MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01D0C3B3.0E36A950" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Windows® Internet Explorer®. ------=_NextPart_01D0C3B3.0E36A950 Content-Location: file:///C:/7158AEED/rupeattackrefut.htm.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1252"
Members of the PSJAB and County Staff,
I know that some of you will not wish to read this e-m= ail, but if you are interested in the t= ruth please read until the end. Known for verbosity, I shall endeavor to keep th= is as succinct as possible.
You received from Maureen Rupe on May 7, 2015 an e-mail with the following message:
“With
great regret, I must resign from the PSJ Dependent Special District Advisory
Board. My decision has nothing to do with the Brevard County Staff th=
at
does an excellent job. My problem is fellow Advisory Board Member Mr.
Pete Costello. For many years we have been political adversaries, but=
now
Mr. Costello’s actions have taken it to another level that has devastated my
family and myself, is not something that any decent person would do.
“I cannot
work with Mr. Costello and concentrate on the issues. I feel this
explanation is necessary as I have never in 30 years, resigned from an
obligation to the county.
“Maureen Rupe
On June 17, 2015, I receiv=
ed the
e-mail from Pete Costello. Not knowing what Mr. Costello had allegedly done=
, I
wrote to Comm. Fisher’s office a Sunshine Law request asking for all e-mails
FROM Maureen Rupe TO Comm. Fisher’s office from=
April
18, 2015 to June 18, 2015 and received a copy of the e-mail above, with
attachments, and a second e-mail, below. First, the attachments: a search engi=
ne
result and a page f=
rom my
website. (Did you receive those
attachments with her resignation?) Please note that neither item points to
anything to do with Pete Costello. Also, you may not know that after one of=
the
last PSJAB meetings she attended, Maureen asked to speak to Pete Costello a=
nd
what she said was that she wanted m=
e
to remove my website. She wante=
d Pete
to make me remove my website, MaureenRupeExposed.com and went on and on and
worked herself up into a frenzy, even ranting wh=
ile
she went to and got into her car.
The second e-mail (sent to=
Marcia
DAY and D1’s office on May 11, 2015):
“Hi Marcia,<= o:p>
“I see she has taken down a lot of her ranti=
ng's
about me, lucky I have them.
“Costello has warned her.
“Read what she said when I asked her to take=
the
exposed off. What she accused me off, bottom of page.
“Also a deputy friend told me to find the ho=
st
and appeal to them .
“Found they are Globe net who are in PSJ,
“Oh well, I=
have
had enough of her slander.
“Cheerio
“Maureen”
Please note again, that her response is all about me, Linda
McKinney.
I am not certain that you fully understand her allegations. In=
order
to help you do so, I send the following. She alleges:
"-------- Original Mes=
sage
--------
"Subject: Maureen Rupe Exposed
"From: "Maureen Rupe"
rupe32927@earthlink.net
"Date: Fri, Februa=
ry 15,
2013 7:19 am
"To: editor@psjhistory.com
"Hello Ms Mckinney,
"I don’t know if you have Costello’s permission to put up his website =
on
PSJ History, or SCC.
"I have found out that in the past 4 years, since you have his site, M=
RE
on your SCC website, multiple times.
"Maureen Rupe Exposed has gone to many sit=
es as
a porn site. It also has my name, address, and my house on aerial view.
"You may think this is hilarious, due to your nature. I do not, I feel threatened, harassed, cyber stalked and wi=
th my
present health can not ignore this final insult=
.
"Maureen Rupe
"I do not have Costello’s email, please pass on."
And in part of= another e-mail:
"From: Maureen Rupe
"Sent: Monday, July 01, 2013 12:04 PM
"To: Lindy
"Subject: Pitiful
&quo=
t;Your
problem is, and it will prove to be a very serious one for you, you
embellish and turn everything I say into a What =
you
think and What you want me to mean. For example let’s take the “Maureen
Please note that she states in the first e-mail “Maureen Rupe Exposed has gone to many sites as a porn site.” =
And in
the second e-mail “When I said it had gone to porn sites, which it had in t=
he
related sites and I have printed proof”, she is referring to the search engi=
ne
results she alleges is proof o=
f her
assertions. To prove her assertions incorrect,
please understand how search engine results can be “stacked” (you may have
recently seen news stories about how Google
has been doing so for years) via paying the company for advertising. Pl=
ease
note that on the search engine results at the top of the page are the words,
“Bright House, Road Runner, Web, Sponsored Links”. That last term, “Sponsor=
ed
Links” tells you that those ads are paid
for, contracted through Bright House network to appear in the search
results that return on even a remotely related search request; in this case=
, as
evidenced by the bolded word in the search results, the word “exposed”. Exp=
osed
has no definitive connection to pornography since it has more uses than sex=
ual
connotation. Neither Pete Costello nor I had anything to do with the contracted search results.
