s three times in his life before he was 7 years old. He never got new clothes, except for shoes (no used shoes, ever) and jeans (kids wear jeans out) and underwear (eww to used underwear).

He was a kid. He didn’t care. He didn’t even notice. Kids don’t.

But adults do.

This period, of course, was while I was religious, and I remember making a deal with God.  I made deals with God from time to time, and none of them ever worked out particularly well, but that didn’t stop me from trying.

I made a deal with God that I would never complain about money if I just had enough to pay our basic bills.

I remember that at one point during that period, we went to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to Amish country and I looked at those people with envy.  They had security, cradle to grave, or at least that’s how it looked to me.

In the late eighties, we moved to South Carolina.  I was working full-time, but on weekend nights and we were homeschooling during the week. Dave was home when I was working.  Cash flow was improved, but we’d racked up a good bit of debt during those lean years, and I chafed.

Finally, I discovered Dave Ramsey. He’s religious, and I don’t recommend his stuff at all, because he’s basically just making a living telling you something I will tell you for free. Here’s what I did.

I took all our bills, with the exception of our mortgage.  A house is generally an appreciating asset, so you don’t count it. (The 2008 mortgage meltdown is a whole ‘nother subject, and you have to be careful getting a mortgage, but that’s not what I’m talking about.)  In our case, we had a car payment, and we’d bought a computer on time, and some credit card debt and a few doctor bills, and I can’t remember now what else.

I made a list of all that debt and sorted it by amount and interest rate.

The idea was to put the stuff with the highest interest rate at the top, especially those with the lower amounts due.

And then I started working on paying off Number 1.

That took a while. All I could cough up was an extra $5 or $10.  It didn’t go far. I remember that it took several months.  Everyone else got the bare minimum.  And it seemed like nothing was changing, but of course, it was.

Finally, one day, I sent off the last payment to Number 1.

The next month Number 2 got the payment it usually got plus the payment I would have been sending to Number 1.  This time, Number 2’s balance dropped more rapidly because I was paying so much more monthly.  And after a few more months, it was paid.

And then all the money for Number 1 and Number 2 went to Number 3, and this was repeated again and again until we were down to the biggies.  By the time I got there, I was paying something like $500/month extra to whatever was the current bill being paid off and they were disappearing like lightning.

When I got to the last thing on the list, it was paid off in two or three months and we were debt-free (except for the house).  In our case, our houses, because they kept appreciating and because we moved down the last time, paid for themselves. And Frances now pays for the taxes and insurance on this place.

The whole process, for us, took about three years.  It was painless.  We weren’t spending any more money than we’d been used to spending anyway (except for that first little while when I had to cough up enough extra to pay down Number 1), and when we were done, it was like we both got raises.

And suddenly, I figured out that God didn’t have to fix my finances. We did.

What I found out on the far side of all that is that being poor is stressful.

After we “snowballed,” which is what we called the Ramsey thing, I began to sock away money.  Dave referred to that as my “squirrel accounts.”  Dave would buy new tires. I would take that amount (say, $800), determine how many years the tires might reasonably be expected to last, and convert that to how much per month I needed to put in savings so that when we needed new tires, the money would be there.  Ditto for everything that wears out or breaks that we had.  Sometimes, the amount per month would be $3.  Nobody would bother with that, except me. I bothered with that.

And I never had to stress over money again. This happened in the late eighties.  I have never once worried about paying a bill since.

I’m frugal as hell.  I still only have about three pairs of shoes.  But I never have any stress over money.

click image to link to source

The poorer you are, the higher your stress level.  This is not a theory.  It’s a fact.

Yes, there is wiggle room there, as Nicole tries to say, that if you reduce your monthly outgo, you don’t need as much income to have the same equilibrium.  However, regardless of that, being poor is really bad for your health.

Not just for your psychological health, but in terms of chronic severe illness as well.  The rates of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure all go up if you’re poor.  Mental illness is more common in poor people.

And what is really bad is what poverty does to children.

Remember, I said Nathan didn’t care?  Well, he didn’t.  Sort of. He didn’t understand money or finances.  He didn’t feel deprived.

But having it tight leads to stress and children sense tension.

Poor children are more likely to struggle in school.  That is not because they are genetically “dumb.” It’s because they are poor.  Throughout their lives, they are less likely to rise to their potential, less likely to achieve success academically, less likely to succeed economically, more likely to develop mental illnesses and/or personality disorders, and on and on.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing what the Naugler balance sheet looks like, but I bet if their van refuses to start, they will experience a bit of stress trying to figure out how to pay for the new engine it needs, or even the new alternator. And I know her gas bill at the shop concerns her, because she keeps posting stuff about it.

From where I’m sitting, which is admittedly outside looking in, when they were faced with too much outgo and not enough income, they opted to reduce outgo.  Over and over, they reduced outgo, to the point that I doubt there’s any more outgo to reduce.

But all that time, they kept having babies.  It’s relatively cheap to feed three toddlers. Not so much three teenagers.

She complained bitterly about stress from the “trolls.” I do not doubt she’s under a pretty severe amount of stress and has been chronically for years. But I would posit that “trolls” aren’t the problem at all and never have been.




There is no way in hell I am going to reproduce that ridiculous display from last night here.

But I am going to toss in my two cents worth. This is my blog and I can, so I will, at least until/unless I get tired of it.

Nicole begins by explaining, sort of, why she has not only her Blessed Little Homestead FB page and the Nicole C. Naugler page, and they are both “like” pages.  She says that FB made her do that.

That’s sort of odd. I’ve never known of anyone else who had to do that, but whatever.  The fact remains that both pages are public “like” pages. They are not personal pages.  Public pages, meant to reach as many people as possible. That’s the purpose of them.

It’s obvious if you look at both pages that one is all for show (BLH – “we’re homesteady and off-griddy and lovey and aren’t ours kids adorable”) and the other is more of the real Nicole (“I hate cops and the military and you’re an evil person from hell if you circumcise your boy child and I will so plop a breast out whenever I want and feed a baby, so there”).  NCN is also the page where she says nasty, bitchy shit for the most part, unless it’s about me, in which case she doesn’t mind doing that in front of God and everybody on BLH.

It’s all determined, I think, by whether or not she thinks she can get sympathy and/or support from her followers.  Anti-cop stuff?  Probably not, so it goes on NCN.  Videos of dirty kids that she thinks are cute? Yeah, that’s gonna get some likes, so it goes on BLH.  A rant about evil trolls?  Depends.

Please keep in mind as she carries on that Nicole pays money to boost posts on BLH. She pays money. They don’t have water or electricity and they drive beater vehicles but she pays money to boost posts on a Facebook page that she said (under oath) that she does not make money from, while getting extremely hostile about the question in the first place.

Why would she do that?

I run a page for my son’s music.  It drives traffic to his website.  On his website, we sell his music. It’s not funding our retirement, but it does generate enough to keep the website up and running and there is no way I could say that we don’t make any money from his Facebook page. We do.

Right after stating that she doesn’t make any money from BLH, she posted this.


She neglects to mention it there, but she’s an Amazon affiliate and if you clicked on that handy little linky and went to Amazon and bought anything at all during that visit, she gets a piece of it.

I will grant you that the piece is pretty small.  And it’s also pretty unlikely anyone actually did that. I doubt that the Naugler family supplements their income to any significant extent from Amazon affiliation, but she can’t say she does not try to make money from BLH, because she does. We all know it. The lawyer knew it. I suspect the judge knows it.

Then she moves on to how ridiculous it is to think that they live in squalor.

Well, I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder, but I call it squalor.  I think most people call it squalor.  I’m not talking about kids playing in the dirt. I’m not talking about dented cans (although the “pantry pyramid” in the photo of the Shitshack is pretty bad).

I’m talking about living with 13 people in a space intended to hold a lawn mower and some shovels, with only one bed.  I’m talking about the fact that I have rarely seen a photograph of any of the younger children in which they were not filthy. I don’t mean a little dirty from playing outside. I mean ground-in, long-term filthy dirty.  I’m talking about living with no way to cook except a jerry-rigged cinder-block contraption outside.  I’m talking about building a small filthy room out of particle board and putting a bucket in it and calling that a “bathroom.”

I’m not making this stuff up. Nicole claims again and again that I “lie” on this blog.  But those are facts. They do live in a garden shed.  The kids are dirty most of the time (that or Nicole purposely takes photos of filthy children and they’re really beautifully clean the rest of the time). They do cook on cinder-blocks.  They did proudly post photos of their awful, horrible toilet situation, to the point that the county health department had to drag them into court and stop it.

The Naugler “homestead” looks like a refugee camp.

She then talks about unschooling, at which point my eyes started to glaze over.  I’m not going to deal with that again.  The fact remains that no matter what bullshit Nicole spews, nobody is educating those children at all. That’s what is happening.  Nothing.

