This is just a teensy bit complicated, but bear with me.
It all began with Cathy’s fake rape. As I recounted in there, in an effort to track down the elusive, unnamed rapist who was an associate pastor at her adoptive father’s church, I contacted the church and spoke with an associate pastor.
This is not something awful. It’s not illegal. She was telling a story which I doubted. I was trying to find out if the story was true. Blogging is a form of journalism. I was doing what journalists do.
Remember something here. Every time Cathy, or Camille, or Nicole or any of these people accuse somebody of victimizing them, they are pointing a finger at another person. They want you to find that other person guilty.
I wanted to know who she was defaming and more importantly, if there was any truth to the story at all.
Stop for a moment and go read those two links so you’ll understand the rest. And it’s worth it, I promise, because the tentacles in this story fan out widely.
Cathy is mad about this. She’s been mad about this for years.
Cathy does not like it when people fact-check her stories, and the closer that fact-checking gets to home, the angrier she becomes.
So she set a trap.
She came over to the Romancing blog, again, and posted this (under a totally unrelated article).
“Bethel was a very large church.” Yeah, with a Christian school that had exactly one class for each grade. Not all that big.
But here’s the deal. She goes on to talk about “Pastor Josh,” who was at the time the associate pastor at Bethel. He is, in fact, the person I spoke with when I contacted the church.
Why does this matter?
It matters because Cathy wants somebody to lash out at. She needs an enemy, especially an enemy who will cower, and I am so unsatisfactory because I do not cower. So she decided to go after Josh.
I replied to her.
See? I said “Josh.” She was delighted and she began to use this.
She says that Josh “admits” talking to me, as though doing so was some sort of crime. She doesn’t say how she knows this, but I know. It’s because she called the church, pretending to be an FBI investigator and spoke with Josh and asked him a bunch of questions. No, I haven’t spoken with him again (or ever) but that’s what happened. It’s what she does.
And then she quoted and/or misquoted him endlessly. She still does it.
So, there’s the first part of this tangled web. Cathy has been after Josh for years all because the poor man answered my email and spoke with me on the phone.
We fast forward a year or so and we get this.
By this time, Cathy had taken to Twitter. Really, I hate Twitter. I hate Trump on Twitter, but I mostly just hate Twitter. People on Twitter use Twitter-speak and I find it hard to read. And Cathy uses Twitter-speak to the point that it’s hopeless trying to understand what the hell she is trying to say, so I mostly don’t try.
But this whole exchange occurred on Twitter, so here we are.
Edmond Dantes appeared and began taunting Cathy.
Within a day or two, Cathy’s friend Daniel had entered the fray and was valiantly defending her, which was the whole idea in the first place.
There’s something you have to understand about Cathy. She needs to feel like people are defending her. So, from time to time, if she’s not being criticized enough, she makes up a villain who will come after her, and then she steps back and lets her idiotic followers come out swinging.
These fakes are pretty easy to spot.
They tend to be kind of. . . well. . . stereotypically fundy Christian. Like a POE, only very poorly done. Here’s Edmond.
See what I mean? The piety oozes. It’s nauseating. All Cathy’s fake critics are like that.
And I said something to that effect and of course, Edmond had to comment and say that I am so wrong. Of course.
But then, in typical Cathy fashion, she gets her followers to actually “identify” Edmond. See the green block there ? That’s Josh’s last name.
They are claiming that Edmond Dantes is actually Josh, because he doesn’t have anything better to do than attack Cathy Harris after a solid year.
See how she does it? “I am not saying that Edmond Dantes is. . .”
No, but all her friends are.
And Cathy tells us about the trap she set. The one I fell for. The one I posted above. Read it again. Read what she wrote on my blog and how I replied. Compare that with her description of that.
Laugh. It’s okay.
So then it got interesting.
Frank Laferriere is a strange duck. You can read about him, starting here.
Frank doesn’t like me. I think that’s obvious. Not only did he send me all that mail, but he also reported my web site to the service provider, who simply forwarded his complain to me and I put it in the trash, but he also started two or three blogs to bash me.
Here comes a question. Frank says he was given Edmond Dantes’ phone number by Cathy.
How did Cathy Harris get Edmond Dantes’ phone number? Somebody ‘splain that to me?
And then Cathy gave Edmond’s number to Frank. Such a great thing to do. Cathy did this, of course, knowing what Frank would do and of course, he did. So Edmond(Cathy) responded with vile Frank-like crap.
And it’s all my fault. I do know exactly who Edmond Dantes is.
And Edmond Dantes has never contacted me. I don’t do Twitter, remember?
But here’s the main thing to know.
Cathy Harris and her buddies screwed around with Edmond Dantes for more than a year. Cathy not only messed with him (!!) on Twitter, but also somehow magically connected with him by phone (and nobody asked her how) and she determined that he was Josh. Or something. A year.
And that leads me to what I wanted to write about in the first place, which is Lisa Luthi.
I’ll give you a minute to regroup.
What in the hell?
Here’s the story. A while back, Lisa and I were talking and I mentioned something about how Cathy had taken to Twitter and I hated it and won’t read it most of the time. Lisa had been nosing around the edges of the Romancing rabbit hole for a while, so she went over to Twitter and poked around, and she found stuff like this.
She asked me if I am #psychobitch and I said yes.
And a while later she said, “What if I went after her a little bit?”
I told her about Edmond Dantes and how they went back and forth with him for a long time and how a year later they were still after him.
Her reply was, “Hold my beer.”
One tweet went like this.
The whole business lasted about three hours. Not a year. Three hours and Cathy was done. She will not continue with somebody she cannot control.
And the bet was on.
Would Cathy turn that into a rape threat? Or not? Can you rape somebody with an icicle?
They never disappoint me. I laughed the next day when she told me, but then she told me about the trap.
The Twitter account that Lisa used was linked to a very old WordPress account that she hasn’t touched in at least two years. Even if Cathy had somehow been able to trace the Twitter account back to that email account, she wouldn’t have had Lisa’s name. Lisa has two legal names, with identification for both (lots of professional women do).
She only used that account very briefly to comment, oh, a couple of years ago, about a family in Kentucky who had their children taken away from them. The parents went after her, of course, because that’s what they do, and she quickly changed accounts. The old one has lain dormant since then.
There was no way for Cathy or her buddies to trace her.
So we waited to see if they would.
Oh, my god.
Notice something? Look carefully.
Karen describes Lisa as an “attorney” (she is but she is retired) and a “professed foster care advocate.” What?
Furthermore, she uses the hashtag #stalkschildrenandtraffickingvictims.
Where would she get that idea? You know, stalking children?
And finally, she has the name Lisa Luthi. It’s even spelled correctly.
The problem is that the Twitter account that Lisa used is not linked to anything using the name Lisa Luthi.
Karen did not get any of that from tracing the Twitter account.
Where did she get it?
Well, think about it. Who would describe Lisa as a “lawyer,” who is a “professed foster care advocate” and who “stalks children” and whose name is “Lisa Luthi”? Who knew about that other account?
Just “sharing information” is “colluding,” according to Joe.
So who is colluding here?
As Al Wilson would say so beautifully, “Bring it.” They fell right into the trap. Thank you, Karen, you dumb ox. Next time you talk to Nicole, ask her about Alex.
And Joe and Nicole, quit blathering about “collusion.” We talk. You talk. Nobody cares.
And my biggest problem is this. How do I categorize this? Is this about Romancing and Cathy Harris? Or is this really about Joe and Nicole and their lying? It’s a dilemma.