This page has been created in response to numerous blogs, websites, and social media postings created by a cyber-stalker to ruin Randy’s online reputation.
Bat World Sanctuary and its cyber-stalker
An obsessive, mentally unbalanced cyber-stalker in Beverly Hills, California has dedicated much of her life to spreading lies about Randy on the internet and trying to ruin his online reputation in an effort to get revenge for a lawsuit he won against her. It started when Randy agreed to represent Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary in a defamation lawsuit against a person who calls herself "Mary Cummins" aka "Mary Cummins-Cobb." Bat World Sanctuary is the world's largest rescue/rehabilitation/teaching sanctuary dedicated exclusively to bats. Amanda Lollar, its founder and president, is an internationally renowned bat expert, author, and rehabilitator. Bat World and Amanda have appeared on the Discovery Channel, 20/20 Downtown, Animal Planet, Nickelodeon, the CBS Early Show, and Late Night with David Letterman. In 2005 Bat World received the Doris Day Kindred Spirit Award, and in 2008 they were named Animal Planet Hero of the Year Finalist. In a 2013 article entitled "10 Amazing Wild Animal Sanctuaries You Should Support," www.onegreenplanet.org listed Bat World as #1.
"Mary Cummins" says she is "unemployed" and "does not own a business or company." She says her "occupation" is "causing havoc on the web." Since she apparently comes from a wealthy family and is unemployed her victims believe she is a trust fund beneficiary and/or lives on investments. Also, "causing havoc on the web" is not an occupation that typically generates much income. Mary Cummins also says she is the "president" of something she calls “Animal Advocates,” some sort of suspended entity that she claims to have at her "shack." In addition to blogging about her victims and filing lawsuits, Mary Cummins spends her time making YouTube videos that show her clutching baby animals such as a squirrel, opossum, or a sick raccoon with her bare hands. The animals are often screaming.
Defamation of Randy's client
Mary Cummins briefly interned at Bat World in 2010 but apparently found the work too challenging to complete and left the internship early and disgruntled. Unfortunately, at that time Bat World did not do background checks on people who applied for internships and was completely unaware of the websites and blogs that others had created about this disturbed individual (see last paragraph below.) A powerful lesson was learned. Mary Cummins immediately began posting copyrighted photos and proprietary information on the internet without Bat World's permission and in violation of her internship contract. She also falsely stated that interns were exposed to rabies and there were bedbugs at Bat World. When she refused to remove the proprietary material and false statements from the internet Randy agreed to take the case pro bono and filed a lawsuit against Mary Cummins of "Animal Advocates." Mary Cummins was outraged over being sued and retaliated by posting horrific lies about Amanda Lollar all over the internet, falsely accusing her of being cruel to animals, practicing veterinary medicine without a license, getting sanctioned by animal regulatory authorities, losing her USDA permit, and countless other outlandish lies. She feverishly began creating hundreds of blogs attacking Amanda. Cummins also started filing repeated complaints against Amanda Lollar with state and federal law enforcement and animal regulatory agencies. Needless to say, Amanda Lollar and Bat World were completely exonerated by all resulting investigations--the investigative reports may be viewed at the Bat World website. The Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife got so tired of investigating Mary Cummins' baseless allegations that their attorney finally told her they would no longer respond to her complaints about Amanda and Bat World.
The cyber-stalker's own attorney tells the court she's a liar
Mary Cummins initially had a lawyer but he withdrew from the case early in the litigation after informing the court that Cummins had lied and her “wild claims are false.” Mary Cummins even claimed that Randy had physically “assaulted” her during her video-recorded deposition while her lawyer was "asleep." This absurd allegation was refuted by her own lawyer and disproved by the court reporter’s sworn affidavit and, of course, the video. Cummins refused to consent to her lawyer withdrawing from the case but, after a court hearing in which her lawyer described Mary Cummins' bizarre claims and lies, the judge allowed him to withdraw. When Mary Cummins realized that a video recording and the court reporter's affidavit proved that Randy did not touch her during the deposition she decided to start blogging that Randy had "intentionally bumped his entire body into mine" at the courthouse. She fabricated this story because, unlike the fiction she made up about the deposition, there was no video that would prove she was lying and she could simply claim there were no witnesses. These are just two of the countless lies that Mary Cummins of "Animal Advocates" has concocted about Randy and spread across the internet to get revenge against him.
