The Courtney Files

devilrumorphonecallI haven’t read this particular rumor, but I would believe it because the Nauglers have been known to make phone calls in the past. It’s not something they’ve never done.  They are also known to come up with “wild accusations” and “hurtful lies with no evidence to back them up.” Want me to put up a few of them?

morecallsLet me ponder this.  I made “calls” to people in May of 2015.  I did. I make “calls” every single month of every year.  I call friends. I call businesses. I would assume that every person with a phone does.

“Charles” has screen shots. Oh, wow.

So do I.


Courtney at Court March 13

Courtney went to court.

It was a crime for her to do that, according to Nicole.

Lisa Luthi was there, of course, with Courtney White. If you’ve been following my story, you know who Courtney White is. When she said her name, because I don’t recognize her face, um, when she said her name (starts crying)

And this:

NICOLE: A drive, like, she lives, I guess, in like northern Indiana or something like that, like far away from here, but she showed up at court today, and um, so that puts a whole ‘nother wrench

JOE: And she stood up there next to

NICOLE: as an assistant attorney. She’s trying to practice law in another state which I don’t know if she has a license to do so or what her role is, but that would be brought into question as well but her intent is clearly, uh, malicious as the other one’s.

Well, not exactly.

Courtney is serving as a legal assistant to Lisa’s attorney. This is completely okay, relatively common, and she doesn’t have to reside in Kentucky to do that.  And Nicole’s idiotic remarks about intent are just stupid.  She is assisting the attorney.  There are good reasons for that which I won’t go into now.

But here’s the thing.

When is Sally going to address the more serious issue… the aggressive threats and stalking? She won’t. Because she’s not a credible source.

The more serious issue. The one that is more serious than Nicole filing frivolous silly requests for restraining orders complete with false information.

Damn it, why don’t I “address” that?


This will be an ongoing series of posts, occurring as often as necessary to show what happens when you serve as a legal assistant to an attorney and Nicole does not like you.  Let’s talk about “aggressive threats and stalking.”

Remember, Courtney’s entire crime here was being at court and saying her name when asked. Other than that, she said not a single word. She didn’t acknowledge Joe and Nicole’s presence. She never approached them and hardly looked at them.

But almost immediately after leaving the courtroom, Nicole (after feverishly ripping off a video to blame everyone on earth for everything on earth) went after Courtney.

courtNicole will say, “Oh, gee, that’s not me. I didn’t do that. I don’t run any of the pages.”

First, we have proof from her own mouth that she does, in fact, run at least one of the pages.

forgettingprofileThis is what happens when you forget which profile you’re logged in as and comment.  It’s an easy mistake to make and Nicole made it.

So that establishes one thing.  When Nicole insists that she has never run any of the pages, she is lying.

When somebody says something shitty, something totally over the top, I either permit the comment and argue about it, or, if it’s really more than I want to see on this blog, I remove it and nobody ever even sees it.  On one occasion, something was posted on one of the critics’ FB pages that I thought was so egregious, I publicly wrote about it.  I was rewarded for basically sticking up for the Nauglers by having a photo taken from my FB page and being mocked by Nicole and her buddies (if there are any buddies).

So saying that I never call out stuff that I see as wrong is just not true.

But what got to me yesterday was this.


The name was truncated in the image on purpose, so everyone would know who was being talked about, and everyone would be able to tell what was copied, but no one could report it because the whole name is not there.

Nicole is going to say that she had nothing to do with that.

But that is sort of odd to me. The only person who had a shit fit in the middle of the courtroom over Courtney being there was Nicole Naugler.  The only person who got all upset talking about the sheer terror of finding out that this person who’d been standing there for a good while without offering a single threatening look or gesture was in fact Courtney – was Nicole Naugler.

I’m supposed to believe that in a very short time of leaving the courtroom and after being so upset that we got a display of tears during the video, some unknown person was so outraged on Nicole’s behalf because Courtney dared show up in court and say her name that s/he dug up that screen shot from almost a month ago and used it to mock her.

I’m sorry, but I am not buying that.

This is a perfect, very ugly example of what Nicole and Joe do when you cross them.  You don’t have to do much to get on their radar.  I know. Courtney knows. We all know.

At the very least, Nicole needs to say something publicly about this. She needs to say that this behavior is not acceptable.

But she won’t. She won’t because she either approved it or did it herself.


elizabethPerezThis comment was made, well, 50 minutes ago under the adoption post on that vile page.

Elizabeth is not exactly a paragon of virtue. She’s an outspoken Nicole leghumper.

Elizabeth, Nicole knows all about that post. She either approved it or did it herself.

You see, somebody had to have collected the original screen shot from Courtney’s page, which dates back a month. That means that somebody had to scroll back a whole month to find it, or else somebody conveniently had that screen shot in their stash, handy.

And if you think that somebody wasn’t Nicole Naugler, you really are being bamboozled here.

You don’t need to speak out about this.  Nicole does.  Ask yourself why she hasn’t/won’t.




In March of 2006, a young American soldier was killed in Iraq.  His name was Matthew Snyder.

His family, including his father, Albert Snyder, attended his funeral in Maryland a week or so later.  Also in the area were picketers from the infamous Westboro Baptist Church.



In addition, Westboro put up at least one page on their website where they said that Matthew went to hell and that his parents (who are Roman Catholic) had raised him that way and it was basically their fault. [The page they put up apparently no longer exists, but I am linking to a copy of the text provided by Westboro.]

Albert Snyder sued them.


And Albert won.  He won big.  He won millions. They argued around about it for a bit and it finally came to $5 million.  Wow.  He won.