And yes, this is completely legal in Kentucky.

I find that appalling.

They don’t have any sock accounts. Actually, I have a pretty good idea who “Charles” is, most of the time, and it’s pretty obvious that it’s an account that either gets shared, or manages to pop up at the most interesting times.  It’s like magic, you know.  Nicole gets backed into a corner, wants to say something shitty, but gee, her whole persona would be jeopardized if she did, and wham! Charles is right there, in seconds, to be the nasty fall guy.

Court.  Nicole had her day in court. It’s available in its entirety for viewing right here on this blog, or you can read it all.  It speaks for itself.  Joe and Nicole can blather on forever but there it is. She dragged Lisa into court, a very patient judge gave her oodles of time to produce her “evidence,” and she had nothing.  Zilch.  She made a complete fool of herself, and she lost.

And that gets me through the first ten minutes.  It might be all I can take.  We’ll see.




I don’t know about anyone else, but I see that as a threat.  And unlike Nicole, I am actually, really documenting this shit.

Remember, she called the winning lawyer an “idiot.”  However, the lawyer didn’t make the ruling. The judge did, and said she was in complete agreement with the “idiot” lawyer’s reasoning.

The same judge who hears her open CPS case.

Does that mean that Nicole thinks that Judge Embry is an idiot?



NICOLE: Why would you engage in a podcast called Naugler Nation? What was your, um, what was your. . .

LISA: I was invited to be a guest speaker.

NICOLE: And why did you accept?

LISA: Why not?

This is, in my personal opinion, perhaps the most significant exchange made during the hearing in Breckinridge County.  Lisa’s answer (“Why not?”) was made so quietly that I had to back up the video to catch it, but it needs to be shouted loudly.





This came out in the news on April 6, as you can see in this headline from the Washington Post. I noticed it and then almost as soon as it hit the news, it was pretty much over.


Twenty-four hours later, the government said “oopsie” and that was that.

What had happened is that after the election, that moron in the White House decided to demand that nobody in government could tweet but him unless they said nice things, and he couldn’t trust them to say nice things, so he said that they couldn’t tweet at all.

So all sorts of “alt,” quasi-governmental Twitter accounts began surfacing. Some of them claimed to be the commentary of government employees.  There was and still is no way to know for sure.

But because that moron in the White House has extremely thin skin, some government official decided that for everyone’s sanity, it would be a good idea to silence those accounts.

And that underling moron decided that suing Twitter to demand that Twitter reveal the identity of the account holder was a great idea.

It, of course, was not a great idea.

Being critical of government is a cherished American sport. We revere it. We do it. We protect those who do it.  Mostly.

If you do a quick Google search, you can find right-wingers being bashed for supposedly stifling free speech, and you can find left-wingers being bashed for supposedly doing the same thing, but in this case, thankfully, representatives of both parties said, “Uh, no.”

The issue was that the supposed government employee involved in the Twitter account was critical of that moron in the White House’s idiotic plan to build that incredibly stupid wall.  In other words, the supposed government employee is blessed with a brain.

This is not the first time this happened, of course.  During the Obama administration, a federal employee was fired for tweeting insults at/about government officials using a pseudonym.  The situation was slightly different, in that the employee was really engaging in juvenile taunting and not criticizing policy in any substantive way, and he also was a political appointee, meaning that he served at the pleasure of the President, and when the President was no longer pleased, well. . .

There also appears to have been no attempt whatever to get Twitter to reveal the man’s name.

Well, what does this have to do with our little insignificant, slightly silly courtroom hearing in a small Kentucky county?

A lot.






In today’s world how is this bullying being allowed?

In today’s world. . .

We (defined as anyone Nicole has determined has opinions that she doesn’t like) should be arrested.

Get that?  We should be arrested and charged with a crime.

Here’s the deal.

Nicole Naugler has two very public pages. They are not regular ordinary Facebook pages like my personal page.

On a personal page, the user can adjust the privacy settings however s/he wishes. That’s because people often want to share a photo of their child, for example, with Grandma and Grandpa and nobody else.  Or they want to share some silly meme with the people they work with, who will get the joke, and not with Grandma and Grandpa, who won’t.

Nicole doesn’t have a page like that.

She has two “like” pages.  By definition, these are public.  Very, very public.

Not only are her pages public, but Nicole goes to extreme effort to have them seen by more people. More and more people. She does this by paying to have her posts “boosted.” She pays money to get people to see her shit.

Now, if she did this on her business page, that would be understandable. Advertising.  You advertise because you expect to get a return.

Why is she advertising the Blessed Little Homestead page?  Why? Why is she paying money to advertise that page?

Regardless of her reason(s) for doing it, the fact remains that she wants more people to see what she writes.  More and more and more people.

BOLUS: Do you have a great deal of interaction with people that you, that you deem are doing mean or harassing things to you?

NICOLE: I intera- I have a page that has 45,000 people. I get messages from 45,000 people all day, every day, and interacting on my personal page.

BOLUS: You raise money off of that page, do you not?

NICOLE: I do not. And I don’t think that’s relevant.

BOLUS: Where do you raise money? You raise money off of . . .

NICOLE: I have a business. That’s where my income comes from. And I will not answer any more questions regarding my income.

And there you have it. She brags about all her 45,000 non-existent followers.  She loves that stuff. She likes it so well she’s willing to spend money to get more followers.

She’s not hiding.

She’s not concerned about privacy.

She’s trying to get people to read her stuff.

And when you write publicly, and you endeavor to attract people to read what you write, especially when it’s relatively controversial subject matter, well, everyone isn’t going to agree with you.

Nicole Naugler has every right in the world to have a Facebook page with 45,000 likes.  She can have six of them if she wants. She can have three or four blogs. On those blogs, she can pretty much write about anything she likes, including blasting away at me and saying how wrong she thinks I am.  And her followers are free to declare that they think I should be arrested, and that they think I’m mentally ill, and that there oughtta be a law agin it, and all that stuff. The samples shown above are just a very small portion of what they’ve said.

And I’m free to have this blog and talk about her.

And Lisa Duran-Luthi is free to have a Facebook page and talk about anything she likes, including Nicole Naugler.

This silly little court case in this little county in Kentucky is important because there are lots of people in this country who do not understand what the First Amendment means. Some of those people voted in that moron who sometimes hangs out in the White House. This is serious stuff.

I have a right to be here.  Lisa has a right to be anywhere she wants to be and a right to say anything she likes and a right to be friends with anyone who wants to be her friend back, and Nicole Naugler can’t stop/control/squash/silence/restrict any of it.

Let me give one other example, working in the other direction.

The people who run Free Jinger do not like me.  I get it. They are highly critical of me. I believe they’ve even speculated about my mental health, which is so thoughtful of them.

And they are free to do that.

And I am free to not bother reading them, ever, which is pretty much what I do. I am never stressed out by Free Jinger.  I don’t cry over Free Jinger.  Hell, I don’t get stressed out or cry over Nicole’s followers who demand that I be arrested.  I don’t read most of it.  And that is the way that adults handle criticism.

The more widely you are read, the more public you are, the more criticism you will receive, as the moron in the White House is learning to his dismay.  Funny how much he and Nicole have in common.


Who is it that can’t handle differences of opinion?

Somebody please tell Bradley Butler that I didn’t get this month’s check and I’m short.

NOTE:  I have said before that Nicole can silence me tomorrow if she just takes her page/blog down and I have been criticized for saying that as it was interpreted that I’m trying to silence her.  I’m not trying to silence her. I’m countering her. There is a huge difference.  She can, in fact, stop me from discussing what she writes about by simply ceasing to write. It’s a fact.  It’s not an ultimatum. It’s just reality.


The Courtroom, Part 5

Court part 5

BOLUS: I have no further questions.

JUDGE: Did you want to give any other testimony at this point, Mrs. Naugler?

NICOLE: Um, I did want to address that 508, um, 130 as used in KRS 508.130 to 15, 508.150. Unless the context requires otherwise, to stalk means to engage in an intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person or persons, which is myself, which seriously alarms, annoys, intimidates or harasses the person or persons, which is myself, and she has done such with her behaviors for twenty-two months, her obsession with my family, has caused more than just seriously alarm, and three, serves no legitimate purpose.

I cannot imagine what kind of purpose it would serve for her to run this page and to continuously be involved in my family to make acquaintances with my business neighbors and my personal neighbors which she had no knowledge of prior to my case being public and for her to continue to do so and in a manner that causes alarm.