$6.1 million judgment against Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates
During a four-day trial in June 2012 highly trained expert veterinarians, wildlife rehabilitators and other experts from around the United States testified that Amanda Lollar’s knowledge, care, and treatment of bats are the gold standard among wildlife rehabilitators. Witness after witness testified about Amanda's love, devotion and compassion toward animals and totally disproved each and every malicious lie Mary Cummins had spread across the internet. After listening to all of the witnesses, viewing videos, and scientific literature, and after considering Cummins' testimony as well as her "evidence," Judge Bill Brigham not only found that Mary Cummins' accusations against Amanda Lollar were completely false but that her lies were “egregious as well as malicious as well as intentional.” He further stated on the record that Amanda Lollar is to bats what Jane Goodall is to primates. He ordered Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates to pay $6.1 million in actual and punitive damages as well as attorney’s fees (read Star-Telegram article.) He also ordered her to remove the defamation from the internet. Mary Cummins has not yet paid the entire judgment and, because of constantly accruing post-judgment interest, she still owes $6.4 million.
Internet smear and harassment campaigns
Following the trial the cyber-stalker launched comprehensive internet smear campaigns against everyone she apparently now blames for her miseries--Randy, Amanda Lollar, Judge Brigham, Judge Sudderth, Eric Shupps (the IT expert who testified at trial), and even the process server who served her with the lawsuit papers. She later added Amanda's California lawyer and California Judge Goodson to her obsessive vendetta. She has created numerous websites, blogs, and social media pages designed to destroy these people’s reputations and ruin them on the internet. She has also published on the internet as much personal information as she could dig up about her victims and their families, along with her nasty commentary about that information, including:
Her victims' home addresses; dates of birth; their children's names, birth dates and school district; their spouses’ names, birth dates and employers; monthly income; information about their parents; a brother’s suicide; court records from an old bankruptcy; food preferences; marriage and divorce information; schools attended; non-profit boards that a spouse serves on; amount of home mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, and utilities; bank records; a judge’s personal hobby; high school yearbook photographs; names of siblings; home remodeling photos; property values; veterinary records of pets; and countless other items of personal information.
The cyber-stalker ominously broadcast over the internet that she has Amanda's social security number. (Amanda has safeguards in place in case Cummins' plan is to use it for identity theft or sell it to the highest bidder.) Mary Cummins posted on the internet that Randy’s son is adopted. Of course there is only one reason why a person would do this. Fortunately, Randy’s son already knew he was adopted. When Mary Cummins was unable to dig up any “dirt” on Randy, she concocted outrageous, bizarre, and sometimes despicable lies about him and posted them all over blogs, websites, and social media pages.
Mary Cummins' occupation: "causing havoc on the web"
The cyber-stalker uses her skills as a professional search engine optimizer to make sure the blogs and pages she creates attacking her victims appear high in search engine results. For example, at the bottom of her pages the cyber-stalker lists dozens of strategically selected key words and phrases so that when a person Googles her victim's name the pages and blogs she has created smearing that victim will appear high in Google results, if not at the very top. Another technique Mary Cummins uses is to put high-value key words into her page titles, descriptions, and HTML and link the pages to each other. This insures that anyone who Googles the names of her victims will be directed to her blogs, thus inflicting maximum possible damage to her victims' online reputations. It is important to note that, although Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates makes money doing search engine optimization, she has described her actual occupation as "causing havoc on the web." Since the cyber-stalker is unemployed and most likely lives on a trust fund or investments she is able to devote her life to this occupation by endlessly blogging about her victims and doing search engine optimization.
