My Laptop was FRIED on August 16th just as I was finalizing a petition (counterpetition) which only begins to point out to the court the terrorism I have experienced. The volume of legal work regarding custody and child support and chaos and personal attacks have prevented me from getting anything which points out their wrongdoing in front of a judge.

Custody is over. The child lost.

Child Support is over. She wasted more seeking support than I paid – but that wasn’t about money as much as harassment. Financially / credit rating / humiliation / etc… Truth be told the people who handle Child Support Enforcement have been the most professional and courteous of all the county employees. Conferences with them were always a positive experience.

So back to the laptop being FRIED, I mean it went from being a completely functional laptop to a machine which will only flash the power button at me. There has been no change – and resets do not change anything. Nothing I have tried will bring it back from this state. I imagine they either pulled code out of the BIOS where their software was hiding, or just needed a fast kill to my progress. Definitely seems to be a BIOS attack this time. The hard disk was left functional and the files I was working on were all usable still. I lost a day to that until I borrowed a laptop from my brother again.

By AGAIN, I mean i was responding to the exact same petition which they have now filed twice (September 2008 & July 2009) when they disabled and destroyed the hard disk on the laptop. Last October, I was able to file the response to their 60+ page petition on the day before the short list conference (MUCH to the surprise of her lawyer).

Submitted as a counterpetition, the judge inquired that since the counter petition was not my defense, would I mind submitting it as a stand alone petition. This was done the next day and a short list conference scheduled for October 2009.

They continue to attack the computers regularly. I think there are 8 computers which have been victims of the attacks.

I persevere.


I am still updating the Computer and Cell phone pages. I spent Friday April 18, 2008 in the county jail. Based on mockery and lies. Updates will be here soon.

A quick look at the company’s officers gives an indication that they are qualified to successfully hide a program and circumvent the security built into your computer. They came from some of the the various companies that developed that security!

Who better to subvert your computer’s security?


Search Engine Optimization

Search Engine Optimization


Internet Searches


Quick Notes on WebWatcher

It is as invisible as a program can get.

It plays the limitations of the Windows Registry very well.

If you go to a subdirectory where a file is, it moves.

It replaces the shell program your computer uses.

No Uninstall Program listed

No named entries in the Registry

No indication it is installed.

Disables your security programs.

Once security is disabled, you are completely exposed to all viruses/spyware.

Program files hide in the subdirectories of programs you are not likely to delete.

Program reinstallation hooks are embedded inside pictures.

It would appear one place they embed their reinstall code is inside the security pictures in your security programs.

Installed Via Email – It wasn’t necessary to open the email, the install routine launched on delivery to my machine from the mail server. It crashed the Windows Mail program and indicated to contact Microsoft to check for an available fix. After it hung for a bit longer than I expected, I crashed the laptop, pulled the plug and battery. On Reboot, it had been downloading the executable file and setting it to run on reboot.

If you suspect it is installed, AWARENESS TECHNOLOGIES will deny it.

If you are certain it is installed AWARENESS TECHNOLOGIES will deny it.

When you purchase the program yourself and IT tells you that IT is already installed on your computer, AWARENESS TECHNOLOGIES will deny it… and become hostile.

When you attempt to reason with them and you answer all of their questions about how you detected their program, AWARENESS TECHNOLOGIES will deny it. AND THEN, they will update the program so the methods you discussed will no longer work.

If you eventually get to someone there who confirms what you are reporting and wants to help you, she will be fired.

If you post anything about the program on a forum, someone will follow behind you and either delete your entry (they have every one of your passwords) or post an accusation that you are a child trying to get around his parents protections. A very effective method, because no one will assist a child trying to get around their parent’s protection. It doesn’t matter that your parents are in their 70’s, they are protecting you from the evil things on the internet. Well all but one of the evil things because they didn’t protect you from WebWatcher.

McAfee does not detect it. Their EMPROXY program will run all the time, as the program thinks the outgoing data is email or instant messages and it is scanning them.

Symantec does not detect it. ( BUT trust them to secure the data as it is stolen from your computer and delivered to the servers where it is being illegally stored. )

Kaspersky does not detect it, BUT the tools available provide the indication that data is being transmitted.

ZoneAlarm does not detect it, but it does have methods to slow the transmission of data down.

WebWatcher has routines that DISABLE your anti-virus/anti-spyware programs – without those programs even noticing they have been disabled.

Once your anti-virus/anti-spyware programs are disabled, you are more likely to get infected with a virus.

The program hides among the viruses, and your computer appears to be infected with a virus. Should you remove that virus, you may not notice WebWatcher is still there.

The program files are hidden among your security program files. If you change security programs, the files are renamed to your new one, or any of about a dozen other popular program naming conventions.

You may notice that Java updates are running fairly often, it is part of the update/reinfect routine.


Judge Bertin’s Order of August 7, 2009 required documents be exchanged on August 20, 2009.

Angst & Angst receptionist refused to accept documents.

Angst & Angst receptionist refused to sign for receipt of documents.

Angst & Angst did not provide true and correct copies of all documents.

On August 20, 2009, at approximately 2:50 PM

1. Receptionist would not agree that she had received the documents, or as an alternative that she had received anything.

2. They would not provide their names.

3. Valerie Angsts assistant refused to sign as well. She would not offer any alternative. She began commenting on the case.

4. Both were informed that I had a court order indicating the exchange was to take place on August 20, 2009.

5. Valerie Angst’s assistant indicated I had no business showing up at their offices, even though the court order indicated the exchange would take place on August 20, 2009.

6. At approximately 3:01PM, I left the documents on their desk and left their office.

Judge Bertin was told of the behavior of the receptionists.

During a court recess, when informed that the telephone bills had not been provided, Bob Angst crumbled the note indicating the missing documents and threw it on the courtroom floor.

When court resumed, Judge Bertin was informed of the behavior of Bob Angst.

There were no consequences for any of their bad behavior, or their violation of court orders, etc.


This web site was attacked this morning and had to be shutdown temporarily by the hosting provider. Working with a member of their staff, the site was back online after a few hours with additional provisions in place for recording any future attacks and securing that data.

The data of the attack and the information identifying the attackers has been secured.

While always unexpected, it is not surprising that there has been another technology attack. As you look over the extended period of time, it becomes clear that the tech attacks have occurred at times when it was necessary to produce documents or responses to petitions. Initially those types of events would be (and were) dismissed as coincidence and paranoia.

As I understand it, a failure to respond to a petition is an admission to its validity. At any given time there has been as many as 7 working computers available to me. BUT, whenever a response is due, it is surprising how they all fail simultaneously. The computers are from different manufacturers, different operating systems, different additional hardware capabilities, etc… but they all similarly fail as deadlines approach.

I usually borrow a laptop to meet the deadlines, but I do have one absolutely reliable computer. It has never experienced so much as a single issue, outage, failure, surprise reboot, or anything which would be cause for alarm or even question. My reliable powerhouse also lacks any of the technology which could possibly allow wireless access. [Suck it, Bluetooth!] Securely tethered to a wall by it’s power cord, and weighing in at a proud couple of pounds, my most secure computer is a Compaq Contura running Windows95. If it does ever have a problem, there’s always my VIC-20.


August 7, 2009

And now, this 7th day of August 2009, the parties agree to exchange documents on 8/20/09 for the August 25 and August 25, 2009 hearings. As to the phone records and the mortgage statements/documents and on line printouts, neither side need bring in custodian of records from the phone company or mortgage company.

The August 24, 2009 hearing date will commerce with father’s petitions for contempt re:custody, the court having already heard the testimony of Brennan as a rebuttal witness.

%d bloggers like this: