Monday, July 31, 2006

NYT Special Edition - Page 4

Continued from page 3

Case Number: CRB 9900019
Defendant(s): Smith, Loretta D
Violation: Assault Section #2903-13
Degree: 1st Degree Misdemeanor
Conviction Date: 02/16/1999
Dft's Plea: No Contest Dft. Found: G
Jail Time: 30 Susp.: 30

Loretta (Smith) Serrano could not be reached for comment. A notice on her Observations of a Misfit door, at, indicated she had gone fishing for the summer. Insiders say that one of the angler's fishing holes is Usenet where she trawls under the nic, Retzq, with a handful of posters that are diligently following a California murder trial through the two media outlets reporting the story, Station KFI (Talk Radio) and the Daily Breeze.

Rumors abound that Loretta’s cohorts have pooled cash resources to purchase transcripts of the trial. The armchair crime sleuths are reported to be collaborating on publishing a book about the case, in which they anticipate recovering the cost of the hefty price tags associated with the endeavor. Nevertheless, reliable sources affirm that Loretta exhibited mixed emotions when Usenet posters tackled the subject of the 1998 criminal charges:

RetzQ - Jul 25 2006 9:29 am
I couldn't care less if you all posted the documents on the front page of the New York Times. I assure you that Nobody cares.

RetzQ - Jul 26 2006 12:01 am
Why would I be sorry for something that never happened? ((((( YAWWWWNNNN )))))) Wake me up when you have something interesting, Dear.

RetzQ - Jul 26 2006 11:40 am
Gosh, I slap with the back of my hand in self-defense a fat woman who has kidnapped my 2-year old, and whom I don't know is pregnant (and it would have no bearing on the matter, anyway) and you are building the gallows for me.

RetzQ - Jul 26 2006 7:07 pm
She didn't have a swollen nose. She has a really big nose. The cop didn't know she had a large nose, so he just assumed it was swollen. Her nose always looks swollen.

How Loretta arrived at the nose conclusion is anybody's guess since she didn't stay in Mentor long enough to dispute the officer's visual assessment. The "building the gallows" reference echos Mark Geragos declaration during the lawyer's defense of yet another avid fisherman.

Puzzled by Loretta's bizarre responses, I consulted with my associate, Wendy Shoofitz. We noted the denial, lack of remorse, and general indifference toward any factual documentation presented. Together, we concluded this report wouldn't be complete without a back-story.

Continued on page 5

Labels: , ,

NYT Special Edition - Page 3

Continued from page 2

In the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, Lake County, Ohio
Complaint of Contempt of Visitation Order
Case Number 97 CV 0314
Judge William W. Weaver
Plaintiff: John Doe, Mentor, Ohio
Defendant: Loretta D. Smith, Avon Lake, Ohio

1. I, John Doe, am the natural and legal father of Little Doe who was born on xx/xx/xx.

2. Paternity of my child was established by administrative order pursuant to R.C. Sections 3111.20 to 3111.29, as provided by R.C. Section 3111.02. A copy of my paternity order is contained in the case file.

3. The defendant, Loretta D. Smith, is the mother and custodial parent of my child, Little Doe.

4. On December 10, 1997, a visitation order was entered into judgment where at the end of paragraph #3, clearly states, "and such other times as the parties agree upon."

5. In May of 1998, after notifying Loretta in writing when I would take Little Doe for my 6 week visitation, Loretta drafted an amended visitation schedule to replace the 6 week summer visits, upon which I agreed to. (A copy of which is attached to this complaint.)

6. Loretta Smith has continually been hostile to any visitation order as indicated in her absence at the visitation hearing. The Avon Lake Police have also had to escort me to the child’s residence in order for Loretta to comply with the visitation order. On a second occasion, Mentor Police had to come to my residence to quell an attempt by Loretta to interfere with the visitation agreement.

7. Part of the amended schedule was her agreement to pick Little Doe up on the Tuesday evenings following Little Doe’s visits with me. The original visitation schedule did not address this matter and we agreed it would be fair and equitable to split the driving in light of the fact it was Loretta’s decision to move so far away after Little Doe’s birth and our break up.

8. On Friday, November 27, 1998, when I arrived in Avon Lake to pick up Little Doe, Ms. Smith informed me she was not going to pick Little Doe up regardless of her written agreement and that it’s her prerogative to annul the amended visitation schedule without my consent. Even going as far as saying that I may keep Little Doe indefinitely and she’ll just continue to collect the child support.

9. Loretta, having given my unlisted number to both her child care worker and a man who only identified himself as "Loretta’s friend", had them call to harass me on 11/29/98 respectively. Loretta also continually calls or fax’s my place of employment to harass me.

10. I am requesting penalties be assessed against Loretta Smith, pursuant to R.C. Section 2705.031 and R.C. Section 2705.05, as she’s continually proven to be hostile towards the visitation agreement.


Revised Visitation Terms:

1. Visits overnight no longer than four nights until four years of age. (Within two week increments.)

2. Increase weekend schedule to include one or two days (with notice) beginning May 15, 1998 and continuing indefinitely until Little Doe is four, or occasional arrangements for slightly longer visits. At age of four increase increments up to one week. (No longer than one week in any three week period. School age, conform to school calendar.)

3. Father to pick up child Friday evenings in Avon Lake (or wherever she lives) at 6:00 PM as scheduled. Mother will pick up child Monday or Tuesday evening (depending on length of stay) at 5:15 PM in Willowick. If child returns Sunday evening, father is responsible for bringing her home. If child cannot be in Willowick, father is responsible for returning child by 7:00 PM of given evening.

4. Father will provide childcare information to mother including names, addresses and phone numbers of any caregivers. Father will provide name, address, and phone number of local pediatrician for mother’s interview.

To reiterate:
Effectively, I am doubling your overall visitation from four to eight nights per month. They must align with your existing visitation as alternate weekends. You may keep Little Doe up to four nights. I will pick her up two times a month at your moms. I will not pick her up on Sundays. If you cannot get her back to Willoughby by 5:15 PM, you can bring her home by 7:00 PM.

You now have less childcare to worry about when you are working or at school. I want names and addresses etc. of your hired or volunteer baby-sitters. If Jane wants to be your permanent baby-sitting slave, God bless her. If she has to leave the child with someone (other than an hour meeting), I want to know WHO and WHERE.

These are reasonable terms. I can assure you a judge would agree. Let me know your acceptance or rejection of this in writing by 5/4 or I will hire an attorney.
Thank you,
Report continued on page 4

Labels: , ,

Sunday, July 30, 2006

NYT Special Edition - Page 2

Continued from page 1
Mentor Municipal Court – 1/6/99
Summons (Rules 4 and 9)
Case Number: CRB 9900019
The State of Ohio, City of Mentor vs. Smith, Loretta D.

A Complaint, a copy of which is attached hereto, has been filed in the above named court charging you with the following: 131.04 ASSAULT. You are hereby summoned and ordered to appear in this Court at 10:00 AM within three days after receipt of this summons. –Clerk of the Court

Juvenile Division, Lake County, Ohio
Complaint of Contempt of Visitation Order
Case Number 97 CV 0314
Judge William W. Weaver
Plaintiff: John Doe, Mentor, Ohio
Defendant: Loretta D. Smith, Avon Lake, Ohio

1. I, John Doe, am the natural and legal father of Little Doe who was born on xx/xx/xx.

2. Paternity of my child was established by administrative order pursuant to R.C. Sections 3111.20 to 3111.29, as provided by R.C. Section 3111.02. A copy of my paternity order is contained in the case file.