Wikipedia blocks Mary Cummins
Wikipedia got so fed up with the cyber-stalker's repeated attempts to smear Amanda on their site that they blocked her from posting anything on Wikipedia about Amanda Lollar or Bat World. Of course she was livid. In one of her diatribes against a Wikipedia administrator she asked him, "Why are you stalking me here? I need a copy of the page you deleted." (It seems as though everyone Mary Cummins comes into contact with is "harassing" her, "stalking" her, "defaming" her, or all three. This is breathtakingly ironic given the number of times she has been sued for defamation, the $6.1 million defamation judgment against her, and the fact that she tracks her victims' locations, the computers they are using, and the recipients of their emails (see below.) At one point during her arguments with Wikipedia Cummins strangely decided to talk about her sister doing "some crappy horror movies." Wikipedia responded to her delirious rants by telling her things like, "It doesn't seem like you're getting the message; let me see if I can phrase it more clearly. You have agreed to post nowhere on Wikipedia, whether on an article, a talk page, a user page, anywhere, about this issue and these people," and "A very quick way to earn a permanent block would be to get someone to be your stalking horse and do so for you," and "Wikipedia is not your version of the truth; You have a bias and you are unable to overcome your bias." After lengthy arguments and Mary Cummins' promise to stop posting about Amanda and Batworld Wikipedia agreed to unblock her. In one last jab Mary Cummins told the administrator, "I am not posting about BWS on wiki. Enough said, buddy."
Stalking her victims' emails
This malicious cyber-stalker uses advanced computer technology to track her victims' locations and identify the computers they are using when they read their emails. She also tracks their personal emails to learn the identities of the recipients. In a desperate attempt to intimidate her current victims with her stalking prowess Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates posted the following on the internet:
"After I sent (an email) to Randy Turner he read it on his iPhone in Lindale, Texas. He then forwarded it to Amanda Lollar in Mineral Wells, Texas nine minutes later. Amanda Lollar sent it to her other ISP then she sent it to Randy Turner who read it on his iPhone and then he read it on his desktop at his house. Then Dean Rocco (Amanda's California attorney) opened it this morning in L.A. He then replied to Randy Turner who opened it on his desktop at Bailey & Galyen and back again."
This is only one small example of the extreme lengths to which this obsessive, mentally unhinged individual will go in her relentless pursuit of her victims. (Counter measures have been implemented to prevent the cyber-stalker from tracking future emails or hacking into her victims' computers.)
Blackmailing a philanthropist?
Mary Cummins of "Animal Advocates" does not limit her obsessive internet attacks to those with whom she is involved in litigation. For reasons unknown, in the fall of 2013 the cyber-stalker unleashed an exhaustive and elaborate internet smear campaign, including over 50 separate blogs, furiously attacking Dr. Michelson, a well-known philanthropist and friend of animals who founded the Found Animals Foundation. Mary Cummins blathered about the shape of his head and called him "an insecure deeply troubled pathological megalomaniac with sadistic tendencies." In the middle of one 27-page rambling attack on Dr. Michelson she strangely started babbling about tampons and having to "go back to pads or I'll be forced to get a tattoo..." Then she oddly included a five-step diagram showing how to insert a tampon. As usual, one of her main harassment techniques was to publicize as much personal information about her victim and his family as she was able to dig up, along with her usual nasty commentary about that information. She posted Dr. Michelson's family tree; information about his grandparents and where they immigrated from; his parents and their divorce; her theories about his sexual orientation; his mother's remarriage; his wife; child; brothers; stepsisters; birth dates; his upbringing; extracurricular activities and social life while in high school; his mannerisms; religion and ethnicity; copies of his medical and pilot's licenses; his high school yearbook photo; his dog's name; etc. etc. Because of Dr. Michelson's prominence, Cummins' history of suing for millions of dollars, and the fact that she has no discernible source of income, many of her victims are convinced that her motive is to blackmail the doctor into paying her money to remove her blogs from the internet.
