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?
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. . .
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. . .
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. . .