Hollywood Gunman’s Former Girlfriend a Model? No! Is Alicia Alligood a Model Mayhem? Yep-piddy-Yep, I Guess she’s is one:

Hollywood Gunman’s Former Girlfriend a Model? No! Is Alicia Alligood a Model Mayhem? Yep-piddy-Yep, I Guess she’s is one:

By Marc Chamot


Photos of Alicia Alligood were forcibly removed because;

"Hello, While I never heard back from you, perhaps you have already seen my response to your blog post discussing Tyler Brehm and I.

I requested you remove it and am still waiting for you to do so. It's quite simple and I'm sure it wouldn't take long. It's a good thing you have such a broad and consistent database of posts on various topics; dropping the one entitled, "Hollywood Gunman’s Former Girlfriend a Model? No! Is Alicia Alligood a Model Mayhem? Yep-piddy-Yep, I Guess she’s is one," certainly won't affect your ratings....

It's very, very important you remove the post as well as the comments. I am all about the idea of an open forum and, as a writer, I have a deep appreciation for the exchange of ideas, but this has gotten out of hand. Someone who obviously has a vendetta with Tyler recently left horrible comments that are illustrating him via lies & exaggerations.

I completely understand your post's discussion as an attempt to cover part of the story, but this other individual (I'm confident I know who it is) has chosen to create an outrage against Tyler because of their intense and unhealthy hatred toward he and I.

I hope you'll agree that it's time the article & comments be permanently removed. Our families are dealing with WAY TOO MUCH (there have been 2 more deaths since Tyler's) and would appreciate your help on this one.
Thank You,
Alicia Alligood

Marc, Exactly, it's just your info from the net, and yes--you are wrong, Mr. Chamot. Anyway you posted MY photographs without MY permission. You are also erroneous in stating that people involved with this case want "all the publicity they can get." More importantly than all of that is this other individual's bold & false claims about Tyler. It's not that difficult for you to just remove it. It's doing more harm than good.
Alicia

You are mistaken; I do not care what you have to say, yet I feel it is worth my time kindly asking you to remove the slanderous blog & comments from your site. I understand that this situation with Tyler and I is, sickeningly, a potential money-making opportunity for you, but I will absolutely NOT PAY you to for rights to the material. I don't desire it in any form. You got the story from us... not the other way around.

Throughout some of this aftermath of December 09th, I have consulted with my attorney on a few matters. We discussed the issues surrounding your "article" and I was surprised to learn you are actually violating more laws, and even some civil offenses, than I had previously realized.

Thanks for your "advice," yet we already have legal counsel so it really isn't a big deal for us to impose a lawsuit becomes necessary."
Alicia Alligood

Okay Alicia: After re-analyzing my article/story; in regards to my comments on Tyler Brehm, my story stays. 


And take that to YOUR lawyer, and even spend all your money on lawyers fees if you want, I couldn't care less. You'll lose, I then will counter sue you for harassment.

Tyler Brehm was a media and national story, he lost his rights as a private citizen, when he walked down a street in Hollywood, firing his gun at people, until the cops shot him dead. He lost his private citizen's libel protections when he committed the crime.

In regards to you, you were mentioned by the news Medias and hundreds of blogs and I reported about you, exactly what was mentioned by the Media, however, I brought up the case of you being or want to be a model, through ModelMayhem, which is true, and those are the facts that will never change. So sue me.

But! In regards to your photos, I am not admitting any wrong doings, even though your photos were on the Internet where anybody could access them, they were available in a public domain called ModelMayhem, however, I did not want to be hassled or threatened over this by you anymore, I have removed ALL of your photos from this posting, and instead, will be replaced with photos of Tyler Brehm, which are of public domains.

This is a political blog; I don’t usually write about nutcases who go on rampage. What I found pretty sneaky curious, in the world of Internet. 

Every time one hears about some atrocious crime being committed by some perpetrator, their Facebook page is usually the first to go, get deleted or disappear, into the never land of Cyberspace.

But somehow, this Hollywood shooter, that lovesick and despondent guy; well holly-and-behold! His freaking Facebook page was still around! No kidding! It’s Hollywood alright; they enjoy all the publicity they can get. But what’s most fascinating of all, it’s what one can dig up these days on the Net.

And sometimes things aren’t pretty. Everybody is speculating about what actually triggered the Hollywood gunman, Tyler Brehm, to walk down the street and shoot at people.

Actually, have you all seen that video of his half-hazardless way of shooting at people? Yeah. Go take another look, because Tyler Brehm didn’t look too serious about wanting to kill anybody. It seemed like he was screaming for attention, and regardless his motives, he got it and he’s dead now.

As vehicles were passing by, he slowly moved the pistol up and down without aiming at anything and took pop-shots towards vehicles driving by. Any experienced gunman, who’s really serious about hurting people, he could have certainly done a lot more damage.

According to Tyler Brehm’s Facebook page, there was one thing that struck me as odd.

There was one entry in there that struck me as strange. After the part on December 6^th, when Tyler Brehm says, went from being “in a relationship” to “single.”

There was an odd entry that kind of surprised me. It came from one of his friends and commenter Elena Matveeva, on December 6th at 10:27 pm, with a simple wtf???

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Elena Matveeva was pretty ticked off by the comment. And since then, there were no more entries in Facebook.

"Friends were removed, to protect Facebook member's privacy"

I’m not going to speculate here, he may have ruined two relationships, not one. His former girlfriend Alicia Alligood, mentioned about another woman when she broke up with Tyler.