A pattern of attacking wildlife sanctuaries
Mary Cummins' latest victim appears to be the head of a non-profit organization called "Never Cry Wolf Sanctuary." According to their website they "rescue and nurture wolves and wolf-hybrids that have been abused or abandoned." In early winter of 2013 she began viciously attacking this person in her blogs, accusing him of "lies and fraud," being a "con man," "defaming and libeling me," etc., etc. In other words, the standard Mary Cummins vitriol; only her victim's name had changed. Most of Mary Cummins' non-lawsuit victims seem to be associated with animal welfare in some way. Although no one can be certain how she selects her non-lawsuit victims for internet smear campaigns or what her motives are, the prevailing theory among amateur psychologists is that she targets people who help animals because she envies and resents the public recognition and respect they receive. According to this theory, Mary Cummins is driven by chronic feelings of inadequacy and pathological jealousy. Of course, this was the case with her original attack on Amanda Lollar and Bat World. This theory could also explain her strange need to make YouTube videos of herself clutching screaming baby animals-- sort of a desperate plea to "Look at me, I can rescue animals with my bare hands." Another popular theory is that Mary Cummins is simply a paranoid sociopath with too much time on her hands.
Attacking her own mother
Even the cyber-stalker's own family is not immune from her obsessive smear campaigns. In winter of 2013 Mary Cummins decided to roll out a blistering internet attack on her own mother, accusing her of "fraud," "forgery" (another one of her favorite accusations), "being a tax cheat," "property tax fraud," "stealing from me, my sister, my grandmother, government, other people," "making illegal and unpermitted" additions to her home, etc., etc. One can only speculate as to why the cyber-stalker felt compelled to deliver this ad nauseam message of hatred online right before the holidays for all the world and her mother to see. Again, amateur psychologists have come up with three different theories that are discussed in detail in a book Amanda is writing about Mary Cummins entitled "The Self-Destruction of a Morbid Cyber-Stalker." Sadly, on Thanksgiving Day 2013 when most normal people were enjoying time with their families the cyber-stalker spent the day feverishly creating a new rambling blog attacking Amanda, her husband, Randy, a retired police officer in Pennsylvania, and an artist in New York, accusing all of them of "supporting animal cruelty," being "mentally ill," and "harassing, stalking and defaming me." Unfortunately her victims are all too familiar with these standard ad hominem accusations which are straight out of the cyber-stalker's playbook.
Stalking a war hero in a nursing home?
During a deposition this malicious cyber-stalker repeatedly asked Amanda where her father lived and which nursing home he was in. Amanda, quite understandably, repeatedly refused to tell her. This caused Mary Cummins to angrily announce in frustration, "I reserve the right to depose Ms. Lollar again to get the name of the nursing home!!!" After the deposition Mary Cummins bizarrely posted on the internet, “I have no desire to harass her dad in a nursing home. I've known where he is living for over a year.” Amanda’s elderly father had absolutely nothing to do with Mary Cummins or the lawsuit. Major Luther Lollar was a kind and gentle man, quietly spending the last part of his life in a nursing home. He was a highly decorated WWII and Vietnam combat veteran who had saved the lives of many fellow soldiers in battle. He was a true American hero and he was none of Mary Cummins' business. Why did this cyber-stalker want to know where Amanda's dad lived? Why did she go to the trouble a year earlier to find out where he lived? Mary Cummins' sinister announcement that she knew his location was clearly intended as a threat. This deranged cyber-stalker's sick obsession with Amanda's loving, helpless father terrified Amanda, especially given another unrelated post where Mary Cummins bragged, “I have a gun with hollow points; I bought this one for shooting at close range; I can instantly drop someone with this gun and these bullets.” Amanda had no way of knowing what this depraved cyber-stalker had in mind for her invalid dad.