And it says, the course of conduct shall be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial mental distress. (starts crying yet again) Her behavior has caused extreme emotional and mental distress to me for the past twenty-two months. She has been the spokesperson, so to speak, with her Blessed Little Trolls page and her advocacy on the blog that is written about me, Blessed Little Blog, that her friend writes about me, that they have done nothing but continuously try to stalk and harass and her obsession with my family becomes more enhanced the more unsuccessful they are. They have been trying for everything from making continuous false allegations, and I say they as the separate group of people which is separate from the incident with her, but she, as part of this group has done nothing but try to instigate trouble with my family, instigate trouble with my business neighbors, and Ms. Luthi is at the helm of this, with her page that she runs, publicly runs, Blessed Little Trolls and Their Minions.

JUDGE: Hold on just a minute. At this point, what I hear you making is a closing remark, not testimony, okay, about facts. And I don’t want to cut you off but I want to say, I need to, uh, complete the hearing.

NICOLE: Can I ask Ms. Luthi what her purpose of her page is?

JUDGE: Just a minute. Do you want to, um, do you have a witness to call?

NICOLE: Uh, my husband.

JUDGE: Can you tell me – do you want to call Ms. Luthi?

NICOLE: Well, what I would like to ask her what her purpose is if it’s not to alarm. . .

JUDGE: Then you want to call Ms. Luthi?


BOLUS: (unclear) it would be in her case

JUDGE: She’s been sworn.

BOLUS: She’s been sworn.

JUDGE: Shes been sworn, so state your name, ma’am.
LISA: My name is Lisa Duran-Luthi.

JUDGE: And you may ask. . .

NICOLE: Ms. Luthi, do you run the Blessed Little Trolls and Their Minions Facebook page?

LISA: I’m one of the administrators, yes.

NICOLE: Did you create the page?

LISA: I’m one of the administrators that created the page, yes.

NICOLE: What was the intent and purpose of this page been?

LISA: To protect myself from the attacks from your followers, 45,000 followers, who have printed my home address, pictures of my home, pictures of my children online, directing them to come to my house in a Waco-type deal. Okay, and it has always been my intent that. . .

NICOLE: Do you have evidence of that?. . .

LISA: it’s to document

NICOLE: You’re talking about actions that another person.

LISA: Ma’am. . .

NICOLE: [Talking all over Lisa, and that’s hard to do] Do you have evidence of those actions?

JUDGE: Ma’am. Now, now, now, now, ladies. Nicole – Mrs. Naugler, I need – if you ask a question, you’ve got to let her answer it before you ask another question. So, I need you to. . .

LISA: That was my original intent and I called it Grandma school. They put pictures up of me online in June, I guess, after I made a comment on the Breckinridge County Sheriff’s page, um, saying, “Give Grandma a kiss”

NICOLE: Who’s they?

LISA: I’m sorry, okay, at the time it was one of the many followers, I believe at that time. . .

NICOLE: So I directly did not do anything to your. . .

LISA: it was Donny Cook who is a friend of yours.

NICOLE: I directly did not post anything against you. Was it something that I posted?

LISA: Ma’am, that’s who I discussed in the beginning, was them. Eventually, the page morphed. Mrs. Naugler’s family takes no more than ten percent of my page. Okay, it has a page that has science, art. . .

JUDGE: Okay, Ms. Luthi, I need you to answer the question Ms. Naugler posed. Ms. Naugler the last question was?

NICOLE: I, honestly, I just forgot what I just asked.

JUDGE: Did you want to ask another question of her?

NICOLE: (mumbling) What did I just ask her?

What have I posted that would instigate you directing your page at me in any fashion?

LISA: I don’t direct my page at you.

NICOLE: Why do you refer to me on numerous, almost all of your posts? You refer to my home and my family.

LISA: I do not.

NICOLE: Why did you take your page down after the IPO was served?

LISA: At the advice of my attorney, it’s unpublished.

NICOLE: If the page is not directed at me, and if it’s not about me, why would you remove it from the internet?

LISA: At the advice of my attorney.

NICOLE: What advice was that?

BOLUS: Object.

JUDGE: What again? I didn’t hear what your question was.

NICOLE: I asked what advice, and I understand the objection.

JUDGE: Right. Okay. Sustained. She knows.

NICOLE: Will the page be resumed, after. . .if the IPO is not, will you resume posting about my family on your page?


NICOLE: Will you resume going by and encouraging others to send you photographs of my home or business?

LISA: I’ve never done so.

NICOLE: I just played the audio recording where she said “Send me” – you heard the audio recording where she said, “Message them, message them, message them.”

JUDGE: You’re asking questions right now.

NICOLE: I’m sorry. Did you not say in the podcast with Naugler Nation for people to send you photographs of me?

LISA: I told them to message me, because I was trying to change the subject.

NICOLE: How many podcasts have you done discussing my family and my case?

LISA: I have no idea.

NICOLE: Just a guesstimate?

LISA: I think I’ve been on three to four podcasts where they were still discussing your family, though I often attempted not to, and I’ve been on two podcasts where your family was not discussed at all, possibly three.

NICOLE: Why would you engage in a podcast called Naugler Nation? What was your, um, what was your. . .

LISA: I was invited to be a guest speaker.

NICOLE: And why did you accept?

LISA: Why not?

NICOLE: What was your, um, relationship with my neighbor, Ron Sneed?

LISA: Mr. Sneed contacted me in April and asked, um, a couple of questions because he’d already been to the County Attorney, and he wanted some moral support. He didn’t understand what court was like, so he asked if I would be willing to come with him.

NICOLE: How did Ron Sneed come to know your name?

LISA: I don’t know. I didn’t ask him.

NICOLE: How did you come in contact with my business neighbors, Vivian Smith?

LISA: Once again, they contacted me. I was in California at the time that your kerfuffle happened.

NICOLE: Why would you be the contact person for two people who I am neighbors with? Why would they contact you of all the people who have commented and interacted on pages regarding my family, why would . . .

BOLUS: Objection to the form of the question. There’s about three different subjects in there.

NICOLE: Why would you be the contact person regarding my family?

LISA: I don’t know.

NICOLE: Why have you spent twenty-two months, twenty-three months now, as of this past week, focused on my family, obsessed with my family?

BOLUS: I object to the second. . .

NICOLE: What is your obsession with my family, Ms. Luthi?

BOLUS: Again, I’m going to object to the form of that question.

NICOLE: What is your interest in my family?

LISA: Mostly to defend myself. I believe you have a number of blog posts with my name on it, you continuously for, on your Blessed Little Homestead page and on your various manifestations of Nicole Naugler pages, have published any number of falsehoods about me.

NICOLE: I have only documented . . . those posts only document the interactions you have instigated at my family [JOE reaches out and taps NICOLE’s arm, obviously trying to convey some sort of cautionary message or something like that]

Um, how can I be sure that your behavior towards my family, that. . . nah, sorry.

[And she starts crying again]

Do you understand how your behavior on your pages has emotionally harmed not only myself and my husband, but my children?

BOLUS: Your Honor, I’m going to object to the question.


When you post on your pages, do you consider the effects it has on my minor children?

LISA: That’s why I have it set to 18.

BOLUS: (unclear, but objecting)

JUDGE: She’s asking if she does or doesn’t.

BOLUS: (unclear) . . .effect on her minor children. . .

JUDGE: If she considers that. Not if she has any understanding. If she considers that, is I think is what the question is.

LISA: Yes, I did. That’s why my page cannot be accessed by anyone under the age of 18.

NICOLE: Do you understand that you don’t have to be 18 to feel the effects of what’s posted on, on, those pages?

LISA: (unclear, very faint)

NICOLE: You encourage people. . . nevermind. . I can’t. . . I need a break (weepy).

[The unfortunate domestic violence advocate who came to work that day leans over to comfort weepy Nicole.]

JUDGE: Any other questions, Mrs. Naugler?

NICOLE: (blows nose) Um, just one more. Ms. Luthi, have you at all, at any point, given legal advice or recommendations to anyone who has contacted you via your Facebook page or your personal page?


JUDGE: All right. I’m sorry. Is that it?


JUDGE: And did you want to ask any questions of your client, Mr. Bolus?

BOLUS: Can you please describe to the court how many times you had driven by Mrs. Naugler’s home.

LISA: One time.

BOLUS: And what were you doing?

LISA: I was visiting Linda Sneed. We were going out for lunch and nail – um, having our nails done. I actually called the house first before I went there to see whether or not they (gestures at JOE and NICOLE) were home and when they told me they weren’t home I drove to the Sneeds. I picked Linda up and we went off to have our adventure of having lunch. When I was returning her, I called the Sneeds again, they were home, so Mr. Sneed came out to the main road and picked Miss Sneed up from my car because I refused to drive down that road, and that was the one and only time I’ve ever been on the road.

BOLUS: How many times did you, uh, did you go by the store?

LISA: I’ve never been to her store. I went twice to Viv and Eric’s store.

BOLUS: And what were those dates?

LISA: Uh, I’m sorry, I had to write them down. That’s why I’m retired. Uh, January 7 of this year, 19, uh, 2017, and uh, February 25 of 2017.