3. The defendant, Loretta D. Smith, is the mother and custodial parent of my child, Little Doe.

4. On December 10, 1997, a visitation order was entered into judgment provided by R.C. Section 3108.051.

5. In May of 1998, an amended visitation schedule was drafted by the defendant and agreed upon by both parties. (a copy which is contained in the case file.)

6. On December 8, 1998, a complaint of contempt was filed and is pending in the Lake County Juvenile Court.

7. On December 27, 1998, by telephone conversation, Ms. Smith said she would pick up the child a day early on Monday at my residence. She told me that she was not going to allow her daughter to be in the presence of my "Pregnant, junk yard dog, of a girlfriend," any longer than necessary, and that her lawyer was going to drag my girlfriend’s name through the mud, and I’d be lucky to have a supervised visitation when they’re done with me. I made it clear to Ms. Smith that under no circumstances was she to come to my home that day, and that she may come at the agreed day and time, which was Tuesday, December 29, 1998 at 5:30 PM.

8. On Monday, December 28, 1998, I returned home from work, got cleaned up and went to a doctor’s appointment, leaving my daughter in the care of my pregnant fiancé, Jane Doe, who also has a small child. Ms. Smith showed up at my home. Jane took the children into the bedroom and turned on the television for them. Ms. Smith continued to ring the doorbell and bang on the door and windows of the home, upsetting the dog and children. Jane answered the door and asked Ms. Smith to please stop and to leave. Ms. Smith asked where I was and when Jane said I wasn’t home Ms. Smith said she was there to get Little Doe. Jane told Ms. Smith that she was not going to hand the child over and that Ms. Smith should go to the Mentor Police Department, if she needed to.

At that point Ms. Smith grabbed the glass storm door, which was closed, and opened it forcing her way into the house. Jane went to grab the handle of the door and Ms. Smith punched Jane in the nose cutting it open at the top. Ms. Smith was then in the house screaming obscenities and Jane tried pushing her out the door asking her to get out of the house. Ms. Smith hit Jane again in the mouth breaking her bottom lip open. Jane was able at that point to push Ms. Smith out the door and close it. Ms. Smith continued her assault on the doorbell and banging on the windows. Jane called the police and informed Ms. Smith they were on their way. At that, Ms. Smith got in her car and fled. An assault charge was filed. (A copy of the report is attached to complaint.)

Report continued on page 3

Labels: , ,

Saturday, July 29, 2006

NYT Special Edition - Page 1

Editor’s Note: It’s a rare occasion when a newspaper is nominated to print someone’s criminal record on the front page of its publication. Initially we suspected the supplication was a ruse until requests encouraging us to explore the proposal began pouring in from around the world. Hence, we bequeathed the assignment to our investigative staff reporter, Justin Quiring. Victim's names and other identifying information have been modified and noted in blue at our discretion.

Complaint #98-43406
Filed on 12/28/98 @ 18:11 hours – Assault
Victim: Jane Doe – Mentor, Ohio - W Female 2/x/x2
Suspect: Loretta D. Smith – Avon Lake, Ohio – W Female 2/13/60
Reporting Officer: M. Turek 360

Narrative: Upon arrival at the scene of a reported assault I spoke with Jane Doe. She told me she is watching her fiancee’s daughter, Little Doe, who is 2 ½ years old. She said they have visitation rights with Little Doe until 12/29/98 @ 17:30 hours. She told me that court documents will indicate that Little Doe is to be picked up by her mom, Loretta D. Smith. Her fiancée is John Doe. Jane lives with John. She told me that Loretta came to the home while John was not home. She said that she knew Loretta had called earlier and had asked to be able to pick up Little Doe a day early, but John said no.

Jane said she heard the doorbell ringing over and over and someone banging on the front window. She said she put Little Doe and her 6-year-old in her bedroom and answered the door. She said she asked Loretta to stop and Loretta told her she wasn’t leaving. She said Loretta grabbed the storm door and opened it to come in. Jane is 5 months pregnant and she said she tried to close the storm door by pulling on the handle. She said Loretta punched her in the face with a closed fist, pushed her aside, and entered the house. Jane said she grabbed Loretta’s arm and pushed her out of the house. She said Loretta punched her again in the face. Jane said she wants to prosecute Loretta. See attached voluntary statement from Jane. Loretta left prior to our arrival.

I saw that Jane was visibly upset and was trembling. She was concerned that Loretta might come back. I saw that her lower lip was swollen and was cut inside her mouth and there was a small ¼" cut on the bridge of her nose. Her nose looked swollen. Jane wears glasses and the cut on the nose was where she had her glasses on. The injuries I saw were consistent with the actions she described Loretta taking. I told Jane to contact the MPD if Loretta came back. She refused medical treatment.

Mentor Police Department Voluntary Statement

I, Jane Doe am not under arrest for any criminal offense concerning the events I am about to make known to the Mentor Police Department. Without being accused of, or questioned about any criminal offenses the facts I am about to state, I volunteer the following information of my own free will.

On 12/28/98 @ 6:30, Loretta D. Smith came to my home to get her daughter who is my fiancé’s child also. My fiancé had left her in my care while he went to the doctors. He has a visitation agreement whereas he has possession of the child until 5:30 on Tuesday, 12/29. Earlier in the day she had spoken to him to inform him that she wanted to come a day early to get the child and John told Loretta she could not come over and he had a doctor’s appointment.

She came unannounced and began ringing the bell over and over and was banging on the window. I put the children in my bedroom and opened the door to ask her to stop it and leave. She said she wasn’t leaving and grabbed the storm door and opened it to come in. I grabbed the handle and she punched me in the face and cut my nose. She then pushed me aside and entered my house. I grabbed her arm and pushed her out and she hit me again in the mouth. I would like to prosecute for assault.

I have read each page of this statement consisting of 1 page, Each page of which bears my signature, and corrections, if any, bear my initials, and I certify that the facts contained herein are true and correct. Jane Doe, 12/28/98

Mentor Police Department Supplemental Report
12/28/98, #98-43406, Assault
Ptlm: M. Turek 360
Status: Open, Approved and Reviewed

I contacted Loretta Smith at her home in Avon Lake @ 19:45 hours on 12/28/98. I advised her not to go back to [Address in Mentor] unless she contacted the MPD. I advised her that I would need to obtain a statement from her at MPD on 12/29/98. She told me she would come to the MPD @ 18:00 hours. I told her not to call over to [Mentor] and to contact the MPD if she went back over. She told me she did that before, but it didn’t work.

I spoke with John Doe, and told him I contacted Loretta and told her to stay away from his house. He told me he had made prior arrangements with Loretta to meet her at his Mom’s house on 12/29/98, in Willowick, @17:30 hours. He did not know why Loretta came to [Mentor]. He told me Loretta has been violent towards him in the past.

On 12/29/98 @ 19:45 hours, Smith had not contacted me or come into the MPD to complete a statement. This report will be forwarded to the city prosecutor for review of assault and aggravated trespass charges on Smith.

Report continued on page 2

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Amicus Curiae

n. Latin for "friend of the court," a party or an organization interested in an issue which files a brief or participates in the argument in a case in which that party or organization is not one of the litigants.