Punishing the Texas judge
This cyber-stalker does not tolerate judges who rule against her. Even the highly-respected judge who presided over the Texas trial did not escape her rage. Not content with attacking Judge Brigham on the internet, Mary Cummins publicly posted a six-page rambling complaint that she said she filed against him with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct almost a year after the trial. Her complaint was nothing more than another one of her sociopathic rants, full of lies intended to ruin the judge. Needless to say, after investigating her frivolous complaint, the Commission promptly dismissed it. As usual, this prompted the cyber-stalker to ramp up her vicious smear campaign against the judge to punish him for ruling against her. In addition to publishing new information and commentary about Judge Brigham's marriage and divorce, her latest blogs blather about him "cheating in court," "committing fraud upon the court," etc. It should be noted that Judge Brigham has served as an FBI agent, county judge, district judge, and court of appeals justice and has received numerous prestigious awards recognizing his integrity, knowledge of the law and distinguished service as a jurist.
Punishing the California judge
Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates also launched an extensive internet smear campaign against a California judge who denied her preposterous application for a "restraining order" against Amanda. (See below). She created a blog about the judge and published as much personal information about the judge's family as she was able to dig up, including information about the judge's father, husband, ex-husband, her daughter's name and date of birth, a link to the judge's financial records online, the judge's income, information about the judge's ex-husband's new wife and daughter and their horse hobby, and much much more. As usual--and consistent with her standard tactic of filing complaints against her victims with government agencies--Cummins announced that she will "make a report to the judicial commission." Like her complaints against Judge Brigham and Amanda it will be thrown out, of course, but that doesn't matter because the purpose is to get revenge by harassing.
Frivolous lawsuits in federal court
This unemployed cyber-stalker is extremely litigious and quickly started filing frivolous lawsuits against Amanda Lollar to get revenge. Of course no lawyer is representing her in these personal vendettas but, because she has been involved in over 20 lawsuits around the U.S. and has been sued at least four times for defamation, she is savvy enough to act as her own lawyer. In fact, Mary Cummins boasts (falsely) on her blog, “I always represent myself and I always win.” She filed a federal lawsuit in California against Amanda Lollar and three of Cummins' perceived enemies from many years ago along with ten anonymous "John Does," alleging defamation and various idiotic legal theories she most likely found by doing a Google search. Incredibly, she even sued an IT expert who had testified against her at trial, claiming he "defamed" her and "inflicted emotional distress" on her. (His trial testimony actually was very compelling and probably did cause her some distress.) As usual her retaliation lawsuit against this expert witness was quickly thrown out by the judge. And although Mary Cummins also tried desperately to convince the judge that her lawsuit against Amanda Lollar and the other victims she had sued was not frivolous her entire lawsuit was summarily thrown out of court. She tried to appeal the judge's ruling but the Court of Appeals dismissed her frivolous appeal.
Because her harassment lawsuit against Amanda was a loser, Mary Cummins decided to file a second retaliation lawsuit in California federal court against Amanda Lollar. In this second case she added 15 new defendants--some of whom were on Bat World's board of directors and others no one has ever heard of--claiming that she had been wronged in various ways while she was at Bat World. One of her sillier allegations was that she had bumped her head while trying to climb through a window at Bat World almost two years earlier and it was somehow the fault of these 15 people who were not even in the same city when it supposedly happened. After ruling that Mary Cummins had acted in “bad faith” the judge threw out all of her nonsensical allegations in this second frivolous lawsuit and then transferred her bump-on-the-head claim to a Texas court. Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is demanding $500,000 in her head-bump lawsuit for her supposed “injuries.” The Texas judge, on his own and without being asked, promptly dismissed 13 of her victims from the lawsuit. Fortunately, her head-bump claim against Amanda and two others is going to be dismissed by summary judgment so that the court's time will not be wasted on a trial.