BOLUS: And your trip to the Sneed home was when?

LISA: It was, I remember that day because I had a car accident in Elizabethtown. It was October 29, 19 – 2016.

BOLUS: And aside from those, from those episodes, had you ever seen. . .

LISA: I had never seen Mrs. Naugler until she accosted me in the courthouse on February 1, 2017 in Hardin County.

BOLUS: Okay. And specify for the court, have you ever made any kind of a statement which would relate to any kind of threat?


BOLUS: Of a sexual nature?


BOLUS: of either Mrs. Naugler, any of her children, any member of her family?


BOLUS: Any statements that could be deemed as a threat of physical injury or death?


BOLUS: to any of them?


BOLUS: I have no further questions.

JUDGE: Any other questions, Mrs. Naugler, for Ms. Luthi? All right, did you want to call any other witnesses?


JUDGE: (To Bolus) Did you want to produce any other witnesses, at this time?


JUDGE: So that’s the evidence in the case. And so, did you want to make any other remarks, Mrs. Naugler?

NICOLE: I just wanted to reiterate, um, he keeps referring to, um, sexual or physical, um, stalking, and I wanted to be clear on the definition of stalking that I have read in the 508.130 clause, which refers to, um, mental stress, alarming behaviors and intimidation and harassment, which is why I filed the IPO.

My request is that Ms. Luthi just leave my family alone. I’m concerned that it being twenty-three months and they have still continued to achieve their – her goals of having what she states, you know, like I said before, of causing us stress, basically of having our family broken apart, that her behavior has escalated. Um, she continues to be more aggressive in her posts, more assertive in her posting online about me, more focused on us than she has been in the past. It just continues to escalate and I’m concerned that this escalation at one point, you know, may lead to some of those other ones, but mostly the mental distress that I have to go through every day of having these people targeting me, online and in real life.

And um, I just, I would just, I just want it stopped.

JUDGE: Where’s the green book? Do you have a green book? Right here.

BOLUS: Your Honor

JUDGE: If you don’t mind. . .

Oh, Mr. Miller is the one who had the green book.

BOLUS: All I have are the, are the pages.

JUDGE: Pages. Right.

BOLUS: Yes, ma’am.

JUDGE: If you’ll bring us one. In the meantime, you wanna make any comments?

BOLUS: Yes. In response, as, as the testimony came out today, for what, for what happened here, once the, once the pleadings got filed, Ms. Luthi withdrew completely from any discussion with regard to, to these folks.

But, even more importantly, one of the things that she is, that Mrs. Naugler is making a mistake of, is reading the stalking statute, reading that 130 section into the IPO statute and the IPO statute does not include that. The IPO statute is very narrow. It’s very specific.

And the reason for that, that’s because what we have is a proceeding that is designed to take place not with the usual realms (unclear). . . we’re looking for severe conduct that needs to be (unclear) immediately. That’s why what we look at in terms of the definitional aspects of that particular chapter, we are dealing with 140 and 150 and that’s (unclear.)

She hasn’t made that case.

JUDGE: Thank you, Mr. Bolus.

[JUDGE reading, NICOLE and JOE shuffling yet more pages and talking to each other]

Mrs. Naugler, uh, in reading 465.010, definitions for the IPO statute, that was provided earlier by Mr. Bolus. . .

NICOLE: Right.

JUDGE: Section, uh, F, no that’s section 7, stalking refers to conduct prohibited as stalking under 508.140 or 508.150. Not 508.130 as he described. He’s correct in his remarks about the law.

That being the case, looking at Stalking Second, the court cannot find that, uh, Ms. Luthi has stalked, um, as described in, uh, 508.150 or 508.140.

So, given that, the court will have to dismiss the complaint, and I’ll sign those documents to that effect here in just a moment.

[JUDGE confers with CLERK]

NICOLE: When will these copies be made available to me?

JUDGE: I’m gonna fill them out right now.

NICOLE: Okay. And the court transcripts will be made available.

JUDGE: I’m sorry, what?

NICOLE: And how long for the court transcripts so I can file my civil suit.

JUDGE: You’ll have to, um, go to the clerk’s window and talk with them about that.

NICOLE: Okay. I appreciate it.

JUDGE: They can give you a better idea. I just don’t know that answer.

JOE: Do you know how many days we should wait?

JUDGE: I’m sorry?

JOE: How many days we should wait?

NICOLE: We’ll ask them.

JUDGE: You can ask today and they will give you an idea about how long it will be.

NICOLE: Okay. That’s fine.

JOE: We’ll just need these for our civil. . .

CLERK: (unclear)

JUDGE: All right. We’ll make copies for both sides. And, uh, as soon as you get your copies, you all will be free to go.

Um, Mr. Butler, you have matters for us to address.

NICOLE: Your Honor, are we free to go?

JUDGE: Yes, ma’am. Well, do you want to wait for your copy, your order, copy of the order?

NICOLE: (speaking to either JOE or the advocate woman or both) She said under oath that she’s not going to talk about me.

Why does it matter what a woman who lives in a garden shed thinks about anything?  Coming up. . .

The Courtroom, Part 4

Court part 4

[NICOLE is playing recording]

ERIC (on podcast): LISA, VIV’s got a couple of pictures. She wanted to know if she can post them. How about this? Send them to her.

JUDGE: Stop it there. Can, do you mind to come up here closer to. . .

BOLUS: Cause I can’t hear that.

JUDGE: . . . because I can’t hear that. It’s just a garble to me.

LISA: I can’t hear it either.

JUDGE: I’m going to want you to lay it right up next to that (motioning to microphone)

NICOLE: It is my. . . it’s a horrible podcast and I’ve recorded from device to device.

JUDGE: That’s okay. It’s just that I’ve got to try and hear it and. . .


ERIC (on podcast): LISA, VIV’s got a couple of pictures. She wanted to know if she can post them. How about this? Send them to her.

SOMEONE ELSE: (unclear)

ERIC: Okay. Got it. Well, I didn’t know what the legalities are.


LISA: (on recording) Message me. Message me.


LISA: Message me. (garbled stuff) . . . Breckinridge County

[More garbled incomprehensible stuff]

NICOLE: And that’s where that clip ends. It is hard to understand. That was Ms. Luthi speaking to, um, Eric and Vivian, the couple that just left, about the pictures that they took while they were in court in Hardin County and then they referenced the incident in Breckinridge County as you heard. I know it’s hard to hear, um. . .

JUDGE: I did hear the reference to that but I didn’t hear any kind of threatening statement.

NICOLE: No. It was the fact that they sent Ms. Luthi photographs to post on her page. And then they were questioning the legalities of sending those photographs and Ms. Luthi. . .

JUDGE: I did hear, though, those things.
NICOLE: . . cackling and saying ‘just send them,’ ‘just send them.’ Just message me, message me because that’s what she does – she encourages people to message her photographs. People go out and take photographs and message them to her so she can post them on her Blessed Little Trolls page.

JUDGE: Do you have any other documents that you think you have that you want to show at this time, Mrs. Naugler?

NICOLE: Uh, yeah (shuffling through yet more pages). I’ve handed some out to the County Attorney, he may have them on file. . .

JUDGE: Which County Attorney?

NICOLE: Hardin County and Breckinridge County attorneys both have them in their possession. I’ve turned them in. I don’t know what happened to them after I turned them in. Um, I can (continues to shuffle through papers)

JUDGE: What do you think those pages are gonna show? Are there gonna be statements that you believe would uh, uh. . .

NICOLE: They just show. . .

JUDGE: . . . appear threatening in nature?

NICOLE: Um, threatening in, in what manner?

JUDGE: Threatening of your, uh, health or life.

NICOLE: Mental well-being, yeah. Um, these are kind of. . . these are hard to understand, let me pull them, I know I’ve got a few more. Um, again, some of these are from other pages that, um, don’t. . . I have this one only because it’s in my file for somebody else. Um, I’ll put these in order for you. But these are just some of the screen shots of the Blessed Little Trolls and Their Minions, um, talking about my son’s criminal activity of that day, which there wasn’t any. It was an, um, assumed, um, but just. ..

JUDGE: Anything that you want to show I’m happy to make a copy of and we’ll put it in our file and we’ll show it to Mr. Bolus as well.

NICOLE: Okay (massive amounts of paper shuffling ongoing, mumbling which is unclear) . . . on the blog. I apologize. Like I said, I’ve got a lot of them saved onto disks that are in the process of printing but with trying to run a business and a family, I don’t have as much time for this as I’d like to have. Um, and these are all for the other case.


(speaking softly to JOE) These are. . . I’m trying to find. . . these are all other individuals, I have. . . I’m seeing, I apologize, I don’t have anything on hand because I have, seem to have handed out all of my copies that I have printed but I can provide them.