I am not going to go any further on this issue, I’ll let gossip magazines do it, because that’s what they are good for, and they’ve got a whole lot more money than I do to withstand a lawsuit. But that “wtf???” bothers me a lot, and keeps gnawing at me.

To my biggest surprise; Tyler’s former girlfriend, the one he recently broke up with, Alicia Alligood is a an aspiring model! 

Actually, and really, she’s got a page on Model Mayhem. Oh yeah! And she’s isn’t bad looking either.

I do not know how thriving is her modeling career, but I guess it might just get a little better after all the publicity of this nightmare.

Obviously, there was a whole lot of jealousy, and anger, in Tyler Brehm behind the break-up. When I was younger, in my good-looking days, I know how much it hurts, with heart-breakers like Alicia Alligood.

Judge Rules in Defamation of Character Lawsuit; Bloggers are not Journalists & Have no Shield Law Protections:

Judge Rules in Defamation of Character Lawsuit; Bloggers are not Journalists & Have no Shield Law Protections:

By Marc Chamot

Bloggers around are very concerned about recent events on a federal judge’s ruling, calling bloggers are not protected people, under general Media journalistic shield laws. 

Bloggers are too concerned by this ruling, but they shouldn’t be. It’s because, under those same conditions, and even protected journalists under shield laws, would have been sued for defamation of character just the same.

This attorney was not a public figure, and the blogger in question who was sued, should have known better, than calling someone an unsubstantiated ‘thug’ and ‘thief’ over the Internet.  

The lawyer in question sued his former client for defamation of character, who happened to be an established blogger. Had the judge ruled journalistic protections for the blogger, this blogger was still liable for defamation of character regardless.

Even though Crystal was very angry at her former attorney, and according to her opinion, her angry rants were based on shoddy legal work she had received. Regardless, unless she was writing about John Gotti, or any other incarcerated felons, or even Blago, and she had no business calling anyone on the Internet, a ‘thug’ and a ‘thief.’

Crystal L. Cox had every right to vent her beefs towards the lawyer on the Internet, and however, she could have stated her version of the story by having proof available to back up her story, if the contract was broken, by using different methods. It would have been safer to use the indirect approach in writing, rather than the direct one. It could have been equally as effective.

She could have said, ‘I feel ripped off’ instead of calling the man a ‘thief.’ He didn’t accomplish or do what he promised, and she could have also said this lawyer was very aggressive, rude, and so forth, instead of calling him a ‘thug.’ It’s all about choices of words and making the right choice, before getting sued over what you say on the Internet.

Unproven direct accusations, can lead anyone towards serious and costly civil suits, and the saddest part of this, Crystal will suffer financially for the rest of her life because of those two words, she maliciously used. All could have been avoided, had she exercised good self control. And she should have given herself a day or two to cool down, before exposing someone, even a lawyer on the Internet.

Much to do about nothing; “a federal judge in Oregon has ruled that a Montana woman sued for defamation was not a journalist when she posted online that an Oregon lawyer acted criminally during a bankruptcy case, a decision with implications for bloggers around the country.

Crystal L. Cox, a blogger from Eureka, Mont., was sued for defamation by attorney Kevin Padrick when she posted online that he was a thug and a thief during the handling of bankruptcy proceedings by him and Obsidian Finance Group LLC.

U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez found last week that as a blogger, Cox was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.

The judge ruled that Cox was not protected by Oregon's shield law from having to produce sources, saying even though Cox defines herself as media, she was not affiliated with any mainstream outlet.

The lawyer sued Cox for defamation, a legal fight that is typically difficult for plaintiffs to win. Public figures, for example, must prove the defendant knew the statement in question was false, and the statement must be matters of public interest.

The judge found that Padrick was not a public figure, and that the bankruptcy case was not in the public interest. The ruling opened the way for a jury to award $2.5 million to Padrick and Obsidian.

The judge ruled that Cox was not protected by Oregon's shield law from having to produce sources, saying even though Cox defines herself as media, she was not affiliated with any mainstream outlet.

He added that the shield law does not apply to civil actions for defamation.”

It all came down to choice of words used.

More on Federal judge: Montana blogger is not journalist

"Hernandez said Cox was not a journalist because she offered no professional qualifications as a journalist or legitimate news outlet. She had no journalism education, credentials or affiliation with a recognized news outlet, proof of adhering to journalistic standards such as editing or checking her facts, evidence she produced an independent product or evidence she ever tried to get both sides of the story.  Cox said she didn't have the money to pay the judgment, and that she intended to keep posting about the Summit bankruptcy case. "My intensions are the highest and best," she said. "I know I am sometimes over the top or a little bit vulgar. But I encourage people not to listen to me or him but to look at the documents and make their own decision based on that." Padrick said the case showed how vulnerable anyone was to someone with a computer. He said he has lost business from potential clients who search his name and firm through Google and find Cox's postings at the top of the list, adding that he has no way to remove them. "If anyone can self-proclaim themselves to be media, the concept of media is rendered worthless," Padrick said. "When everyone is media, the concept of media is gone." The judge ruled that Padrick and his company did not have to seek a retraction, as required by Oregon law, before claiming damages, because a blogger is not on the list of recognized media, which include newspapers, magazines, television and radio news, and motion pictures. Padrick said he did not expect to collect much of the $2.5 million jury award, or to see his business fully rebound. He said his only consolation was that all eight jurors who heard the case believed he had been significantly harmed."