Frivolous lawsuits in state court
Predictably, not long after her first two frivolous lawsuits against Amanda Lollar were tossed out of California federal court Mary Cummins decided to try her luck in state court and filed a third harassment lawsuit against Amanda to get revenge, this time in California superior court. As expected, after patiently listening to Mary Cummins try to justify her third ridiculous lawsuit in which she requested a "restraining order" against Amanda Lollar--who lives over 1,000 miles away in Texas--the superior court judge not only threw it out, she also ordered Cummins to pay Amanda's lawyers over $6,300 in attorney's fees for having to respond to such a frivolous lawsuit. The fact that the judge ordered her to pay the other side's attorney's fees speaks volumes, since judges normally only do this in the most blatant cases of lawsuit abuse. Serial litigants like Mary Cummins who use the legal system to harass their victims inevitably end up paying a high price for their malevolence. Of course the cyber-stalker was outraged and within hours after the court's ruling, she was back at her computer, furiously attacking and smearing the judge and posting personal information about the judge's family on the internet. It seems she didn't appreciate the judge throwing out her lawsuit and telling her to "get out there and start working to pay the judgment." In what Mary Cummins' victims would call a gross understatement, the judge also informed her that both she and her application for a restraining order against Amanda were "annoying." As usual after losing, the cyber-stalker filed her standard frivolous "motion to reconsider" and motion to disqualify the judge. (It appears Mary Cummins does not decide that the judges in her cases are unqualified to preside over her lawsuits until after they rule against her.) And as usual, her frivolous motions were denied....which prompted Mary Cummins to quickly post on the internet that the judge has "major mental issues." She then launched an elaborate internet smear campaign against Judge Goodson and Amanda's California attorney and began posting on the internet all the personal information she was able to dig up about their families and children.
Suing her neighbor, Los Angeles, and the CEO of Google
Unemployed Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates has been filing bizarre lawsuits against her victims in state courts for many years, presumably in hopes that one of them will hit the jackpot so she won't ever have to work. (It will have to be a really large jackpot now because Amanda is entitled to the first $6.4 million of her winnings.) The following are just a few examples of her lawsuits: Mary Cummins once sued her neighbor, claiming he "took a sledge hammer to my house, stalked my husband and me, tried to stab my husband with a machete, and stabbed the hedge trimmers through the fence at me." On another occasion, when she discovered something about herself on the internet she didn't like, she actually sued the CEO of Google and tried to get a restraining order against him, claiming he was hosting blogs that were "harassing, libelous, and defamatory." Of course the court denied her preposterous request. Mary Cummins even sued the City of Los Angeles claiming, among other things, "sexual harassment" and "interference with business relations" (this is one of her favorite nonsensical allegations that she likes to put in her lawsuits). She apparently hoped to finally get rich quick with that particular lawsuit by claiming "general damages" of "$1-2 million." Needless to say, it didn't quite work out the way she planned and the cyber-stalker now lives in a shack and claims she is "indigent" with a "net worth less than zero." Interestingly, Mary Cummins did not try to get a restraining order against a man who, she claims, threatened to cut off her husband's penis. (She later admitted under oath that, "I was never legally married.") The list of insanity goes on and on and would take up pages to recount here.
False police reports and psychotic babbling
Sometimes instead of, or in addition to, suing her hapless victims Mary Cummins reports them to the police for "stalking" and "cyber-stalking" her like she did with a prominent California attorney, a well-known Los Angeles newspaper editorial writer, and now Amanda Lollar. Not surprisingly, after the cyber-stalker's frivolous lawsuits against Amanda Lollar were thrown out and efforts were underway to collect the $6.1 million she owes Amanda, she frantically resumed her favorite attack strategy of repeatedly filing false police reports about her victim with the FBI, the Los Angeles Police Department and various other law enforcement agencies around the U.S. In her frustration Mary Cummins' public accusations against Amanda Lollar have literally become psychotic. Her latest lunatic ravings on the internet about her victims include:
"Amanda murdered her baby," and "committed crimes" by "ordering a hit on me" by a "paid thug," by "committing identity theft," "forgery," and "extortion," by "stalking me, by repeatedly telephoning me with "death threats" after getting drunk on beer, and by "encouraging convicted criminals to attack me;" "Amanda is obsessed with my breasts;" "I was a C cup by age 11;" a psychiatrist "told me that Amanda Lollar is in love with me;" "She has more wrinkles than I do;" "I was a member of Junior Mensa" (there is no such thing); "the Los Angeles Police Department thinks Amanda (who lives over 1,000 miles away from that police department) is a lesbian;" a man in the Cayman Islands "said he was going to cut my husband's penis up into tiny, little pieces;" I am "living in fear" that "Amanda will have someone burn down my house and kill my animals;" "Randy and Amanda need to be in the padded section of jail;" "Amanda needs to be institutionalized;" and (because of Dr. Michelson) "I'll have to go back to (menstrual) pads or I'll be forced to get a tattoo..."