Usually the court must give permission for the brief to be filed and arguments may only be made with the agreement of the party the amicus curiae is supporting, and that argument comes out of the time allowed for that party's presentation to the court.


The City of Mentor, Appellee vs. Loretta D. Smith, Appellant

Criminal: Section #2903-13 Assault: 1st Degree Misdemeanor

The Honorable Henri Papillon


Statement of case: See Loretta "Slugger" Serrano entry.


Kent Wills - Jul 24 2006 9:38 pm
Actually, she plead no contest. Since there was no trial, she wasn't *found* anything. It's also old news. This occurred in 1998-99. To imply, as you have done, that she is currently indigent (it's 2006 now -- to save you having to look at a calendar) screams of desperation on your part.

Rebuttal: Kent Bradley Wills is the resident authority on just about any subject at Usenet. So far, he's averaged about 700 posts per month this year. If there's one thing Kent has personal experience with, it's the American justice system. On 5/6/05, Kent Bradley Wills lost his appeal to have a second-degree burglary conviction overturned. It was his contention that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure from that of the living quarters of the residence. He was also found guilty of using a juvenile to commit an indictable offense, which I believe has earned him a separate entry in The Bloggers' Hall of Shame at a later date. Iowa Supreme Court Decision:

Kent Bradley Wills should know that in the disposition portion of Loretta Serrano's criminal case the "G" stands for GUILTY just to the right of "Defendant found". As to RetzQ's indigent status, I don't believe anyone considers her destitute. Having filled out a few indigent forms himself, Mr. Wills doubles as Loretta's financial manager in between posts at Usenet. A few months ago, he announced she now has $12,000 in cash as opposed to the $3,000 in 1998, when Ohio taxpayers absorbed the cost of her defense. Ohio tax dollars at work. Loretta's come a long way, baby!

Kent Wills - Jul 25 2006 5:21 am
Loretta hit her once. You make it sound like Miss Loveliness was barely clinging to life.

Rebuttal: Kent Bradley Wills seemingly adheres to the "Three Strikes Rule". Did I mention that Kent is on extended probation courtesy of the Iowa court system? Iowa’s tax dollars at work.

Barbara - Jul 25 2006 5:09 pm
WHO CARES????? This is a non-issue. It's in the past. It doesn't matter. Did this "poor pregnant woman" have to seek medical attention? Was she on bedrest to prevent a miscarriage? She has blown this thing up to be a prelude to Armageddon and it's not even a blip on the radar. I'm sick to death of hearing about this as if it has any meaning for anything. It's just like Ted bringing up that stupid issue in Colorado against Ken and that phony garage break in against Kent. Give it a rest already you stupid, stupid mutts!

: Misfit Barbara a.k.a. Whateva was an educator for many years before landing a position maintaining computer networking at a scholastic institution in Ohio. Barbara is married to the school’s sports coach, never misses a game, and guarantees her checks are good. She would be the person who recommends which computer programs are suitable for an academic atmosphere and spends time troubleshooting problems related to those programs as well as suitably restricted Internet access. Considering her background, Barbara should be well versed in the importance of maintaining confidentiality and a proponent of a person’s right to privacy. So why would Barbara condone Loretta’s destructive habit of posting personal information at the Usenet sewer? She loves Loretta like a sister. Ohio’s tax dollars at work.

CG - Jul 25 2006 7:11 pm
They love rehashing old cases don't they? Not so much when it hits home.
Case Information for 19xx DR xxxxxx S Party Information Assigned Judge: Jxxx Hxxxxx Case Filed Date: 3/26/19xx
Petitioner: xxxxx x xxxxxxx
Respondent: Txxxx Lxx Mxxxxxxx
Case Status
Case Type: Disposition Code: Case Disposition Date: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DISPOSED BY JUDGE 4/5/19xx
Case Information for 1998 CF xxx xxx AS Party Information Assigned Judge: TWO DIVISION Case Filed Date: 9/30/19xx
Defendant:Txxxx Lxx Mxxxxxxx DOB: x/xx/19xx Attorney: PUBLIC DEFENDER
Case Status
Case Type: Disposition Code: Case Disposition Date: AGGRAVATED BATTERY PENDING Case Type: Disposition Code: Case Disposition Date: AGGRAVATED BATTERY ADJ GUILTY 1/6/19xx
Charges (If Applicable)
Number Charge Description Offense Date
AHA---and he had a Public Defender too.
(Edited by Papillon)

Rebuttal: Pat Pritchett-Sophy, Executive Vice President in Advertising a.k.a. Country Girl, CG, Adies Gma from California. She’s a wife, mother, grandmother, businesswoman, blog mistress of Hooterville Holler, and a horse’s ass. It takes a frantic act of desperation to post the above information on Usenet with malicious intent for the sole purpose of humiliating another poster. There is absolutely no relationship between the above individual and Loretta Serrano. None, nada, zilch! Exactly what CG hoped to accomplish with her repugnant act is beyond my wildest imagination. It didn’t erase Loretta Serrano’s criminal history. That conviction remains on record at the Mentor Municipal Court in spite of CG’s perverted actions. So what was her point? Did she get a kinky thrill from doing such a loathsome thing? Was it good for you, Country Girl? When some depraved idiot returns the favor, and you’re on the receiving end, I hope you accept it with as much enthusiasm as you dish it out. In the meantime, do you feel human when you look into your grandchildren's eyes? When you look in the mirror? Is the rest of the family like you? ~ Country Girl's Anonymoused Profile:

Truth Teller - Jul 25 2006 7:50 pm
And what about the other son, Dxxxxx Jxxxx? I can see there is something on him, as well. Good mother, indeed. NOT.

Rebuttal: Another country heard from. Truth Teller a.k.a. Anne Curi, Anne from Brazil operates between ten and twelve spite blogs, depending on who Loretta Serrano is ticked off at on any given day. Most of her shocking revelations are monotonous, windy, and incoherent although I’m not sure if poor grammar is the major reason. Not only is the language structure critically deficient, but a portion of the details provided are either outdated, sketchy, or completely inaccurate and lack supportive documentation. In fact, a few characters Anne chose to include in her repository are no longer living and haven’t been for some time, yet Anne reports that people still have dialogues with the dearly departed. I think Anne from Brazil has been drinking some potent potables on her coffee breaks in Sao Paulo. I will provide an anonymoused link to the Brazilian nut’s profile, however, you’ll have to supply your own NoDoz. I recommend extra strength. (My entry "Shame on Anne from Brazil" is available for your reading pleasure.) ~Anne Curi's Anonymoused Directory of Spite Blogs:

- Jul 26 2006 12:38 am
She slapped somebody's face once 8 years ago. A person who was keeping her two-year-old from her. Quit acting as if she committed murder, or felonious assault. What sort of person can't let go of a misdemeanor after 8 years? It was a MISDEMEANOR. Pleading nolo contendere and paying a fine hardly makes Loretta a criminal. You, who live an ocean away, seem to have a forgiveness problem. I can see that you're right about being an idiot.

Rebuttal: Veronica Prior is the blogmistress of Ronni's Rants and a proud member of the alleged idiot-free zone at

Ken Smith - Jul 26 2006 8:20 am
Let us assume that Loretta feels that she was still justified in doing what she did. Sometimes, folks do deserve a slap in the face or a punch in the mouth, even if the law forbids it. What's your point? You don't know what actually happened, and never will.