[NOTE: She is in COURT. NOW is when she is supposed to provide them. NOW. #unschoolingfail THIS IS THE REAL WORLD.]

JUDGE: So most of those pages are things that you’ve given testimony about, is that correct?

If they’re things she’s given testimony about, um, I think that that’s really gonna cover it. Um, right? Since she doesn’t have those other, she doesn’t have the documents to support at this time.

Anything else, Mrs. Naugler?

NICOLE: [who continues to shuffle through papers] I’m double-checking for any screen shots. I believe

JUDGE: Sure.

NICOLE: . . . that, um, just going over my notes one more time and make sure I didn’t miss anything. I’ve tried to be clear-headed but I. . . Yeah, this doesn’t have an actual date, it just has a Friday, but this where they, they discussed us. I don’t think, I don’t know if that’s relevant to you or not, but they discussed. . .

JUDGE: If there’s something you want me to see, I’m happy to look at it.


JUDGE: And, um, can we get the bailiff to, to show it to Mr. Bolus.

NICOLE: It’s really vague. I think that the fact that you don’t have her. . . because she takes down her Facebook page before court. Well, she took down her Facebook page after the IPO and put it back up and said there was a new admin but it went down, cold silent, so anything that was dated, cause I usually take screen shots and they say, I don’t know if you use Facebook, it says, you know, Friday, but if you go back and screen shot something earlier, it will give you a date, and so I was unable to do that for some of these and, um, I have them in a file in my computer but I have not printed them all out.

But here they are just talking about all in the family and a family affair which was based on information that had, they had, which they just got from my neighbor which they use to harass me, I guess. (starts to cry yet again and FINALLY hands something to the bailiff).

JUDGE: Let Mr. Bolus look at them and if he wants copies, he can have them.





BOLUS: And Your Honor, I’m gonna object. I’m seeing a, I’m seeing a hearsay document. . .

JUDGE: Is it a Facebook page?

BOLUS: It is a Facebook. . . it is a post to a, to her Facebook page by Bethannie. . .


BOLUS: . . .Horn

NICOLE: Ms. Lisa Luthi runs that Facebook page and she commented on it.

BOLUS: That’s not the same thing. That’s not her.

NICOLE: No, but there are comments on there from her.

BOLUS: Yes, I see the ones. . .


JUDGE: I think he’s just objecting to the one that had, has the other’s person’s. .

NICOLE: Yeah, but it, it gives context to the whole response, because if I just show the response. . .

JUDGE: I’m gonna overrule that.

BOLUS: Thanks.

NICOLE: But I don’t know what other purpose, I mean, it would serve to run a Facebook page such as that other than to stalk and harass somebody and to put them in fear and just to, overall, just to stress me out. She has stated that she wants my children to be somewheres else and they have tried everything unsuccessfully, and the more that they try unsuccessfully, the more aggressive she becomes in her campaign against my family to achieve whatever goal that she thinks is gonna be ideal for my children, which in her mind, per her statement, is that our family is, um, you know, to get my husband back in jail, to get me in a mental institution, and to have my kids in good homes.


The meme war that Nicole submitted as “evidence” was actually about this.  This is the accusation Nicole made that the neighbor, Ron Sneed, had stopped beside the Blessed Little Shithole and pulled something out of his pocket.  It was not anything she saw. It was Jacob and Faith who were there and they fed this crap.  Jacob and Faith.

When the incident with the other, younger son occurred, Lisa and Bethannie were not happy about it happening, but did not want to discuss it on public media due to a minor child being involved, so they referenced Jacob and this incident instead. That’s why there was a meme about McDonald’s on there, because at the time, both Jacob and Faith worked there.

Regardless, it was a silly meme war that meant nothing at all and certainly was not threatening in any way, as you can clearly see.

What is disturbing to me is the brain-dead supporter who says “Grab a shotgun.”

BOLUS: That’s not been part of her testimony about the mental institution, Your Honor.

JUDGE: Once we get copies, I’m gonna let you cross-examine. Is there anything else at this point?

NICOLE: It’s, it’s not, it didn’t happen. It’s been taken down. I have nothing else at this moment, um, that I can play.

JUDGE: After cross-examination, if there’s more you wanna say, then we’ll give you an opportunity then as well.

NICOLE: I appreciate it.

JUDGE: Mr. Balus, do you want to ask quest- It’s Mr. Bolus, I’m so sorry.

BOLUS: That’s no problem.

And Your Honor, before I begin with cross-examination,

JUDGE: You’re wanting me to rule on your (chuckles)

BOLUS: Yes, ma’am.

JUDGE: And restate it again for me, will you?

BOLUS: Yes, ma’am. Essentially, it is, it’s a rule 12 motion for failure to state a claim, and right now it’s in the nature of a directed verdict. She’s not made the allegations that are required under 456.010 in terms of the definitional aspects of it where it says, it specifically refers to stalking in this chapter refers to prohibited stalking under 508.140 and 508.150. 508.140 requires, uh, explicit or implicit threats with intent to place that person in reasonable fear of sexual contact, as defined under 510.010, serious physical injury, or death.

NICOLE: I object.

BOLUS: Stalking two would require allegations with regard to sexual contact, as defined in 510.010, physical injury or death.

JUDGE: Uh, I’m gonna overrule at this time and let you cross-examine.

BOLUS: Thank you, Judge.

Mrs. Naugler, in, could you please, as we sit here today, aside from the one set of documents that you have handed, you have nothing in your possession (unclear) Facebook pages or comments that have been made by Ms. Luthi. Is that correct?

NICOLE: I have nothing printed.

BOLUS: You have nothing printed. You have nothing printed with you today. How many times have you seen Ms. Luthi at your home?

NICOLE: At least once that I’ve been able to identify her.

BOLUS: At least once. And when was that?

NICOLE: It was, um, that I have personally identified her at my home, it was about two summers ago.

BOLUS: About two summers ago.

NICOLE: At the beginning. . .

BOLUS: And what was she doing?

NICOLE: She was driving by slowly with her window down and her phone taking photographs.

[NOTE: For the record, this is impossible for several reasons. First, Lisa was in Europe for the period after the children were returned two summers ago on an extended trip. Second, she cannot put down a window and stick her phone up and take photographs from the passenger window – she is too short. Third, Lisa has never been down that road but one time and Nicole nor anyone else was home. Nicole has never seen Lisa at her house.]

BOLUS: Okay you’ve not seen her again since that event two summers ago. . .

NICOLE: [interrupts] I work. I run a business. I am hardly ever home. My children have, uh, but that’s . . .

BOLUS: Okay, and what kind of vehicle was she driving at the time?

NICOLE: Um, honestly I don’t recall.

BOLUS: How close were you when you saw her?

NICOLE: Um, I would have to say twenty, it was when our house was closer to the road, so, it was fairly close to the road, maybe from here to Mr. Butler.

BOLUS: What were you doing at the time?

NICOLE: I was in my yard.

BOLUS: Were you working in your yard?

NICOLE: I, uh, don’t recall, like I said, it’s been some time but I was outside with my family.

BOLUS: Okay. Were you looking at the street? Why would you notice her coming down the, your road?

NICOLE: I live on a single-lane dirt road. If anybody drives down my road, everybody notices.

BOLUS: Did she stop?

NICOLE: She drove very slowly.

BOLUS: Did she say anything to you?

NICOLE: She did not.

BOLUS: Okay. Did you say anything to her?

NICOLE: I did not.

BOLUS: Why did you recognize her at that time?

NICOLE: Because she was already identified as one of the people who had been acting aggressively in my who-, in my case, in my case, and actually I believe that was after her appearance in court with my neighbor.

[NOTE: This is completely impossible. Timeline doesn’t work at all. The two time periods are about a year apart.]

BOLUS: When was the first time you ever noticed Ms. Luthi, um, taking an interest in your case?

NICOLE: Um, I don’t recall the timeline, I was under immense stress during the time that my children were gone (starts crying), but it was before they were returned. In July, they were returned July 2, 2015, so it had to have been prior to that.

BOLUS: And, did you try to have interactions with her and her life?

NICOLE : Uh, no.

BOLUS: Did you contact her mother?


BOLUS: Did you ever post anything about her mother?

NICOLE: No, I have not.

BOLUS: Are you aware that anybody has posted anything about. . .

NICOLE: I have seen a lot of mud-slinging from both sides of supporters and non-supporters, and, um, I don’t post those things.

BOLUS: Do you have a great deal of interaction with people that you, that you deem are doing mean or harassing things to you?

NICOLE: I intera- I have a page that has 45,000 people. I get messages from 45,000 people all day, every day, and interacting on my personal page.

BOLUS: You raise money off of that page, do you not?

NICOLE: I do not. And I don’t think that’s relevant.

BOLUS: Where do you raise money? You raise money off of . . .

NICOLE: I have a business. That’s where my income comes from. And I will not answer any more questions regarding my income.