Fortunately, it seems that the law enforcement agencies are completely fed up with this cyber-stalker's insane histrionics and are now ignoring her (see next paragraph).
Threats to kill Amanda Lollar
The apparently delusional mental state of Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates as seen in her frenetic internet postings indicates that she may be seriously mentally ill and potentially dangerous. While obsessing on Amanda this deranged cyber-stalker posted on the internet: "The police actually told me to shoot her dead." (It is unknown if this is the same police department that "thinks Amanda is a lesbian.") She has also posted, "I went through the police academy, took the gun class. I've been going to the range." In response to her lunatic ravings about shooting Amanda, her internet followers posted things like, "Mary whatever you do...if you shoot her make sure you shoot to kill; if she survives she'll sue you!" and "You have to do what you have to do Mary," and "Someone needs to throw water balloons filled with urine at her." It should be noted that most, if not all, of her internet "followers" are believed to actually be Mary Cummins herself using fake identities. Mary Cummins proudly--and ludicrously--proclaimed that Amanda Lollar "will soon be arrested." However, a short time later she posted that when she went to LAPD and was unable to talk to a detective about Amanda Lollar, "I refused to leave the police station," and "I will try internal affairs." Police departments always attract crazies and the Los Angeles Police Department obviously figured out long ago what they were dealing with. Mary Cummins' threat to go to "internal affairs" is a sure sign that she is going to sue the city again if they do not arrest or kill Amanda Lollar soon. This pathological Beverly Hills woman (who, by the way, thinks she is actor Charlie Sheen's "neighbor" and posts photographs of Jennifer Aniston's house and obsesses about her on Facebook, Google, blogs, Twitter, etc.) seems to believe that if she files enough frivolous lawsuits and false police reports, and if she spreads enough lies all over the internet something is eventually bound to stick, enabling her to finally destroy Amanda Lollar--a selfless woman who has devoted her entire life and virtually all of her worldly possessions to rescuing, rehabilitating, and caring for her beloved animals in Mineral Wells, Texas.
Other victims of Mary Cummins
Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is obsessive, vindictive and relentless. She has been attacking and smearing her perceived enemies on the internet, posting personal information about them and their families, filing police reports against them, and suing them for many, many years. The various federal and state courts are obviously tired of her endless frivolous lawsuits, motions and appeals. Chronic lawsuit abusers like Mary Cummins clog up the courts and prevent legitimate cases from being heard. When she has been sued by her victims she has claimed that she couldn't be held liable by courts because they didn't have "jurisdiction” over her. However, when she tried to sell that asinine argument to a Texas judge it fell flat and she wound up owing her victim $6.1 million, plus $25,000 per month interest as long as the judgment remains unpaid. Numerous websites and blogs have been created by her victims over the years. They have been pushed way down in Google and other search engine results, most likely due to Mary Cummins' search engine optimization. Here are just a few of them:
Unfortunately, the current laws are inadequate to deal with mentally troubled deviants like Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates who use the internet to destroy others. Defamation lawsuits may be filed and won but cyber-stalkers can simply hide their assets, ignore the court judgments, and keep on telling lies about their victims on the internet.