Rebuttal: Ken Smith is no stranger to the hallowed halls of justice. In fact, Mr. Smith filed a PER CURIAM with Colorado’s Supreme Court as an appellant. The gist of his complaint is that after applying for admission to the Colorado Bar, an inquiry panel concluded that probable cause existed to believe that Mr. Smith lacked mental stability, and hence recommended that his admission to the Bar be denied. Mr. Smith subsequently filed a series of lawsuits that ended up in the highest court in Colorado. ~Supreme Court decision:

It is this Cybercourt's opinion that Usenet should change it's name to Losernet, which would be more suitable for the brand of clientele that frequents the uncivilized forum. First and foremost, Loretta Smith Serrano always had the option of going to the Mentor Police with visitation order in hand to ask for assistance in retreiving her child. No one forced her to go bang on windows and lean on the doorbell. She did it because she wanted to. The children were safe and being cared for in the father's home. Mrs. Serrano failed to prove there was any kind of emergency that warranted her actions. The children were witnesses to something that should have never happened. They heard it, they sensed it, and they saw the end result of Mrs. Serrano's handiwork. They were there when the police arrived, Mrs. Serrano was not.

No one seems to grasp that salient point. Not the teacher, the burglar, the executive vice president, the strange one, the Brazilian nut, or the guy who can't take no for an answer.

This is a nation of laws. When you break one, you pay.

Court's adjourned!

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Clueless in Cleveland

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! The Usenet Court of Appeal is now in session.
Honorable Henri Papillon presiding.

The City of Mentor, Appellee vs. Loretta D. Smith, Appellant

Criminal: Section #2903-13
Assault: 1st Degree Misdemeanor

Appellant: Loretta Smith Slugger Serrano a.k.a. RetzQ

RetzQ - Mon, Jul 24 2006 10:08 pm
Very old news. And I already wrote a long entry about it on my blog a couple of YEARS ago, so it's not even newsworthy. It's just another thing I've already admitted to long ago and don't have any concern about it, otherwise why would I have posted a story about it on the WWW? Hello, get the clue phone. And as far as having my accounts closed, I had 300 times more money in 1999 in that document than Cxx Bxxxx had in 2000 when he murdered his daughter, and I wasn't even married to an engineer who makes "big bucks."

Respondent: You posted a story about it on the WWW as part of the modification process during the futile reconstruction of your ineffectual, worthless life. Your counterfeit version didn't even resemble what court documents authenticate. Read: It was riddled with errors and omissions.

RetzQ - Mon, Jul 24 2006 10:21 pm
Correction: 30 times. Put one too many zeros after that. In retrospect, I probably should have let that case go to trial, because I had a very good chance of acquittal since the "victim" was lying through her teeth and had a history of crying wolf, frivolous litigation, harassment, mental illness and other sterling character references. However, it would have meant a lot of time off from work, and the $350 was chump change to just put the entire absurdity behind me.

Respondent: You blew off the perfect opportunity to assassinate someone's character for chump change? Get outta here! You expect me to believe you deprived yourself of a chance to convince a jury you were innocent because you didn't want to miss a day of work? With the explosives you had stored in your arsenal? Are you pulling my leg? You should be kicking yourself! Geez, you could have given birth to your first blook eight years ago, fool! Ah, the complexities of life! If only we knew then what we know now, hmmm?

RetzQ - Tues, Jul 25 2006 9:29 am
This is false. I did not know the cow was with calf. I pled "nolo contedere" to a set of false and exaggerated allegations that I disputed. The fact is, since the alleged 'assault' took place on her turf, I was at a distinct disadvantage. Her story is mostly false, I never entered the home, she was not injuried in any major way, I did not punch her, and she failed to include the part where she slammed the door on my body, pulled my hair, and pummelled me with her fists as I leaned in to call my 2-yr old child. Incidentally, I waited in the driveway 20 minutes for the police to arrive that she claimed to have called. She obviously did not call them until I gave up and left. At that point, I went to the police station and reported that I could not retrieve my child from my ex-b/f home, and they told me that they do not enforce custody and visitation orders and that I'd have to go to a judge. Conveniently Ms DiWarpo failed to obtain all the documents regarding this goofy case.

Nebber mind that the incident took place almost 8 years ago, was adjudicated and closed and is now actually expunged. DiStupid is the only one with any record of it. There was never any probation. Does she name any probation officer? Did DiSilly offer any proof of that silly nonsense? No. I thought not.

And, for all it was worth, it was a minor event. Think about it. How banal. How utterly banal. I couldn't care less if you all posted the documents on the front page of the New York Times. I assure you that Nobody cares. I told the story long ago to everyone, and it's just not interesting to anyone but a few mutts who will find fault with a hangnail.

So, here's a quarter - call someone who cares.

Respondent: So, you didn't know "the cow was with calf"? Did you happen to know if the cow had Hemophilia? How about Epilepsy? Was she on Anticoagulant medication? Did you have any knowledge of her medical history? What you DID know is that there were two children in the house, didn't you? But that didn't stop you either.

I doubt there's a person left on the Internet, excepting monktards, that believes you waited 20 minutes for the police to come. Particularly since you had a history of doing things your way, as opposed to theirs, according to documentation. Sooo, the Avon Lake Police escorted L's dad to your residence in order for you to comply with the visitation order, but the Mentor Police wouldn't help you out? Police Departments have different policies? How would they enforce a visitation order that you were violating? Now, that IS goofy!

Well, Miss Marple, I'm at a loss to understand how you accumulate so much information on the relatives of your detractors, yet failed to run across your own criminal conviction. I guess you've never run a check on anyone from Ohio? That oversight isn't very flattering to a famous crime author such as yourself. Of course you'd be able to produce a copy of the notice had it been expunged.

Criminal case number CRB 9900019:

Docket Entry:

I don't agree with your "minor event" assessment whatsoever. My previous entry talks about how assault is considered a violent crime and for very good reasons. Just ask Thomas Junta!

He's the hockey dad who used his fist when he didn't get his way. Like you, he couldn't control his anger. It didn't matter that kids witnessed the confrontation to him either. One of those kids doesn't have a dad anymore. I don't think Mr. Junta considers it a "minor event".

Apparently you share the same philosophy as Mr. Junta, Loretta:


December 15, 2004 - Meanwhile, there's another problem with Kxxx and Cxxxxxxxxxx (mostly Cxxxxxxxxxx) and I had to address that this morning. K&C's father came in to drop off their 1-yr old and I contronted him about the problem. He wouldn't even LOOK at me. Then he said something to the sitter about them being ther [sic] 8 years, and I said, "Oh, so senority gives your son a free pass to be an abusive bully?":Anyway, I guess K&C are trying really hard to get rid of Nxxxxx, going so far as to invent problems. Since the babysitter isn't playing along, they have begun to punish HER! She's drawing the line right now. There will be a major overhaul in that place next week, and I am hoping that K&C finally have other arrangements made. If not, I am going to deck their dad, and I'm NOT kidding. I will do it. You watch. -Posted by loretta at March 4, 2005 10:07 AM

K & C are the nine-year old twins you said you could lick with one hand tied behind your back. You also stipulated you could take on the parents individually. You referred to those children as "Narcissts in Training" and authored an entry called, "Today's junior narcissist, tomorrow's murderer."

