Before getting into all this, I want to do what the state does and define some terms.

The state of Kentucky has two types of protective orders, basically.  One is called an “emergency protective order” (EPO) and is restricted to domestic situations.  An example is an estranged married couple, where the wife is afraid of the husband who is threatening to kill her.

Because these situations are fraught with danger, and often become tragic, the state allows one party to obtain a temporary order, generally granted without too many questions, good for two weeks until a court date can be set.  At that point, the parties meet in court, the court examines the evidence, and either dismisses the case or grants a permanent protective order (with “permanent” meaning an extended length of time involving months).

It’s important to understand why the courts have a tendency to give out these temporary orders without much scrutiny. They aren’t being negligent. They’re trying to make sure that Jane is not killed by Frank because no one would listen. If this inconveniences Frank a little bit because Jane is actually bonkers and Frank hasn’t really posed a threat to her at all, well, better an error in that direction than for law enforcement officers to show up after Frank flipped out and killed Jane.

But the existing EPO law was problematic. It only applies to family members and partners in a domestic situation (i.e., living together, or a baby daddy).  So in an attempt to make sure people were/are protected adequately, the legislature expanded the law (effective Jan 1, 2016) with a new protective order called an “interpersonal protective order” (IPO).

It’s pretty much the same deal, same drill, but the person doesn’t have to be related to you or live with you in order to get it.


Notice all this stuff. It’s all about domestic violence.  It’s about Frank getting enraged because Jane has cheated on him (or burned his dinner) and beating the shit out of her.

It’s about the guy who went to the school the other day and killed his wife (and a very unfortunate child who was standing behind her) before killing himself.  It’s about the poor woman I took care of once whose ex-husband came to her place of work and stabbed her in the head with an ice pick (she died).  It’s about the girl in my youth group back in the sixties who married young, had a daughter, and whose estranged husband strangled both her and their grown daughter to death and left with their two-year-old grandson (child later recovered unharmed and the man is in prison).

That’s what it is about.

But what happened to Lisa is that Nicole pounced on two things:



Of course, Nicole would love the “free” part.  And she ignored all the other things in that list of eligibility requirements and homed in on that one word: stalk.


Kentucky statutes are conveniently available online. Here’s the top part of the chapter dealing with IPOs.  Notice that the very first link, the first part of the chapter (which would be identified as 456.010) is “Definitions for chapter.”

That’s because when you are dealing with legal issues, you have to first define your terms.

Then in the second section (.020) they talk about the purpose of the whole thing – what they are trying to accomplish – and make a disclaimer about a federal statute.


And the statute itself begins with the third link (.030).  I’ve reproduced the first part here.

Rest assured that Nicole Naugler read all this.  She flings out the statute numbers like her home phone number.  But she doesn’t appear to actually comprehend what she is reading.

She was fine with the parts highlighted in green. She was so fine with (d) that she decided to use one minor child in her first attempt at this, and then expanded it to three minor children in the second attempt.

However, how did she miss item 2?

We’ll get back to that, but for now, just notice what item 2 (highlighted in yellow) says.

And let’s go back a minute to the green stuff (b).  Who can file?  Among others, it says, a victim of stalking can file.

But what is a “victim of stalking”?  What does that mean?  Does it mean that Nicole Naugler gets to just decide what “stalking” means?  After all, she insists that I “stalked” her by riding on the public road past her wretched shithole property.  She also claims that I was drunk when I did so and took photos of her children.  None of that is true.

So the legal system doesn’t just let Nicole Naugler decide what stalking is.

They made it very convenient for her. They provided a fucking list of definitions in the very first section.  There are eight terms defined.  Here’s number 7.


Okay. So to find out what “stalking” is, we have to go look at the statute page for chapter 508.  As it happens, chapter 508 is all about assault and related stuff, including menacing, so I’m quite sure that Nicole and Joe are very familiar with it.

The pertinent part here involves three entries located down near the bottom.


First we have the definition page, just like we did above.  Let’s see what it says.


AHA! There it is.  Nicole glommed onto this and clung to it like white on rice.

Lisa has been seriously annoying, alarming and harassing Nicole and Joe and all their poor children now for months.  It serves no “legitimate purpose,” at least none that Nicole can see.  And Nicole is just so stressed out by all this.  She can hardly function due to all the stress.  Furthermore, it specifically says that this stuff can happen on the internet.



Well, no.

Let’s go back.  What did the definition say from chapter 456?


Oh.  It says 508.140 or 508.150.  It doesn’t say shit about 508.130.  That’s because 508.130 is not anything but a definition. It’s not a statute.

So, what is the “conduct that is prohibited as stalking” under 508.140 or 508.150?

Well, 508.140 is a statute about stalking in the first degree, which is not applicable here at all.

What we’re looking for is stalking in the second degree, which is 508.150.  What does it say?


Oh, gee.  You gotta do both of those things. You gotta “stalk” and you gotta threaten bodily harm.

There is one other thing I want to draw attention to before finishing up this section, and that is the part I have highlighted in green under the definitions (508.130).

Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.”
We’ll revisit that sentence as well later on.
Put questions in the comments and I will try to either answer them myself, or if I simply don’t know, I’ll grab Lisa.





38 thoughts on “IPO”

  1. This explains why Nicole has been making so many videos in which she states time and time again how stressed out she is.
    Always a con woman. She thinks by documenting how stressed these “online stalkers” are making her proves her need for an IPO.
    It does not surprise me one bit that she didn’t bother to read most of what was needed for an IPO and has no real understanding of any law what so ever.


  2. To be fair, she said the case was cancelled on a technicality. I guess that means that, technically, Joe and Nicole are really, really stupid.


  3. She’s stressed out & harmed by people who did not comment on her pages. Plus her business was harmed but she’s insisted she’s a successful business owner & it’s booming. Make up your mind. Plus if you claim damages you have to prove them. You aren’t given money because your feelings are hurt.


  4. How did she try to include three children and how did that play out here.
    She’s bat shit crazy. Can a psychiatric evaluation be demanded at some point if she continues her flagrant abuses of the court system. TIA


  5. That pesky word “and”.

    The statutes are easily read and clearly marked. The application even has a cheat sheet. A one minute google search will bring up several pages that virtually spell it out in crayons. All that makes no difference if you choose to ignore it, focus on what you think you can use and try to game the system. It becomes particularly interesting when the self proclaimed “aggrieved party” has publicly communicated that their intent is to “waste someone else’s time and money” as some sort of ‘punishment’ against other people (not the defendant in the petition) who have purportedly done this to them through reports to every “ABC agency” or whatever, imo. Oh dear.


  6. Reading is hard, Sally.

    I am completely surprised that with Nicole and Joe’s vast YouTube legal knowledge and all those Larkin memes this flopped. I mean he’s a profit!!! And she has had nearly a dozen children!!

    Let’s all say it together. “Kentucky is corrupt!”


  7. Can a psychiatric evaluation be demanded at some point if she continues her flagrant abuses of the court system.

    They have already had those done for family court. I’ll go into exactly what happened in each county in further articles. It’s all just too much for one.


  8. What about the part where NN said the judge asked Lisa if she was aware of the damage her page could do to the children and Lisa responded that her page wasn’t available to children. Was that just total BS?


  9. Did the court suggest to them how they can alleviate their problem, such as getting off facebook or anything else?


  10. Wouldn’t it just be easier to not be an asshole, take care of your kids, run your business, and leave your neighbors alone? Oh … wait… it’s nikki….


  11. Remember Schoolhouse Rock. Conjunction, junction. What’s your function? “And”.


  12. Did the children have to testify in court? I thought all parties had to be there in order for a trial to go forward.


  13. Did the court suggest to them how they can alleviate their problem

    They don’t have a “problem.” They create problems.


  14. Did the children have to testify in court?


    I thought all parties had to be there in order for a trial to go forward.

    It wasn’t a trial. It was a hearing.


  15. Beth said, “She thinks by documenting how stressed these “online stalkers” are making her proves her need for an IPO.”

    There is an old adage. What others think about you, is none of your business.

    There are solutions. Unplug. Or quit pa-trolling the Facebook universe for a name mention.


  16. For Nicole….because I know you read here.

    I’d like to help you understand this from the only perspective you can see anything from….your own.

    You know how you love to put up those anti-police officer memes? The ones that list the officer’s names and your perception of the things they did that you believe are victimizing people? The negative memes that mock them and misrepresent their actions. The half-truths, and distorted facts custom made to fit your agenda? You post hundreds of them…you must know the posts I mean.

    Ask yourself this: Are you stalking those officers? Are you libeling them? Should they be able to get a protective order against you because you’re saying “mean” things about them? Are they victims of you….because your posts give cause them stress? Can they sue you for talking about them on the internet?

    Wrap your little brain around it, Nicole.

    You don’t like the cops….you have a constitutional right to express your anger about behavior that you perceive as being a violation of the rights of others. You can mock them, make fun of them and express your disgust with them all you want…..because you have constitutionally protected free speech.

    Now pay attention here…because this is the important part!

    We don’t like you or your fatass lazy husband….we have a constitutional right to express our anger about your behavior that we perceive as being a violation of the rights of others (including your children). We can mock you, make fun of you, and express our disgust with you all we want…..because we have THE SAME constitutionally protected free speech that allows you to post your negative feelings about cops, the government, CPS, etc.

    Do you understand why you’re a hypocrite now?

    The same way the cops can’t sue you for sharing your views about them…..you can’t sue us for sharing our views about you.

    Are you catching on yet?


  17. I guess the Naugler parents are trying to be unschooled too. Sovereign citizen, voluntaryist, anarchist comprehension skills are lousy or just lazy. I mean it’s one thing for Nicole to warp facts and real events with her Facebook and video commentary for the benefit of her gullible followers but to actually try to get a judge to believe it with her “documentation” is beyond hilarious. She seems to be going out of her way to be ridiculed and she is earning her ridicule very well.