Westboro appealed the decision and the higher court reversed it.  Not only that, but Snyder was ordered to pay Westboro’s court costs, amounting to more than $15,000.

I remember all this well, because I was intrigued by the case.  There was outrage across the nation. Bill O’Reilly came rampaging onto the scene and offered to pay the court costs for Snyder.  And it was appealed again, to the US Supreme Court.

Like nearly everyone else in the nation, I simply couldn’t understand this ruling.  Was it, as so many claimed, a “liberal activist court” that reversed this decision?  And if so, why in the world would they? Why would a “liberal” court think what Westboro does is okay?  Why wouldn’t the courts smack those horrible Westboro people down and put a stop to what they do?

I wanted to know.

So I read the decision.

It’s lengthy, so I’ll give you the condensed version.

There were basically two different complaints made by Mr. Snyder.

The first involved “real life,” the picketing at the funeral.

Shouldn’t that be illegal?  Mr. Snyder was devastated, he said, when he saw news coverage on the television about the picketing of the funeral.

Wait. He saw it on the television?

But they were picketing the funeral, weren’t they?

It turns out that Westboro’s picketers, who had complied to the letter with every ordinance that the city had regarding such activities, could not be seen by people coming and going from the church.  Mr. Snyder didn’t even know they were there until he saw the news coverage later.

So Westboro had totally complied with the law, and Snyder didn’t even know about it until it was all over.

The second issue involved the page on the Westboro site.

The page in question had a little sermonette on it, complete with a long Bible passage, and this:

Twenty years ago, little Matthew Snyder came into the world.  He had a calling, he had a vital roll in these last of the last days.  God created him and loaned/entrusted him to Albert and Julie Snyder.  He required a standard of him when he delivered the lad to them to teach him among others things to fear god and to keep his commandments.  God expected them to GIVE THAT CHILD BACK in thanksgiving to him for the blessings of the opportunity and privilege they received from their God, to raise that child.

There’s a few more Bible verses and then:

God blessed you Mr. and Mrs. Snyder with a resource and his name was Matthew.  He was an arrow in your quiver!  In thanks to God for the comfort the child could bring you, you had a DUTY to prepare that child to serve the LORD his GOD – PERIOD!  You did just THE OPPOSITE – you raised him for the devil.  You taught him that God was a liar.

And then some more preachy stuff and:

Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery.  They taught him how to support the largest pedophile machine in the history of the entire world, the Roman Catholic monstrosity.  Every dime they gave the Roman Catholic monster they condemned their own souls.  They also taught him to be an idolater.

Bad, huh?  There’s more, but that’s the main stuff, the worst stuff. And it’s pretty awful. I will grant you that.  I’ve read something similar written about me and my husband and our son.  Wonder where I read that?

But you know what the court said about all that?

Their opinion was that it was quite obviously opinion.  Nobody at Westboro Baptist Church knew Matthew Snyder or his parents, nor did they claim to.  The information on that page was all obtained from public sources.  Any reasonable person reading that would understand that whoever wrote it was just engaging in a religious rant.

For instance: they say “you raised him for the devil.”  Well, there is no evidence whatever that such a being even exists, so how can that be any sort of statement of fact?

But Albert Snyder claimed that this hurt him horribly.  I get that. I know how it feels, frankly, to read something cruel like that about your son for whom you grieve.

However, in order to read it, Albert Snyder had to use Google.

Read that again.

He had to use Google.

Westboro Baptist Church did not email that to him. They didn’t print it out and send it to him by certified mail.  They just put it on their web site.

Albert Snyder didn’t have to go to their web site.

When the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court, the justices only ruled on the first issue, the one about the picketing. They found in Westboro’s favor by 8:1 (which is considerable).  In other words, the liberals on the Court and the conservatives on the Court pretty much saw this the same way.

They didn’t offer an opinion about the online stuff, but when they do that, it simply means that the opinion of the lower court (the appeals court) stands.

And that leads me right here.


She has cherry-picked some language from the Kentucky statute on harassment, located here.  She is flinging this about today as though it’s meaningful.

Nicole and Joe are really fond of citing various laws and statutes and Constitutional amendments and declaring that they “know their rights.”

But there is a problem here. What she’s saying is that if somebody repeatedly does something that “seriously annoys” me, I can sue them for harassment.

Want me to make a list of all the people who have “seriously annoyed” me in the last week?

How about the woman who was in Aldi on Wednesday?  She was ahead of me in the check out lane and got into a conversation with the woman ahead of her and simply would not shut up. She chattered and talked and then tried to get the checker involved in the discussion and seriously annoyed me.

And when I finally got to the checker and was delighted that Chatterbox was done, to my dismay and extreme annoyance, Chatterbox was still talking and blocking my cart.  I had to interrupt her with “Excuse me, ma’am” to get her to move out of the way, which she did without ever missing a word.

And finally, when I got to the counter to bag my groceries, Chatterbox was in my way yet again, still talking.

I am telling you, I was seriously annoyed and she did it repeatedly.

Should I sue her?

Nicole insisted, in her silly little “cease and desist letter” that I was harassing her.

But you see, I have never once sent Nicole anything.  No crappy comments made on her blog under an assumed name.  No certified mail. No going to her Facebook pages and commenting to get her into an argument.  Nothing. In order to even find this blog, Nicole would have to voluntarily visit my personal Facebook page. Or voluntarily visit the Facebook page that advertises this blog. Or use Google.

Just like Mr. Snyder did with Westboro Baptist Church.

This is not about whether she likes what I say or what I write about. I don’t like Westboro Baptist Church’s methods or their message. I find them abhorrent.  I assume Nicole views me similarly.

Her rights are not the only ones under consideration here.

Mine are as well.