You may be a legend in your own mind, Loretta, but the general consensus is that you couldn't possibly stoop any lower than you did tonight! I hope your parents are proud of you. From where I'm sitting, you're a disgrace to the human race.

Keep your quarter - call Amnesty International!

Labels: , ,

Violent Crime Statistics

According to The Bureau of Justice Statistics, violent crime includes murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault.


Aggravated assault - Attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether or not an injury occurred and attack without a weapon when serious injury resulted.

Simple assault - Attack without a weapon resulting either in no injury, minor injury (for example, bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches or swelling) or in undetermined injury requiring less than 2 days of hospitalization. Also includes attempted assault without a weapon.

In 1999, The Associated Press newswire story told us about violent crime committed by males and females. During that timeframe women commited about 2.1 million violent crimes each year. By comparison, men commited about 13 million violent crimes each year. The figures were based on averages for the years 1993-1997 as measured in the annual National Crime Victimization Survey of about 100,000.

"This report shows that women are where men were during the 1960s and 1970s, using their fists when they commit violent assaults," says Jack Levin, a professor of sociology and criminology at Northeastern University in Boston.

The newswire concluded with: Women comprise almost 52 percent of the population, so the totals mean that there is one violent male offender for every nine males age 10 or older, compared with one violent female offender for every 56 women age 10 or older.


Menstuff® has gathered alternatives to violence programs for men perpetrators and victims and for women perpetrators - believed to be the largest listing in the U.S. Use caution in visiting many of the Domestic Violence resources. Some national, regional and local resources that use names like Family Violence Services, or Coalition Against Domestic Violence or Coalition to End Domestic Violence or Commission on Family Violence are misleading titles since some don't provide services for male victims and their children and women perpetrators.

Whether politically motivated or behind in understanding domestic violence or desiring to keep the statistics skewed to falsely show that women are the only victims of domestic violence, these often publicly funded organizations do not serve the broader community by their politically motivated view of domestic violence.

According to the U. S. Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Prevention & Control, 1998: over one-third of all domestic perpetrators who enter the justice system are women. (835M women and 1,500M men). It is our on-going commitment to list services that include prevention programs (37 of which also include support for female perpetrators), and victim assistance programs for women and men as well as the issues of Domestic Violence, including the Rights of Battered Men and Violence - General and TV Violence and media and governmental Contacts.

List of services by state:

Monday, July 24, 2006

A Straight Flush

Donations poured in as if the Misfit levee had been breached. Not only in the form of cash, but in every conceivable method of giving:

I'll contribute to the legal fund as well. A very worthy cause. -Posted by: Winnova (The Lisa Life) at April 2, 2006 08:54 PM

I'll throw money in the pot for the legal fund, as well. Who knows, if they're not stopped, they may go after any of us at any time. -Posted by: vero (Ronni's Rants) at April 2, 2006 09:01 PM

Why is it that not one person uses a real name to post? In some way that just tells the world that they know they are wrong on some level. -Posted by: Barbara (aka Whateva) at April 2, 2006 09:05 PM

Oh, and you know my check is good. As a person that has to deal with nonsense on the internet on a daily basis, anything I can do to eliminate the nonsense will be money well spent. -Posted by: Barbara at April 2, 2006 09:08 PM

The anonymnity of the internet allows cowards to portray themselves as the *righteous* and justified in whatever they decide might be fun to do. This stopped being fun or funny a very long time ago. Count me in on helping with any legal costs. This must stop! -Posted by: Deege (aka Chef's Mom) at April 2, 2006 09:08 PM

You can add my tax refund to the legal fund. I also will help your attorney doing paralegal legwork. -Posted by: Astrologer (aka Robin) at April 2, 2006 09:21 PM

Thanks for your blog entry, Vero. I think it's long past time for me to get my support together and pursue legal action. I have been so busy doing 1,001 other things that I haven't really had the time to bother, but now I will make the time. I have the means and the support, and I'm sure my parents would be happy to help. So would members of the orchestra, and even my co-workers. They are not without substantial connections and resources. -Posted by: loretta (Loretta 'Slugger' Serrano) at April 2, 2006 09:31 PM

No matter how long we ignored them, no matter how little they had to read in here or that we took our comment section off the blog, they won't stop. They didn't stop at any measures we took - by retaliating, spoofing, ignoring, avoiding, asking them to stop, trying to reason with them, posting their real names to show who they were, threatening to go to the authorities, what have you. They will not stop. I have no choice but to get a lawyer. -Posted by: loretta at April 2, 2006 09:41 PM

I have to say that I have no idea what's being said anymore in the loony bin. I gave up trying to read or figure that mess out a long time ago. Life is too short to wallow in the, well, you know. -Posted by: Barbara ('you know my check is good') at April 2, 2006 10:00 PM

That they THINK I was abusive, or that I neglect my children or am a depraved individual is their opinion, and not a very enlightened one at that. But that they ACCUSE ME OF CRIMES and other acts that have never happened and for which they have zero, zip, nada evidence is slander. That it is malicious also makes it criminal. Their intent is malice. They want to harm me. They want to harm all of you indirectly. They want to see bad things happen to me. Their intent is crystal clear and is the most important part of the lawsuit. It's one thing to spread rumors and slander about someone because you have reason to believe that they are dangerous and you want to scare them off. It's another matter to do it with malice aforethought and no substantiation for 6 months. -Posted by: loretta (Esquire) at April 2, 2006 10:01 PM

I am ready, willing, and able to contribute to the legal fund to put a stop to their lies. -Posted by: CountryGal (Hooterville Holler) at April 2, 2006 10:46 PM

By the way, there are a whole lot of "anonymouse" IPs in here! Any one of them could be posting at the kennel cloaked in this transparent anonymity, but it's too late. I already have their names, IPs and Service Providers from when they used to post without cloaks. -Posted by: loretta (J. Edgar Hoover) at April 2, 2006 10:53 PM

Since you're over there in New England, Deege, you can serve Dxxxxx, Axxxxx and Mxx. V. Why pay someone else?! I'm not kidding. I have their addresses. -Posted by: loretta (Constable) at April 2, 2006 10:56 PM

Ponder would probably happily volunteer to serve Dxxxx Mutt Mommy, and I'm sure Astro will serve Mxxx Cxxxxx in San Francisco. I will have to pay someone to serve Sxxxx Fxxxxxx and the Arizona crew: Mxxxxxx, Nxxxxxx and "Cxxx." I have a picture of Cxxx and her daughter, but not her last name, yet. I'm sure I can get a private investigator to find it based on all the information we have. Mxxxxxx is in Sarasota Springs, so she'll have to get served by someone up there in NY state. Maybe Nancy will do it. She's in Rochester. Justin is in Tennessee, so she can go find Shina Hart. That shouldn't be too hard, since we have both hers and her mother-in-law's addresses. Let's see now, we also have a friend in Idaho who can slap SxxxWxxxx with service. And, needless to say, Lisa and Martin might be able to find Jxxxx. -Posted by: loretta at April 2, 2006 11:01 PM

No problem. I know a PI here, as well. BTW, I also know three people in Sedona. -Posted by: Astrologer at April 2, 2006 11:08 PM

Hello all. Legal fund? Absolutely. I'm in. -Posted by: Stacey (Life's a Funny Thing)at April 2, 2006 11:35 PM