  18. As soon as I learned Nicole had applied for an EPO/IPO against Lisa, I chuckled to myself. It was obvious from the outside-court video footage, Nicole was the instigator there, and as for BLTATM, I’m pretty sure Lisa is OK due to free speech etc. I’m sure she knows her limits.
    Nicole versus a (retired) attorney, who will win that? The paranoid un-homesteader, or the intelligent ex-attorney….not too hard to figure out really.


  19. NN is the one who asked to which my response was that the page was restricted to those 18 and over. That was the extent of the question and answer. The “therefore it couldn’t possibly have an negative effect” is an embellishment added after the fact by NN.

    I will note that NN, JN, the children and any proxy profiles have been and continue to be blocked and/or banned from my social media accounts since the beginning. I will note that my page was restricted to 18 and over.

    My page, nor myself, did not go to NN or JN’s multitude of FB pages, instagram, blog or any other private or public social media and make comments. In order to see what I had to say one had to search me out. I will also note that NN did on occasion come to my page to commment at which time I was then able to block those accounts (you cannot do so until the person or page to be blocked actually comments on your page). The judge did ask NN whether I had ever commented on NN’s pages and NN testified NO.

    I will also note that I am me. I am not everyone else. I am not “this group of people” and therefore in both the law and real life I am neither the actor nor responsible party for the acts, perceived acts or imaginary acts of some random “they”.

    “And since I had no evidence that Ms Luthi had made threats of physical harm” is a loaded sentence carefully crafted by NN. What she fails to tell you is that it was much more than this. On cross examination NN was asked whether I had ever directly or indirectly stated that I intended to sexually assault, physically harm or cause the death of the parties named in the petition for an ipo and NN testified that the answer to each of those questions was NO. Additionally NN did not provide testimony or evidence regarding myself which arose to even the broad definition of the word stalk thus failing to prove the elements of the legal act of stalking.


  20. Thanks for the detailed explanation from Sally (and clarifications from Lisa). Hopefully NN and family read it all as their unschooling Kentucky law lesson of the week.

    For anti-statists who seem to believe that taxation is theft (based on what she posts on facebook), they seem very fond of wasting the stolen money of other tax payers for seemingly frivolous wastes of time.


  21. “Ask yourself this: Are you stalking those officers? Are you libeling them? Should they be able to get a protective order against you because you’re saying “mean” things about them? Are they victims of you….because your posts give cause them stress? Can they sue you for talking about them on the internet?”

    You’re asking her to have a moment of clarity and self-reflection. I doubt she’s capable of either.


  22. All NN is doing is wasting the courts time, and every one else’s time. They wanted to go viral. Well guess what, they went viral. Now she can’t handle all this backlash, and wants to claim harassment. She’s losing and she doesn’t know what to do.


  23. KatataFish, I can’t “like” your comment, but, yes! Spot on!

    I am sorry about the like thing. I still can’t figure it out.


  24. “I am sorry about the like thing. I still can’t figure it out.”

    It has returned.

    Is it like the Room of Requirement or something?


  25. YOU’RE RIGHT! I tried disabling it and then enabling it again and it worked. But this is maybe the fifth time I’ve done that.

    Who knows. . .


  26. Thank you for sharing some of the details regarding the recent court hearing. Beyond all the other foolishness that embody Joe and Nicole Naugler – the fact that she would rather file frivolous cases against Lisa and others, which will take her away from her grooming business and thus cost her money, just shows you how poorly her mind works. She’s going to be on maternity leave pretty soon, already facing a loss of income for at least a short period of time. Why compound that loss of the sole income that supports the entire family, buy pursuing nonsensical claims that will do nothing but further make them familiar to the local court system?


  27. Thank you for sharing some of the details regarding the recent court hearing.

    I’m just getting started. 🙂 This piece is just to define terms.


  28. How about the *Recent Comments* and *Recent Posts* that is usually on the sidebar? Can this feature come back also? Maybe I am the only one who used the *comments* thing but after reading 30 comments and then coming by later and seeing 10 new comments, it helps to just click on this and scroll up a bit to read…hope this makes sense!

    Thanks the post, Sally. Looking forward to the next one.


  29. Does anybody else check back here, multiple times a day, hoping for another witty, educational blog from Sally? No? Must just be me. ?


  30. How about the *Recent Comments* and *Recent Posts* that is usually on the sidebar? Can this feature come back also?

    Well, shit. I didn’t know it was missing. I’ll see what I can do.


  31. Okay, I believe I have fixed it. I set it to show the five most recent posts and five most recent comments. How’s that?

    I swear, Al comes in here at night when I am asleep and fucks around with this blog. It’s either him or gremlins.


  32. I thought Al and gremlins were the same thing. Bawhahahaha!!

    As always you all are brilliant. Thanks for explaining the meanings so wonderfully. I look forward to the rest of the story.


  33. Sally,

    Glad you are on the mend.

    Al is clearly stalking you by messing with the “like” and “recent” buttons. I fear for Frances’ safety due to Al’s stalking; Frances llwould be considered a minor, right? (I don’t know how cow years work?) What about poor Minnie? Another IPO there, I think.

    I think you should apply for an IPO, stat. ?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.