BOLUS: You what?

NICOLE: I have a business that raises my income and I will not answer any more questions regarding my income.

BOLUS: Well, the reason why I’m asking these questions with regard to your income is that it is relevant to the fact that you are in a number of interpersonal battles with a number of people.

NICOLE: Irrelevant.

BOLUS: And. . .

NICOLE: That is irrelevant to Ms. Luthi’s behavior towards my family.

BOLUS: Well, let’s talk about your interactions with people.

And Your Honor, I’m going to approach. Can I show these to her?

JUDGE: Certainly.

BOLUS: Thank you.

To NICOLE: (unclear)

NICOLE: That is my personal page.

BOLUS: Okay. Can you tell me what that is?

And Your Honor, we’ve had an order of separation. . .

NICOLE: Yes, this is my

JUDGE: Just one minute. Just one minute.

Okay. You just said what now?

BOLUS: We have an order with regard to separation of witnesses and he’s playing shadow counsel over here (motioning to JOE) to her left. It’s one thing for him to provide, I think, emotional/moral support, and I kind of let that one go, but for him to be consulting with her and providing advice along the way. . .

JUDGE: He’s not going to be able to give any testimony because he’s here in the room.

BOLUS: Right.

JUDGE: (to NICOLE) You know this, right?

NICOLE: Yeah, this is my personal Facebook page where I documented people who were directly and tar- specifically targeting my family.

BOLUS: And so you identified all of them.

NICOLE: I did.




Note: there may have been other lists of names, like the List of 55, but I’m not certain exactly what Mr. Bolus introduced in addition to this stuff from Nicole’s imitation Blessed Little Blog (that copies this one), if anything.

BOLUS: Okay. Now, I’ve got another page here, and I’m gonna have you. . . I’m going to go ahead and introduce this as Respondent’s One (unclear) Thank you.


JUDGE: Respondent’s One (to CLERK)


NICOLE: This has nothing relevant to do with my, with Ms. Luthi’s behavior towards myself and my family. This doesn’t even regard – reference her. At all.

BOLUS: You reference Ms. Luthi in there, don’t you?

NICOLE: No. I talk about the blogger. Unless Ms. Luthi is going to admit to being the blogger, uh, that writes Blessed Little Blog, this has nothing to do with her and has nothing to do with my case of Ms. Luthi stalking and harassing my family.

BOLUS: And what I’m going to show is that Mrs. Naugler has, and I’m going to introduce this, as Respondent’s Two. It’s pretty foul. . .

NICOLE: I’d like copies of that.

BOLUS: It’s pretty foul in terms of tone and what I’m showing is the court is Mrs. Naugler’s tendency to go above and beyond in engaging in very rough verbal conduct with people who she deems to be her, her enemies.

JUDGE: (to CLERK, unclear)

BOLUS: Now, with regard to the number of times you have seen Ms. Luthi at your business, could you please describe the dates?

NICOLE: I don’t have any dates, as I’ve told the courts just moments ago, that I only know this by references on Ms. Luthi’s page, and her podcast, which I don’t. . .

BOLUS: How many times have you interacted with her directly?

NICOLE: Only once, when she followed me to court on January 30.

BOLUS: When she followed you to court. Were you not waiting outside of the court when she left? Did you not have the video going at the time that she stepped out. . .

NICOLE: When I realized, I was walking through the double-door courts, when I realized the people that were actually in the courtroom with the other people we were in court with, I realized who that was, and I had to set my recorder, set my recorder as I walked out.

BOLUS: And you waited for her. . .

NICOLE: I did not wait for her.

I did not wait for her.

BOLUS: You did not wait for her.

NICOLE: She got up immediately after I did and followed me out. After that incident, the bailiff then made. . .

BOLUS: Is it your position that she is not allowed to attend sessions of court?

NICOLE: It is my position that her behavior is alarming to my family. . .

BOLUS: Is it your position that she’s not entitled to be in court?

NICOLE: [getting loud and snippy and talking all over BOLUS]. . . and serves no legitimate purpose. That is my position. My position is her behavior serves no legitimate purpose and causes alarm and mental distress.

BOLUS: Well, my question to you is. . .

JUDGE: Mrs. Naugler, I need you to answer Mr. Bolus’s question.

BOLUS: Is it your position that she’s not entitled to be in a public courtroom? In a public proceeding that the law she can come. . .

NICOLE: [interrupting] It’s my position that she can be anywhere she chooses to be so long as she does not engage in stalking and harassing behaviors.

BOLUS: Okay. So is it also your position that you can have a very, very public presence that you are entitled to no criticism whatsoever?

NICOLE: I’m not talking about criticism.

BOLUS: . . . to your public presentation?

NICOLE: I didn’t say that.

BOLUS: Okay.

NICOLE: I didn’t say that at all.

BOLUS: To your knowledge, she wasn’t under any bar to attend in court, was she?

NICOLE: I’m sorry, what was that?

BOLUS: She wasn’t, she wasn’t prohibited from attending court?


BOLUS: She’s not prohibited from even coming by your place of business, is she not?

NICOLE: No, she’s not.

BOLUS: Is she prohibited from driving down your road?

NICOLE: No, she’s not.

BOLUS: Has she ever made any statements to you that have threatened you with sexual contact?


BOLUS: Has she threatened you with any statements that she’s going to bring about your physical injury?

NICOLE: No. No verbal statements. No.

BOLUS: No verbal statements, no written statements either. Have there not been?

NICOLE: Her, her behavior. . .

BOLUS: There’s no. . .

NICOLE: Her behavior has continuously escalated for the past twenty-two months. Her obsession with me is concerning. I’m. . .

BOLUS: Okay. I’m not asking. . .

NICOLE: I’m not sure what she’s capable of.

BOLUS . . . you that question. What I’m asking you is, what I’m asking you is did she make any statement that has anything to do. . .

NICOLE: She has not.

BOLUS: with your physical safety. Has she threatened you with death or made any statement that somehow you’re going die as a result of any interactions with her?

NICOLE: [No answer audible, but I assume she answered no]

JUDGE: Anything else?


The Courtroom, Part 3

Part one is here.

Part two is here.

Court part 3

JUDGE: So Luthi, Ms. Luthi is represented by Mr. Bolus. Mrs. Naugler, Ms. Luthi, both of you raise your right hand and be sworn. Do each of you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the court? Ma’am? [looking at LISA] And ma’am? [looking at NICOLE]

LISA: Yes, ma’am.

JUDGE: Alright, put your hands down. I need everybody to speak loudly. As you can tell, I don’t hear very well today, sometimes better than others, I don’t know what that’s about, but, Mrs. Naugler, I need you as the petitioner to state your name.

NICOLE: I’m Nicole Celeste Naugler.

JUDGE: And your address.

NICOLE: Seven-one-zero Whitworth-Lockard Lane in Garfield, Kentucky. 40160

JUDGE: You have filed a, a protection petition against Lisa Luthi, is that correct?

NICOLE: Yes, ma’am.

JUDGE: And, uh, will you tell me what happened that caused you to take that petition?

NICOLE: Um, well, the courts are familiar with the events that happened to my family back in May. . .

JUDGE: I need you to just, instead of just, you can’t assume. . .

NICOLE: Right [continues to attempt to interrupt]

JUDGE: . . . for the testimony today, you’ve got to discuss what has happened.

NICOLE: In 2015, May, my children were taken by CPS. (starts to cry)

JUDGE: Okay, that thing.

NICOLE: That garnished a lot of attention to my family, sorry (she’s crying), I was trying really hard.

JUDGE: You want to take a minute? I’m sorry I didn’t mean to create. . .

NICOLE: That’s okay.

JUDGE: additional stress.

NICOLE: That garnished a lot of attention to my family and some of that was negative. Um, some of that negative attention came from people who had organized to prevent. . .

BOLUS: I object to the characterization (unclear) we are getting into hearsay. We’re getting into evidence that is not competent to establish the allegations that she’s attempting to make for the statutory requirements.

JUDGE: What I’m gonna tell you is this. Um, to a certain extent, he’s right.

NICOLE: Right.

JUDGE: Uh, primarily because, uh, you’ve not given any hearsay testimony at this point, but what other people have done is not particularly relevant for our purposes, so if you’ll try to, uh, uh, maintain in your comments to what you know specifically about this lady here, that will help us move more speedily. How about that?

NICOLE: Um, so anyways, the attention grabbed people who worked together to prevent my children from being reunited.

BOLUS: (unclear but objected)

JUDGE: Overruled at this point. She’s not said anything that’s hearsay at this point, so. . .

NICOLE: One of those individuals was Ms. Luthi.

JUDGE: There we go.

NICOLE: She, um, admitted later that she was friends with the woman who filed the anonymous and . . .

JUDGE: She told you she was friends with the lady who filed?