Count me in for donating to the legal fund, Loretta. -Posted by: sassyfrass at April 2, 2006 11:41 PM

But, getting back to the LAW -- it's the intent that is important. When you pursue a libel case, the people slandering you have to PROVE that the statements are true. This will be easy, since they cannot prove what they accuse me of is true. Second, if it were merely misunderstandings or ignorance on their part, they could play dumb. But, because their INTENT is MALICIOUS, they are in serious trouble. It's the INTENT that is important, not just the lies and disinformation. That's how people win libel suits - by challenging the defendant's claims (which in this case are totally bogus) and by demonstrating malicious intent. Slam dunk, baby. -Posted by: loretta (Clarence Darrow) at April 2, 2006 11:45 PM

Loretta. Count me in on financial support for legal assistance. I also have very good friends in Grand Rapids, FWIW. -Posted by: Monica at April 2, 2006 11:49 PM

I'm going to ask for punative damages on top of damages from loss of income from the book sales and violations of my civil rights, citing the new laws that clearly state that you cannot make criminal allegations against someone on the Internet anonymously. Then I can recoup all the expenses some day when the judgment goes into effect. -Posted by: loretta (Merrill Lynch) at April 2, 2006 11:53 PM

I'll bet the farm that this case never gets past the first round of letters. That blog will go POOF within 24 hours of them receiving the cease and desist. Oh, they can laugh now, but we'll see who gets the last laugh. -Posted by: loretta at April 3, 2006 12:11 AM

I just got home. Loretta, you know I'll donate to the cause. -Posted by: Nadine at April 3, 2006 01:34 AM

Good morning luvs... Well, here I am, better late than never. Count me in absolutely - just tell me what you need and where to send it. -Posted by: Grandmaboo at April 3, 2006 07:18 AM

Count me in on the legal battle. Whatever I can do from here, I will gladly do. -Posted by: Ponder at April 3, 2006 09:50 AM

I wanted to check in to say that I fully support your decision Loretta and count me in on the fund for legal assistance. -Posted by: Anne (from Brazil) at April 3, 2006 09:56 AM

Oh, regarding that fund, count me in! -Posted by: Mgt at April 3, 2006 10:12 AM

Credit: Comments courtesy of

Labels: , ,

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Misfitting Lawsuit

On 4/2/06, Loretta Serrano lost the battle of the wills to close down the LH2 forum despite her team's valiant 54-post effort that lasted six hours. The clock was ticking, which meant the Blooker award was only hours away!

She retreated to her hidey-hole only to resurface a short time later flexing her muscle on

Open comment to the Bashing Blog Kennel

Since you have banned my IP from the conversation again, rigging the board as usual, which is kind of ironic, considering all you have accused me of doing on my site (which is not a blog on blogspot, but a domain that I own and pay for), I have to comment in here.

I have done nothing to harm any of you and that's a fact. Posting your real names after you started your 4 hate blogs was not harmful to you, and you have no right to anonymity on the Web. That's a fact, too.

Continuously posting slander about my history is a crime, especially when you cannot substantiate any of it. It would be grounds for a lawsuit and that is always an option. Your comments and my request for you to cease your hate campaign that violates my civil rights and causes my family harm (that can be proven in a court of law) is only adding more ammunition to my case.

I suggest you consider the ramifications. Many of your identites and addresses are known to me and others, and those of you who are still there whose names and addresses I know will be named in this suit. You have the right to voice your opinions. You have the right to free speech when it does not impinge upon others' rights. You do not have the right to slander me for 6 months with false accusations.

Your opinion of my parenting abilities is moot. As are your opinions of my web log, writing abilities, looks, talent, striped top, hairstyle, teeth, eyes, nose, etc. You can bash those things all you like. That is your right. However, your defamation is illegal. It has become a hardship for me and has caused real damage that can be demonstrated in a lawsuit. Your accusations and constant attacks are not based on the truth. Your interpretation of events is not the truth. Therefore, your actions constitute libel and will be addressed.

The "punishment" that you all feel is your right to inflict on me, my daughters indirectly, and my friends and posters has long ago exceeded any alleged 'crimes' I committed by banning you or posting your real names (which is not against any laws, BTW), or my opinions of people in crime news stories and your mental faculties.

You people have long passed the line of decency. What you are doing is morally, ethically and legally wrong. Continue at your own risk.

Posted by: loretta at April 2, 2006 08:26 PM


Here are some of the names that I will be submitting to an attorney on the federal level along with the history of your slander and defamation. I have already been offered free services to consult with someone, and there are also people willing to donate to the legal fund if necessary.

Lxxx Nxxxxxx - "Anita Richman"
Kxxxxxxx Mxxxxxx - "katiecoolady"
Sxxxx Hxxx - "Samantha"
Dxxxxx Sxxxxxx - "Peace"
Mxxxxxx Sxxxx - "Moe"
Sxxxxx Fxxxxxx - "Patsy, TMM, et al"
Sxxxx Dxxx - "Laurel Ann/Claire"
Vxxxxxx Jxxx Pxxxxxx - "Just Amazed, Mistyblue, Interested, Opinionated, etc."
Dxxxx LeRxxxxxxx Pxxx - "Neptune's Mom, DLL, No Soup for You, Good Karma, et al."
Axxxxx Sxxxxxxx - "Scribbleblather"
Sxxxxx Hxxxxx - "keptkitty"
Sxxxx Bxxxxxx - "Edina Monsoon, Ma Spider, et al."
Jxxxx Lxx Wxxxxxxx - " al."
Cxxxx DiSxxxxx - various nics
Mrs. Jxxxxx Kxxx (from Columbus, GA) maybe the mysterious "Waterfall."
Cxxxxxxx V - "Mrs. V, Tundra, et al." whose full name and address I have and will, if necessary, include it. For now, I'll spare you the embarassment.

I don't know who is posting as "Mimi," but I know it is someone who has no real connection to me or anyone in my real life, so she and the rest of the anonymice will just have to let the identified ones take the blame.

Posted by: loretta at April 2, 2006 08:45 PM

(Real names edited by Papillon)


The State of Ohio, City of Mentor -vs- Loretta D. Smith

2/16/99 - Disposition: Loretta (Smith) Serrano pled no contest, found GUILTY of assault, fined $300.00. The indigent’s 30-day jail sentence suspended.

3/1/99 - Payment receipt in the amount of $363.00 OL Returned by mail per the defendant. ~~ 7/18/06 Entry


"Anonymity is critical to public discourse and fundamental to a free society, allowing speakers to offer diverse views without fear of undue reprisal," said EFF Staff Attorney Corynne McSherry. "There is now clear judicial consensus that subpoenas to identify anonymous speakers must be carefully scrutinized."

"Litigants must not be permitted to abuse the judicial process to identity anonymous individuals who have simply created a forum for critical comments or made statements a plaintiff dislikes," said EFF Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Speech critical of public officials -- made anonymously or not -- enjoys an extremely high level of legal protection."


Note: The 2006 Blooker Award went to Julie & Julia, a cookbook by Julie Powell

Labels: , ,

Saturday, July 22, 2006

Loretta Serrano, Svengali

A Svengali is defined by Merriam-Webster as "one who attempts usually with evil intentions to persuade or force another to do his bidding." The word comes from the name of the main character in George du Maurier’s novel Trilby.

