You choose the path of peace, not violence, and your peace is deemed so threatening, you must be arrested.
Imagine that all of this is happening because a known meth addict filed a false CPS report against you, and told you that they had the intention of doing so, because you “unfriended” them on Facebook.
– Joe Naugler, on Facebook, about May 12, 2015
Way back, about three years ago, there was a Facebook page started by a woman who wanted to do something to counter what she viewed as Cathy Harris’ lies and attempts to intimidate people. I watched as people began to participate and one of the things that bothered me greatly was that it descended into a sandbox fight.
The particular thing I’m thinking about is one woman who accused Cathy of doing something patently illegal. Cathy denied having done that thing. The woman said, “Yes, she did.” Cathy’s humpers said, “No, she didn’t.”
There was no way in hell to resolve it. Nobody was present except the woman and Cathy (and an unnamed business owner who might or might not even remember the incident after several years).
This exchange got me thinking about how to accomplish what was desired (expose Cathy’s lies – and she does lie) but do so in a relatively safe place where you couldn’t go to Facebook jail, and where she would not be able to bitch and complain and get it all taken down, and where it wouldn’t scroll off the face of the earth.
And Romancing the Victims was born as a result.
I ran into this again not too awfully long ago.
It involved the video that was taken of the Naugler horse running loose. I found myself in a position where I couldn’t post the video. I couldn’t because it would have been relatively easy for Nicole to assume from the filming angle who had taken the video. I didn’t have permission from the owner to post it. I saw the video, of course, and I knew it was true, but I couldn’t prove it.
Nicole kept denying that the horse had ever gotten out, when I knew her denial was absolutely false. Whether Nicole was lying outright, or whether she was saying what she believed to be true because Joe and/or the children had lied to her is anyone’s guess, but the horse was loose.
When I made a statement to that effect on the blog, a very astute comment was made. Somebody thought carefully and said words to this effect: “Since I have not seen the video personally, I don’t know if the horse has gotten loose or not. To believe that it’s true, I would simply have to take your word for it.”
She was right. It was maybe the best comment ever made on this blog.
So what are we to do?
When we’re faced with a situation where one person tells one story of an incident, and another person tells a competing and often opposite story of the same incident, how do we determine who is telling the truth? Is it possible that both people are telling the truth insofar as they understand it? Do they each have a different view and thus one of them sees the mountaintop as inaccessible because they are looking at the cliff, while the other person is viewing the mountain from the other side and sees a gently sloping path leading steadily upward? (I stole that example from Richard Dawkins – if you haven’t read his stuff, you should.)
How do we deal with this?
Courts, of course, deal with it all the time, all day, every day. That’s what juries determine.
And that leads me here. And yes, it’s going to take 1500 words to talk about this.
George Will was faced with this kind of thing once. That moron in the White House insulted him via Twitter, and Will was asked to respond while on one of the TV shows. His response was beautiful.
I’m going to begin with the birthing video story. This is not something that came from this blog. I have never asserted that there was any birthing video. I’ve never asserted it because I’ve never seen it.
But there is a whole blog page with graphic photos of Nicole having a baby. A word of warning. Once you have seen these, you cannot unsee them and you really don’t want to see them. They are graphic. If you click on any of those photos, you can get a full screen, very large version. Not only is Nicole naked, so is Joe (at least he has on no shirt). In addition, he is in those photos, which means that he did not take the photos. One of the children did. All the children were present.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about the appropriateness of either doing this, or taking photos and putting them out in public, it’s fairly easy to see where the birthing video story arose. Nicole does lots of little videos. She’s pretty much known for that. Somebody just got mixed up, and remembered the photos as a video.
The underlying premise remains true. You can, if you like, go look at Nicole’s hoo-ha up close and personal, complete with a bit of turd.
Let’s turn now to water-stealing.
That sentence is the totality of what I had to say about the media and water. Where did I say that the media said “stealing”?
There’s a couple more parts to Nicole’s bitching session about water and one of them involves the actual stealing accusation.
Nicole and Joe were friends for a while with another couple while they were in one of the Mormon churches. Ultimately, the two couples parted ways, and it wasn’t under amicable circumstances. They had an argument about the role of the military and I just will let you guess what Nicole and Joe had to say about it. Knowing that the husband of the other couple is a disabled vet will help you understand why that particular friendship ended.
After they were no longer friendly, according to the other couple, Joe and at least one of the older boys came to their house one day and got water. The couple was not at home. Joe was seen by a neighbor who informed the couple of what had happened when they got home. Joe had left the water running, because he made a hasty exist when he realized he was being observed. The couple had noticed that for a couple of months, their water bill had increased rather markedly and didn’t know why. After this incident (Joe being seen taking water), their water bill dropped to normal levels.
Joe was seen by at least three people doing this.
Now then, we have a situation like I described using 1500 words in the beginning of this essay. Joe and Nicole say this never happened. The other couple say that it did. Joe and Nicole insist that they are lying. The other couple insist that Joe and Nicole are lying, or at least, that Joe is lying.
There is a third part to Nicole’s water bitching, though, and that involves the menacing story.
The menacing story, as told by the woman who was menaced, is that Joe came by her house, perhaps ostensibly to get water, and accosted her minor teenage daughter. The daughter had been having a problem because Joe had friended her on Facebook, and then began creeping around on her page (I know exactly what he does, as he did it to me), and following her around “liking” stuff she commented on elsewhere. The daughter was uncomfortable because Joe, in her mind, was a creepy old guy with umpteen kids and a wife and what the hell. So she unfriended him. He demanded that she tell him why she’d done that.