NICOLE: She made it public on her public page. She created a Facebook page called “Blessed Little Trolls and Their Minions” and she used that page as a advocacy group for harassing of my family and targeting of my family. She posted on that page and elsewhere that she was friends with the individual who made the, um, allegations against my family that instigated the CPS investigation. (she starts crying again)

She also indicated to people that she was a retired attorney, and that, um, people revered her expertise on her assessment and opinions of my family as, I guess, more credible than, than the typical gossip that was found on the pages.

JUDGE: So you saw that written on her page? Is that what you’re saying?

NICOLE: On her Facebook pages and on blogs that she visited, that she, um, other websites.

JUDGE: Are you saying that she commented on?

NICOLE: Um, well, she authored the page, but then she also commented elsewhere on the internet.

JUDGE: All right. Let’s just. . . go ahead.

NICOLE: And, um. . .

BOLUS: And, Your Honor, and one thing, and I am going to object if she’s going to ascribe things to people or to, uh, pseudo. . . or to what we’ll call them, pseudonyms that she’s going to say are Ms. Luthi. I mean, if, if she’s talking about things that Ms. Luthi said directly, then, then that’s fair. That’s not hearsay. But if she’s talking about pseudonyms, I have no idea what she’s referring to.

JUDGE: So far, she’s talked about Ms. Luthi, and do I understand that Ms. Luthi signed her name, or her name was above the comments. . .

NICOLE: She. . Yes.

JUDGE:. . . that you described?

NICOLE: She used one of them was a Facebook page that she, herself, has admitted to being . . .

JUDGE: So what is the name of the Facebook page?

NICOLE: . . . that she credits, that she admit to being the authored. She publicly has said that numerous times. So, these pages, her page, she fueled a lot of this. She provided a platform for not only herself to, um, target my family but for others to do so as well. She provided this platform. She then interjected herself into my personal life by, um, by becoming acquainted with my neighbors both at home and at my business, and she has appeared at several of our court dates, um, without any provocation other than just to be there for what I have taken as twenty-two months, now, twenty-three months of intimidation purposes.

After my children were returned. . .

JUDGE: Do you know what court dates she came to, ma’am?

NICOLE: Um, I know there was one she came where, um, I was not present but my husband was, with Mr. Sneed, when our goats got loose

JOE: [to NICOLE]: April 16

NICOLE: April 16th, I believe it was, last year. Um, she was there. .

JUDGE: Now, that was not anything with the original comment you made, the May 15th situation

This was separate?

NICOLE: Right. Separate. A separate incident that has nothing to do with my children but she was there. I don’t know why she would have contacted my neighbor or gone to court with him, but she did. And she’s not an attorney, she’s retired. Um, so I know she wasn’t there as legal counsel. Um, she’s contacted , and this is based on her postings on her Facebook pages and conversations that she’s had with individuals. . .

JUDGE: Did you print any of that out?

NICOLE: Um, I have some of it but not all of it printed out currently.

JUDGE: What you have printed, you probably need to, we need to make a copy of to show to, uh, Mr. Bolus.

NICOLE: [Starts looking around for her bag] But she. . . I’ll have to find that, it in. . . my toddler dumped my pages last night and I didn’t get them all organized, so. ..

[JOE puts giant bag on desk]

NICOLE: . . . so I’m not sure what I have.

But she has, um, contacted these people and, and like I said, she’s followed me around about some places. . .

JUDGE: Where has she followed you? And do you know when, can you describe specifically?

NICOLE: I can, well, most recently, um, that I’m aware of, some of these events I’m not aware of, she just posts about them on Facebook, and um, posts photos of my home and, um, my business, but she has, in January. . . what I wrote on here (shuffles through papers) was kind of the straw for me to file the EPO was on January 30, um, she followed me, um, and my husband when we had court with the Martins who just left, um, she has. . .

JUDGE: Was that in Hardin County?


JUDGE: And that was in January?

NICOLE: Um hum. She has no, um, legal business being there. She was just there because we were there. And this, um, she’s been outside my

BOLUS: Um, I’m gonna, I’m gonna object to that statement. She’s, at that point in time, she’s engaging in speculation.

JUDGE: When she said she had no reason to be there?


NICOLE: She was not legally obligated to be there. Is that correct? Should I just say that?


BOLUS: It’s a public building, Your Honor, and the courts of the Commonwealth are open.

JUDGE: It is a public building, Mr. Bolus, and what I’m gonna suggest to you is, uh, I’m gonna have to figure out a way to ferret some of that out. She doesn’t have the same kind of training and expertise in, uh, evidence law. . .

BOLUS: Yes, ma’am.

JUDGE: . . . and so I’m going to probably give her a little latitude. I’m gonna try to not let her get too far, but continue to make your objections, but I’m gonna let her go forward at this point, uh, at least to some degree.

NICOLE: I’m trying to see what I have. . .

JUDGE: So you’re looking copies of the Facebook page now?

NICOLE: Um, I may not have them on hand, Your Honor, and I apologize for that, but I printed out a whole bunch of screen shots for, for other cases and I haven’t, um, I don’t think I have anything of those other than. . .

JUDGE: You believe that she followed you in January to the Hardin County courthouse is what I’m hearing you say. Are there any other dates you are aware that she followed you? That you saw her?

NICOLE: Um, I know that she posted video of the incident on January 30. She took a video of it and posted it on her page publicly.

JUDGE: Is that the same day that we’re talking about?

NICOLE: Yeah. She’s also, um, alluded to, I guess, on her page. I don’t have definitive, and I apologize, I know that doesn’t fit the criteria, but she’s been, like I said, she made, she’s made acquaintances with my business and my personal neighbors to allow her to drive by my home and my business to photograph and document

BOLUS: Your Honor, we’re, we’re in rank speculation now.

JUDGE: Have you, um, have you seen her driving by your residence?


JUDGE: And do you know when that would have been?

NICOLE: I don’t have dates. Um,

JUDGE: Do you have, I mean, you don’t have to have dates, but generally

NICOLE: It’s been, um, um, the last time, I believe that, um, that we noticed her was a few months ago. I don’t recall the dates.

JUDGE: Do you think about two months ago?

NICOLE: About two months ago, probably.

JUDGE: Was that the only time, or are there other times?

NICOLE: No, there were several times last summer, and the prior. . . it was shortly after my children were returned. Um,

JUDGE: Last summer she drove by? One or more than one time?

NICOLE: Um, I, I, I can say one that I know of. A lot of times it’s my children that notice people driving by, and they, unfortunately, I have had to show my children pictures of these individuals, including Ms. Luthi, so that way if they do see them passing by our home, they know who to identify.

JUDGE: So, you know that she drove by in January. You know that she drove by last summer on at least one occasion. Any other times that you are aware that she drove by?

NICOLE: Um, I know prior to that, shortly after the April incident, that she was visiting the neighbors frequently, like I said . . .

JUDGE: The April 16 goat incident?

NICOLE: Um hum, because she was working with them, I guess, in some manner to, um,

JUDGE: So she was at your neighbor’s home in April?

NICOLE: Correct. And in December, January, she was also at my business again. She did not know my neighbors, my business or my home neighbor, until after her obsession with my family

BOLUS: Objection. Characterization.

NICOLE: Um, like I said, she posts about me and my family on almost a 24-hour basis on her page. You can go back a year and a half or so and everything she posts on her Blessed Little Trolls and Their Minions page is directed to me or about me.

JUDGE: What’s the name of the page?

NICOLE: It is – she takes it down before court – it’s called “Blessed Little Trolls and Their Minions”

JUDGE: Blessed Little what?

NICOLE: Trolls. Blessed Little after my homestead, Blessed Little Homestead, and then Trolls and Their Minions. And the page has been taken down, and um, what not.

She’s also done several audio podcasts with a, um, a podcast called “Naugler Nation” and in these podcasts, um, she also further, (starts crying again) further makes me feel like she’s obsessed and stalking with my family because that’s all that they talk for two hours on the podcast. They do two or three a week. Those have also been scrubbed from the internet.

JUDGE: Tell me, two or three times a week?


JUDGE: . . . that Ms. Luthi is discussing you and your family?

NICOLE: Correct.

JUDGE: And when is that most recently? When did that most recently occur?

NICOLE: Um, it has not occurred that I’m aware of since the IPO has been filed. It was occurring two or three times a week before the IPO was filed, but since I filed the IPO

JUDGE: The IPO was filed, in, in Hardin County, right?

NICOLE: Correct.

JUDGE: Do you know the date on that? Mr. Bolus?

BOLUS: (unclear but asks her to repeat the question)

JUDGE: The date the IPO was filed

BOLUS: The date of the Hardin County IPO was like (looks at LISA)

LISA: January 30

BOLUS: January 30

JUDGE: 1/30. So not since then. But before that?

