Friday, 23 January 2015

Exposing AFF Cult Members, Using facebook as a hate platform

THERE'S A NEW COWARD HATE PAGE ONLINE "EXPOSING ANIMAL FARM FOUNDATION CULTISTS" AND THEY'VE BEEN SLANDERING AND DEFAMING MY GOOD NAME USING ANONIMITY OF FACEBOOK TO HARRASS AND BULLY ME IE:


Animal Farm Foundation cult member Terry. Jane Berkey's breed ambassador with multiple pages designed to harass victims of pit bull attacks.

I MADE THE MISTAKE OF TELLING 

BOOFHEAD THAT THE DOGS 

THAT ATTACKED HIS SON WERE 

ACTUALLY LISTED IN VET 

RECORDS AS "BOXER MIX" RIGHT 

UP UNTIL THE ATTACK AND 

THEN SUDDENLY THAT RECORD 

WAS ADJUSTED TO READ 

"PITBULL MIX" ON THE FEMALE 

DOG. APPARENTLY THAT IS 

HARRASSING A VICTIM!


Exposing AFF Cult Members added 2 new photos.
AFF cult leader, Jane Berkey, must approve of this behavior.
Does Boofhead even make sense? Maybe to an Aussie we guess.

I DO NOT KNOW "JANE 

BERKEY" AND I HAVE 

ABSOLUTELY NO 

ASSOCIATION WITH ANIMAL 

FARM FOUNDATION


Terry, Terry, Terry. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your cult leader, Jane Berkey, would not approve of you harassing women like this.
Here's some screenshots of people's thoughts about you.
Like ·  ·  · 41



  • ARA MOFFET IS ACTUALLY 

  • MARYANN DEADFERN USING A 

  • FAKE PROFILE, I'VE NEVER 

  • SPOKEN TO ARA DESPITE HER 

  • CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY, 

  • ONCE I SENT HER A PM 

  • CAUTIONING HER TO LOCK 

  • DOWN HER PROFILE BEFORE 

  • SOMEONE MEME'S HER PICS, 

  • SHE DIDN'T RESPOND..
  • We understand that Terry is not "A dog owner of ordinary intelligence" so we apologize to our AFF cultist friend from down under for all this US constitutional mumbo jumbo.
    ---------
    In Ohio the Supreme Court wrote a decision in the state of Ohio v. Anderson that used the words over and over "a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can identify a pit bull" http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case…
    Here is a quote "In sum, we reject the appellee's contention that the phrase "commonly known as a pit bull dog" is so devoid of meaning that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness. Pit bull dogs possess unique and readily identifiable physical and behavioral traits which are capable of recognition both by "dog owners of ordinary intelligence" and by enforcement personnel. Consistent and detailed descriptions of the pit bull dog may be found in canine guidebooks, general reference books, statestatutes and local ordinances, and state and federal case law dealing with pit bull legislation. By reference to these sources, a dog owner of ordinary intelligence can determine if he does in fact own a dog commonly known as a pit bull dog within the meaning of R.C. 955.11 (A)(4)(a)(iii). Similarly, by reference to these sources, dog wardens, police officers, judges, and juries can enforce the statute fairly and evenhandedly. Consequently, we find that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness. "
    Toledo v. Tellings covers the ID issue as well as constitutionality, this is also a state Supreme Court ruling.
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case…
    Like ·  ·  · 91
    TThanks AFF cult member. Now we know who is behind the boofhead pages. Whatever that mmeans.

  • how can this not be considered 

  • to be a hate campaign and 

  • they're using facebook and fake 

  • names?

  • I FORMERLY CHALLENGE YOU 

  • TO "PROVE" OR "REMOVE" 

  • YOUR ALLEGATIONS, GET 

  • READY FOR THE SOUND OF 

  • "CRICKETS" THESE COWARDS 

  • WILL NOT RESPOND.










No comments:

Post a Comment