Svengali is, in du Maurier's words, an "Oriental Israelite Hebrew Jew" with a cruel personality. He "would either fawn or bully, and could be grossly impertinent. He had a kind of cynical humour, which was more offensive than amusing, and always laughed at the wrong thing, at the wrong time, in the wrong place. And his laughter was always derisive and full of malice."

Naming someone a Svengali can be seen as fairly derogatory, but there is general agreement that certain people are or have been widely characterized as such.

While perusing official documents concerning Loretta Serrano’s noncompliance of regulated visitation orders, the following allegation caught my attention.

9. Loretta, having given my unlisted number to both her child care worker and a man who only identified himself as "Loretta’s friend", had them call to harass me on 11/29/98 and 12/3/98 respectively. Loretta also continuously calls or fax’s my place of employment to harass me.

Bad habits are hard to break as evidenced by Loretta Serrano’s incorrigible behavior online for the last three years. It never ceases to amaze me how she influences people to become actively involved in her personal vendettas. I suspect those who deal with Loretta on a daily basis in real life may be tempted to harass a man at his place of employment, against their better judgment, if only to get her off their backs.

But what about Internet buddies who don’t have to face her displeasure in real time? I’m inclined to believe that having depleted her inventory of real life accomplices, the self-proclaimed "Cyber Queen" recognized a potential to stock up on replacements via the Blogosphere. Easy Peezy! The Internet was a way to reinvent herself. She could make up the whole thing inserting just enough facts to make it sound plausible all the while embellishing to her hearts content. She could just tell real life people that it was a fiction piece. It’s not as though she hadn’t done that for years as she freely admitted.

Taking advantage of the new frontier, the Blog Mistress rewrote history! Those that didn’t buy it, or took offense at her despotism, either departed under their own steam or were abruptly dismissed with taunts and jeers. The remaining congregation sympathized, encouraged, paid admission, and soaked each titillating detail up like a sponge. They took proprietorship of all her perceived slights, former and present. Her resentment became theirs. Her anger filled their hearts. It didn’t matter that they were only listening to one side; the die had been pre-cast. Her self-ordained victimization was that convincing, and when duty called... they came like moths to a flame.

"Backstage" names:
Chef’s Mom = Deege ("rolling eyes" Whitney)
Da Bell = Vero Prior (angry kid of "Ronni’s Rants")
Human Bean = Nadine (amethyst dream crystal bigot of
Merrill Lynch = Loretta Serrano (Ohio slugger)
Winnie = Lisa Watson (pistol packer of "The Lisa Life")

I need someone to post on the kennel something very important. Tomorrow is the Blooker awards and if I win, there is a good chance that people might find the kennel. So, if someone is willing to post something factual regarding a very slanderous and totally false allegation about me on there that has their curiosity up, please email me. -Posted by: Merrill Lynch April 02, 2006 at 01:46 PM

They won't let me post. -Posted by: Da Bell April 02, 2006 at 02:58 PM

OK, you made me look! LOL! Which one of their preposterous and slanderous claims is the worst? That you beat up a pregnant woman, or that you are a racist, misogyinist, whateverist? -Posted by: Da Bell April 02, 2006 at 03:04 PM

Yeah, I looked too. LHAT Must be wonderful to be *known* by so many who just happened upon a hatebog and just had to post. Catch my eyes please? I think they've rolled almost to Texas by now. -Posted by: Chef's Mom April 02, 2006 at 03:06 PM

Okay, I thought I was banned, but apparently I'm not. Ye haw. -Posted by: Human Bean April 02, 2006 at 03:40 PM

Oops. It got cut off. You'll have to post the last bit in a separate comment. Thanks. They probably will delete it before Miss Lovelinot sees it - I think she is the source of it for sure. -Posted by: Merrill Lynch April 02, 2006 at 03:44 PM

If they are so concerned with my posting there (which I can't since day one and my first and last post on that site), why doesn't their little rumor monger use a real name? At least you are using a real name. -Posted by: Merrill Lynch April 02, 2006 at 03:46 PM

I figured there was no reason to be anonymous. Sheesh, they are idiots. -Posted by: Human Bean April 02, 2006 at 03:56 PM

Did you post the rest? Suddenly, my IP is no longer banned. I guess they want to hear from me. I'll finish it off. -Posted by: Merrill Lynch April 02, 2006 at 03:57 PM

And I find it hysterical that Aneedaclue is now embracing her L@tina-ness, now that you're being made to look like a racist. -Posted by: Human Bean April 02, 2006 at 03:58 PM

Yes, I posted the rest. It's up there now. -Posted by: Human Bean April 02, 2006 at 03:59 PM

I was actually going to don my hip waders and rubber gloves and venture over there but I can't remember the url! Divine intrevention, I think. Ya'll can just keep me posted. -Posted by: Winnie April 02, 2006 at 04:01 PM

Ok, I got it to go. The blog is lorettahaters2 at blogspot dot com - first entry under April Fools. Comments there. We are fighting back today. -Posted by: Merrill Lynch April 02, 2006 at 04:09 PM

They sure have vivid imaginations. Do they honestly believe themselves? -Posted by: Winnie April 02, 2006 at 04:38 PM

They are beyond stupid. -Posted by: Human Bean April 02, 2006 at 04:47 PM

Denial is an intoxicating stimulant.

On behalf of the "beyond stupid" faction, let me repeat…
As sure as the sun rises and sets...

Loretta Serrano is GUILTY of assault!

2/16/99 - Disposition: Loretta (Smith) Serrano pled no contest, was found GUILTY, fined $300.00. The indigent’s 30-day jail sentence was suspended.

She did it! She owns it! There is NO excuse! She was held accountable!

It was a documented fact on 4/2/06 when ‘Merrill’ and ‘Human Bean’ bombarded the LH2 site with fifty-four protesting posts between the two.

And yes, Vero/Ronni, beating up a pregnant woman is worse than misogyny or racism, not that any of them are socially acceptable. It’s against the LAW, very much like strangling someone! And it isn’t one bit funny, Trilby! I’m rather surprised you need to be told at your age.

"Honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom."

~Thomas Jefferson

Kitchen posts courtesy of LH2 archives.
Credit: Ship of Fools courtesy of the Misfits.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Loretta "Slugger" Serrano

Abuse and violence are behaviors chosen by a woman to cause physical, sexual, or emotional damage and worry or fear. Women who behave this way are often promiscuous, selfish, and narcissistic. Such a woman uses her moods, rage, and impulses to control the people around her and she is not satisfied until they have noticed her. These women choose deceit, fury, and assault to get their own way and then revels in the addicting exhilarating emotional unrest they create. Others, more insidiously, present a personable public image to conceal their true character and behavior.

These women are driven by jealousy and view others as rivals. These women cannot see and reason beyond themselves, so negotiation is impossible. Mediation is pointless. Only unswerving firmness of purpose shows these women that their power has ended.

Loretta Serrano, owner of the domain, has spent the last three years playing the triple role of a terrorist, a tyrant, and a victim on the World Wide Web. Today's entry will conclusively refute the distortions Ms. Serrano has broadcast throughout Cyberspace.

Official documents reveal that Loretta Serrano has a history of assaulting people. Those violent acts were committed in the presence of children.

11/30/96 - A complaint was filed against Loretta (Smith) Serrano by the father of her child. His statement reveals that Loretta punched him twice on the right side of the jaw while he was buckling his daughter in her car seat. Loretta denied she struck the child's father and declined to fill out a written statement.