NICOLE: Um, yeah. [Looking through mountain of papers again]

JUDGE: Three times a week there would be a podcast. Would it be just Ms. Luthi or Ms. Luthi and others?

NICOLE: No. Someone else hosted it. She co-hosted it. It was almost always her and the podcast. They would talk about things, uh, just general conversation to derogatory comments toward me and my family. It would all be. . .

JUDGE: So you would not be the sole topic of conversation. You would just be a topic during the time.

NICOLE: It was, I was primarily the topic. It’s called Naugler Nation. My name is Nicole Naugler. I was the primary topic. My family was. Some, sometimes they would get sidetracked with just banter but most of the time it was regarding my family in some way, shape or form.

JUDGE: All right, and so, this was before January, all right you’re saying it was three times a week and do you know how long that went on?

NICOLE: Um, in just a correction here, the IPO was filed February 27. In Hardin County. Not January 30. Um, just for your records.

[talking with JOE]

JUDGE: All right. Now, um, you said she was f- she was coming around your business as well, is that correct?

NICOLE: Yes, she, um, like I said, she had no knowledge, um, no relationship with my business or my home neighbors until

BOLUS: That is speculation

NICOLE: She’s admitted she had no known relationship with my neighbors until after her, um,

JUDGE: Who did she admit that to?

NICOLE: Um, she said it on her podcast, she said it in. . .

JUDGE: Okay.

NICOLE: her Facebook page. And, um, my neighbors have also confirmed that. I know that’s hearsay, but. . .

BOLUS: Hearsay.

JUDGE: What the neighbors said is not admissable. These podcasts, are they, like, able to be brought up?

NICOLE: They have been scrubbed from the internet. I was able to save one, because it was on a separate hosting. It’s called the Drunken Podcast. And basically she said, the host, they were drunk and she made a mistake, she hosted it somewheres else and we were able to save that one but we were not able to download and save the other ones.

JUDGE: So all the rest of them have been taken down?

NICOLE: Right. I do have, because in that podcast that I have saved, one of the reasons we saved it was not only for Ms. Luthi but for our other case with the two individuals that have previously left. They were also participants in that podcast. Um, so, um, I’ve gone through and tried to, I was, I was just recently able to save that, I was actually gonna work on it all this week to try to get some audio for the court hearing, but as the podcast was scrubbed, I’ve only gotten halfway through one of them. Like I said, they are two to three hours long each, so it takes a lot of time to stop and record. I do have one audio that I’ve picked up this morning from that where, um, they were talking about sending Ms. Luthi. . . Ms. Luthi was involved in the conversation, Ms. Luthi, sending Ms. Luthi photos that they had of me so that she could publish them, because she would publish things like this on her Blessed Little Trolls and Her Minions page.

JUDGE: Let’s go back to her coming to, around your place of, uh, employment, or your business. And how many times are you aware that she has gone by your business.

NICOLE: I am only aware of two times. But like I said, a lot of this I’m not aware of because they, they do things. . .

BOLUS: I’m going to object. Anything that she’s not aware of.

JUDGE: You’ve got to talk about what you know.

NICOLE: Right. Um,

JUDGE: So two times. .

NICOLE: Two times that I’m aware of.

JUDGE: And do you know roughly when that was?

NICOLE: Not directly because it’s alluded to in her conversations and so I don’t know her dates. I only know she was there because she’s admitted to them either on her Facebook page or podcast.

JUDGE: She’s admitted to what?

NICOLE: She’s admitted to them on her Facebook page and podcast, but

JUDGE: But you don’t know specifically other than she remarked that she had been by your business on two occasions?

NICOLE: Correct.

JUDGE: That you know of. Two different times.

NICOLE: Other than my children witnessing her driving by the home, the only knowledge I have of her whereabouts are when she posts them on her pages and talks about them on her podcast or whatever. So that’s the only knowledge that I have is what she herself said.

JUDGE: Let me ask you a question. When, uh, you, you all have a few acres right?

NICOLE: Um hum.

JUDGE: Your house is significantly back from the road, is it not?

NICOLE: It’s somewhat back from the road because of the landscape of the land, unless we build – site build something, back on the land, you can’t haul or move anything, so our cabin that we is set back maybe a hundred yards from the road.

JUDGE: A hundred yards?

NICOLE: But it’s up on a hill, so we have view of the road in front of our home

JUDGE: Does the road have a view of your home. . .


JUDGE: . . . is the next question. So there’s a view of your home from the road.

NICOLE: Correct.

JUDGE: Okay.

NICOLE: And pictures of that have been posted on Ms. Luthi’s page.

JUDGE: Okay. All right, and then, uh. . .

Has Ms. Luthi ever made any direct statements to you?

NICOLE: To me, no. She’s never spoken to me directly. Well, indirectly, I guess you could say, through her Facebook page.

JUDGE: She’s never spok- Hold on – She’s never spoken directly to you.


Well, I’m. . .

JUDGE: But you said she has commented where?

NICOLE: She makes indirect statements. She calls me the Blessed One and so she’ll make posts on her Facebook page addressed to the Blessed One which would be me and/or my husband. Um, they have all sorts of nicknames for us, but she’s made indirectly

BOLUS: (unclear) when she says “they” if she’s talking about . . .

JUDGE: Are you talking about Ms. Luthi’s

NICOLE: Ms. Luthi

JUDGE: Facebook page?

NICOLE: Correct. On her Facebook page. The people that comment and the people that, she writes and the people comment

JUDGE: Her comments alone are the ones that we’re interested in at this point.

NICOLE: Right. They have, she has several different nicknames, references toward us – Nic Naug – and

JUDGE: Right, and with an understanding that you recognize when she is making a comment toward you, have you seen a written comment that you took as threatening in nature?

NICOLE: Um, there have been, um, posts about, um, my children having a real home, and that, um, and posts about her, um, getting my children to a better place, um, just lots of allusion to where she does not like my lifestyle and she does not agree with the fact that my children were returned, and it seems to be, she has stated on her page that her mission is to protect my children and somehow that’s her, her, um, sole cause, but in turn, all she’s doing is inflicting emotional distress on my family because people will want to – I shouldn’t say – okay, I’ll retract that – because she wants people to help her. She’s said she wants people to help her rectify my home situation. Or her perception of my home life, I should say.

I don’t, I don’t understand what else would motivate her to, to dedicate a Facebook page and to post incessantly on it about me, and to make friends with my, my home and business neighbors other than to stalk and harass me for whatever purpose she has done it for.

BOLUS: (unclear) speculation

NICOLE: That’s not, that’s not normal behavior, in my opinion, and it, it alarms me and it is extremely stressful. (starts crying )

JUDGE: Hold on. Okay. Is there anything else that you want to tell me about these allegations that you want me to hear?

NICOLE: Um, let me look at my notes and make sure that I’ve gotten over everything that I had in my mind.

JUDGE: If there are any documents, you need to show them now.

NICOLE: Okay. Um,

JUDGE: Any other statements at this point, you need to go ahead. . .

NICOLE: Yes. Um, let me find, cause I did have some, like I said, I had, um, a few months ago, back in January, there was an incident with my neighbor and my son and our horse that we have, and as I’ve said, Ms. Luthi is, um, in contact with my neighbors next door, who we have had the incident with, and almost immediately, um I would say within two hours of the incident, I had not posted it on my public page that I have about my family, but [ aside to JOE: Help me find these] Ms. Luthi posted it, um, on her page, something regarding my son and a family affair and I will try to find that.

But she had targeted my 16-year-old son in her post, referencing him, again, indirectly, but if you knew what was going on, you know what the post was about. I’m trying to find it because it’s in my, um, neighbor’s file and not hers.

But, um, I do have some screen shots from that page, where they were talking about my son’s criminal, um, activity which was not even relayed to me until weeks later, um, with the affidavit of the neighbor because the adult male neighbor never mentioned it. Well, it’s not in this one. Until. . . I apologize, like I said, my files got messed up.

JUDGE: Take your time.

NICOLE: It’s just this one (talking to JOE, shuffling endlessly through papers)

But I can play for you this one audio snippet if you would like to hear it.

JUDGE: Can you tell me what it is before you play it?

NICOLE: Yes, in the podcast, Vivian Adams, who just left, they were discussing, discussing me, and she said she had some pictures from the the courtroom

JUDGE: Who is she?

NICOLE: Ms. Adams.

JUDGE: Ms. Adams. The other lady.

NICOLE: Yes, was discussing with Lisa the court date that Lisa

JUDGE: With Ms. Luthi

NICOLE: Yeah, the court date that they had attended to, the one I referred to

JUDGE: January 30

NICOLE: January 30, and they took some photographs and this is them discussing what to do with those photographs

JUDGE: Um, what I’m gonna do is I’m gonna ask you to either set that right up next to the microphone and see if that will help if you’re gonna play it, so that we can hear it.