The mother appeared from behind the house when she heard the raised voices and told Joe to leave.
Joe then told his minor child to get the gun from the glove compartment of the vehicle.
Nicole’s version of this has wandered all over the place, but is basically like this.
First, it doesn’t matter if the “well owner” was “okay with it.” The woman told him to leave and that she was not okay with it. Period. She resided there, and renting property includes renting the fucking well.
And notice how it becomes the woman who “got into an argument” with Joe. We don’t get to know what the argument was about because Nicole doesn’t say.
She then supposedly called CPS “out of spite.”
The woman did not call CPS out of spite. She called CPS because when she notified the police, they told her that she was required by law to call CPS. It was because Joe involved a minor child in his threatening behavior. All citizens of Kentucky are mandatory reporters.
That call to CPS, which Nicole knew about within moments of it happening and which therefore was not “anonymous,” led to CPS visiting the shitstead. Joe and Nicole, knowing that bad shit was about to happen, vacated the property, and the CPS folks saw the shitshack, thought it was animal housing, and thought that the people were living in tents. That totally substandard clusterfuck of a “home” is what led directly to the children being taken.
The last reference (“you won’t be back over at XXX either”) involves a relative. Joe and Nicole had been getting water there as well.
So there is a reference to water here.
This supports the notion that Joe was there ostensibly and perhaps primarily to get water.
However, that does not explain the whole thing at all.
We’re back to the whole business of a woman and her daughter and their version of what happened, and Joe’s version of what happened. Nicole has no version. She was not there.
Scroll back up and read the quote at the beginning. I do not have a screen shot of this. Joe scrubbed his Facebook pages rather thoroughly. At the time that he posted it, which was very shortly after the children were taken, nobody knew about screen shots or was even aware of their use. But we have the quote.
One of the beautiful things about going viral is that the internet never forgets. Joe scrubbed his Facebook page (this one), but not before a news outlet saw the accusation.
My thanks to the sharp reader who found this for me.
And Joe will deny it, but the problem is that dozens of people saw it, dozens of people (including me) remember him and Nicole saying stuff like that. Two things stand out. They accused the woman of being a drug addict. She is not. They also insist that it all had something to do with Joe unfriending her on Facebook.
What does unfriending on Facebook have to do with getting water?
Let’s assume for a second that Joe is telling the truth, in spite of the absolute lie about meth, and he unfriended her on Facebook. Why did he then think it was a great idea to go to her house and try to get water? Why would he have thought he’d be welcome?
How do we figure this out? Can we figure it out?
The truth is that we really cannot.
We cannot know for certain exactly what was said that day.
What we can do, and what juries do every day, is determine which story, or which parts of the two stories, we believe.
On the one hand, we have Nicole’s version, which is meaningless because she wasn’t there and she doesn’t know shit. So Nicole’s version is actually Joe’s version.
Why would I not believe Joe’s version?
Let me count. Shall we start with the beer in the road? I’m personally on very solid ground here because I was there and I know what happened. There were at least four other witnesses. I know that most of you do not have that luxury.
Then there’s the Quinten was run off the road by trolls story. For that one, you don’t have to take my word. We have video of Quinten apologizing for nearly causing a wreck.
We can move on to the IPO attempt and resultant courtroom fiasco. You don’t have to take my word for that either. You can watch the video.
For me, the real big one is the Nathan committed suicide bullshit.
Now, remember what we’re talking about here. Yes, what Nicole and Joe wrote is vile. It’s false. Nicole simply made it up and Joe and some of their supporters have taken up the whole suicide thing and wave it around as though it’s true.
Nicole made up a complete lie with no purpose behind it all except to stab at me. She had no evidence of anything. She didn’t talk to anyone who said, “Oh, yeah, I knew Nathan and he was despondent and probably killed himself. His mother is a real bitch.” She didn’t surmise it from my blog writing, which is what she claims. She just manufactured it.
And even after I’ve patiently explained that it’s false and I have even written pretty extensively about how we know and how the police knew that his death was an accident, it doesn’t matter. She still repeats it as though it’s settled fact.
And that makes me doubt her version of the menacing story. There are too many lies coming from them, and none that I see coming from the other side.
The woman’s story is credible. It goes hand-in-glove with other first-hand accounts I have had from people who went to church with the Nauglers saying that Joe often exhibited unwanted, inappropriate attention to young teenage girls. I can’t publish those accounts, because the folks involved are afraid of Joe. But they are numerous and they involve people from different Mormon churches, not just one.
The woman’s story accounts for Joe’s response right after the event happened about unfriending on Facebook being an issue.
The woman’s outrage after the event fits her story.
Joe’s version makes no sense at all, on the other hand. Why would he go try to get somebody to give him water after unfriending them on Facebook? He made up a complete lie about the meth thing. I have never met the woman involved, but I know people who have and they assure me that she’s certainly not a drug addict.
Rather than asking the woman what happened, you notice, Nicole immediately jumped all over her and began accusing her of lying, of filing false reports, boasting about how there would be consequences. Bullying behavior.
One thing I don’t want anyone to do is to accept what I say just because I said it. Ask questions. Read links. Think about it. Reject what I’m saying if you can’t find enough evidence to accept it.
All I’m doing here is explaining why I believe the woman’s story and do not believe either Joe or Nicole.
Nicole calls all of this “lies.” Maybe she needs to revisit her own lies, the ones that I’ve provided solid evidence to refute and do something about that.
She can start by apologizing to me. It’s easy to do and won’t take 1500 words.