12/28/98 - Loretta (Smith) Serrano assaulted a woman that was five months pregnant, causing facial lacerations, which the police determined were consistent with an attack. The weapon of choice was a closed fist. Loretta's 2-1/2 yr. old daughter was in the home during the altercation. Loretta (Smith) Serrano fled before police arrived.

2/16/99 - Disposition: Loretta (Smith) Serrano pled no contest, was found GUILTY, fined $300.00, and had a 30-day jail sentence suspended.

Note: An Affidavit of Indigence form was filed by Loretta (Smith) Serrano. There is no mention of her father's thoroughbred horses, his slave trade business, or thick juicy steaks in the financial declaration. Her grandfather's Cadillac in Fort Myers was another omission as well.

These documents can be viewed at:

Shame on you, Loretta Serrano!

Shame on your little group of Cyber thugs for defending your dubious character without question. Shame on them for compromising any integrity they may have possessed on your behalf. Shame on them for participating in your attacks on people that never did anything to them... or you. Shame on them for allowing you to continue YOUR twisted pseudo-drama at other's expense. More importantly, shame on them for not encouraging you to spend more time with your young children.

Shame on all the lies and distortions you willingly engineered.

Shame on all the anxiety, stress and humiliation you have inflicted on so many decent people.

Shame on you for failing to control your vindictive rage. You are a weak, spineless, pathetic FRAUD, and unless you start being honest with yourself, that will be your lifetime achievement, Slugger.

Checkmate... The game's over!

Anne from Brazil,


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence and domestic abuse are patterns of behavior that establish power and control over an intimate partner through fear and intimidation. It often begins with isolation, jealousy, threats or name-calling and may include emotional, sexual or verbal abuse. It can progress to physical violence like pushing, hitting and kicking. And, it may escalate and results in serious injuries, hospitalization and even death.

Abuse crosses all barriers of age, income, culture, religion, education and race. Domestic violence between partners happens in all kinds of relationships - husbands and wives, dating or live-in partners, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender partners. Anyone can be a domestic violence victim.

Years ago I witnessed a close friend endure a backhand from her spouse while her toddler was nestled in her lap. I was so stunned when it happened that I couldn’t immediately analyze exactly what prompted such a violent reaction. The jolt had enough force to make the child bite the inside of his mouth producing crimson saliva that gushed from the orifice, which blended with a stream of tears flowing down his plump cheeks.

Both parents were in the medical profession and subsequently determined that stitches weren’t necessary to close the jagged wound after the bleeding subsided. When the storm abated, I reluctantly took my leave and reflected on the intense scene during the drive home. I thought about how one split second modified my views of someone I had once considered worthy of respect. A senseless moment triggered by anger, inflicting collateral damage.

The phone rang shortly after I arrived home and the voice on the other end had a sense of urgency. It was my friend attempting to make light of what I considered a dreadful situation. She offered excuses for her husband’s behavior and requested that I not tell anyone about what had transpired. After careful consideration, I struck a bargain. I agreed to keep a lid on it providing it was an isolated incident. He did it, there was no excuse. He would either stop or be held accountable, I reasoned.

I kept that promise until I was asked to testify under oath in divorce proceedings against him a few years later. I studied his face searching for a reaction as I answered questions about what I had witnessed. He kept his head lowered, avoiding my gaze, as his secret became a matter of public record and a qualified reason to grant the petitioner termination of marriage.

I never saw him again, but I learned through mutual friends that he was angry with me for going to court. That’s what cowards do; shift the blame and portray themselves as victims. It’s their hallmark.

Monday, July 10, 2006

Loretta Serrano Demands Proof

In an earlier post I mentioned Loretta Serrano's callous remarks concerning the death of a child. This entry highlights Loretta's continued ruthless convictions regarding what can only be described as cruel, insensitive comments.

"I suggested that Shina would make a very poor parent, and that her baby was better off dead. Well, God knows what He's doing. He works in mysterious ways." Posted by: loretta at January7, 2006 07:50 PM

loretta said... "And as far as Shina's situation, we still have no proof than anything she has ever written is true. When she produces a death certificate and that (non-existent) picture, then I'll apologize.

Of course, the picture doesn't exist, she already admitted that to me over the phone, so let's just see the death certificate. Even if she can produce the death certificate, it does not excuse her behavior toward me or Miss Ann Thrope or any of the other people she terrorized online in the past couple of years. She's mentally ill." -7:43 AM, July 08, 2006

loretta said... "She is very, very ill. I would not be surprised if she invented the whole thing, posted on the angel site or any other site where she could pretend to be a part of some community of victims; all the while spamming and harassing and terrorizing women bloggers. Notice she never terrorizes male bloggers. I would not put it past her to invent the dead baby story, just as she invented so many other things. She stays up all night doing this garbage. She's capable of any number of things. So, yes, I think she could have made it all up.

That's why I want a certified death certificate to prove this "Sxxxx" child's death. I don't believe her." -8:37 AM, July 08, 2006

Suffice it to say the twisted observations of the misfit are absolutely repulsive to the general population, with the exception of Vero.

Ronni said..."I'm sorry you can't see the heart in Loretta. I can.
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. or something like that." -11:42 PM, July 07, 2006

Then He took a little child and set him in the midst of them. And when He had taken him within His arms, He said to them, "Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives ME; and whoever receives ME, receives not ME, but Him who sent Me."
Mark 9:36-37

Do you know a mother's sorrow
When with her child there's no tomorrow?

No radiant smile to light her day,
No guiding hand to show the way.
No loving hugs to be exchanged,
Or graduation plans arranged.

No walks with wind against her face,
On sunny beaches with sand to trace.
No chances for that last "I love you",
Which in the long run were way too few.

Do you know this mother's sorrow?

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Loretta Serrano's Fisk

Fisk (verb) - To deconstruct an article on a point by point basis in a highly critical manner. Derived from the name of journalist Robert Fisk, a frequent target of such critical articles in the blogosphere (qv).

Jetseta Marrie Gage (8/25/94-3/24/05) was a Cedar Rapids, Iowa youth whose kidnapping, rape and murder prompted major changes in sentencing laws for those who commit child sex crimes in Iowa.

What follows is a "fisk" of the murdered child's obituary with Loretta Serrano's comments in italics:

I've never fisked an obituary before, but there's always a first time:

Jetseta "Jet" Marrie Gage, 10, went home to be with Jesus
I wonder if her mom gave her a flashlight.

First Church of the Open Bible
Did Trena ever open that bible?

We are thankful that she is in Heaven now, free from pain.
And no longer our responsibility to protect her from unecessary abuse, pain, neglect, torment or suffering here on earth. Hallelujia.

Rosie loves you too. We promise to take good care of her for you!
Probably the damn dog who never barked.

Come look down on us and visit us, okay Jet?
Hopefully, she'll haunt you idiots for the rest of your lives.

Posted by loretta at March 29, 2005 01:30 PM

“What Roger Bentley did to my daughter ... and my family was very horrendous. I would not wish this on my worst enemy.” ~Trena Gage

Rest In Peace,
Jetseta Marrie Gage

Bloggers' Hall of Shame
Loretta Serrano, Observations of a Misfit
A disgrace to the Blogosphere

Labels: , ,