Also, if you will note in her second allegation of February 15,
2013, that Maureen states, “Plus an attorney who is the son of a friend, saw
the site Maureen Rupe Exposed whilst looking at=
porn
sites for a case.” The important portion: “whilst looking at porn sites for=
a
case”.
The website LifeHacker.com
explains one of the way cookies work:
“Because cookies are always sent back to the site th=
at
originated them, an advertiser's cookie will be sent back to them from every
web site you visit that is also using that same advertiser. This allows the
advertiser to track the sites you visit, and send targeted advertising b=
ased
on the types of sites that you visit. [my bo=
lding]”
When the attorney saw anything relating porn to
MaureenRupeExposed.com, it was not<=
/i>
because there is any actual connection between the two but because cookies from porn sites were already o=
n his
computer and the search engine found things that were related to his
interests as exposed in the cookies on his computer. Remember when you shop=
for
shoes, purses, craft items, car parts, or cat supplements online then check
your Yahoo mail account and see related advertisements on the sidebar? Cook=
ies
on your computer tell Yahoo which advertisers to display to you in that
sidebar.
Also, I’ll add a quick note about website terminology, if I ma=
y.
Maureen wrote to me telling me that MaureenRupeExposed.com “has gone to many
sites as a porn site” and “had gone to porn sites”. As a webmaster, that’s
telling me that my site is LINKED to porn sites, which I know for certain i=
t is
not. A link takes you from one
website to another, thus her assertion that my site “has gone to” I knew for
certain was false. I do the links on my websites and on a third website tha=
t I
also webmaster. I know there are no links to porn sites on any of my websit=
es,
so why should I remove my website when I knew the assertions were false?
As to the May 11, 2015 e-mail to Marcia DAY and D1 recommending
that they read what I wrote about her on my website page, I hope you will
remember that my reaction was logical. I followed the natural progression of
the conversation. For instance, if I give you the numbers “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6=
, 7”
the next logical number is? The logical progression of a conversation is
similar. If someone accuses you of stealing their plate of spaghetti and ea=
ting
it, do you respond by talking about ceiling fans? No. You respond to their
allegation. That is what I did. It was the first time she alleged a porn
connection and I was responding by asking questions about the allegation. D=
id I
know anything after the first accusation (the e-mail dated Feb. 15, 2013)
arrived concerning the alleged “evidence”? No. She didn’t mention anything
about an “attorney” at that time, nor did she send along her search engine =
results.
Asking questions was an appropriate response, and questions I did ask.
I have asked Maureen Rupe to prove=
her
most recent allegation, apparently given in a phone conversation to Marcia =
NEWELL
of D1’s office. I found out about the most recent allegation via an e-mail
received July 8, 2015 from Cristina Berrios that contained this e-mail from
Marcia Newell to Comm. Fisher:
“Costello’s te= rm is up in 2017.
“Talked to both Costello and Maureen this morning. Costello called fir= st thing this morning.
“Maureen belie= ves that because of the website www.MaureenRupeexposed.com (started by Costello, how= ever he says Linda McKinney owns it now) that her name showed up on a porn site. She wants them to take down this website and they have refused. Maureen was told by a friend in Tampa that he say her name on a porn site. (he is an attorne= y and was investigating a case). She also said that family members have seen her name pop up on a porn site. She said she has copies of it. <= /p>
“I searched Ma= ureen’s names and there are pages and pages referencing her, but I did not find a p= orn site. Could be county computer would not bring that up.
“Costello was = looking for direction from you going forward and Maureen wanted everyone to know th= at she cannot be in the same room with him.
“Direction?
“= Marcia Newell
“Legislative A= ide to Commissioner Robin Fisher
“Marcia.newell@brevardcounty.us”
Please note the line “Maureen believes that because of the web= site www.MaureeenRupeexposed.com<= /a> (started by Costello, however he says Linda McKinney owns it now) th= at her name showed up on a porn site.” That is a new allegation. Her previous allegations, that my website “has gone to many sites as a porn site” stated that my site was LINKED TO a porn site, which I knew to be untrue. For her = to state that her name was ON a porn site (as opposed to “linked to”) is questionable, at best.
1. Is she alleging that it is just her name and is she the only Maureen Rupe on earth, or that the website MaureenRupeExposed.com is ON multiple porn sites?
2. Is she alleging that either Pete or I had anything at all to do with her name = or my website allegedly being ON a= porn site? (I have linked MaureenRupeExposed.com TO her campaign website = [still up illegally] and she had nothing to do with that link.)
3. Marcia Newell writes that Maureen stated her “friend in Tampa say[s] that her name= is on a porn site.” Is this the attor= ney who was looking at porn for a case, whose evidence has already been negated= ?
4. In
Newell’s e-mail she writes that Maureen Rupe to=
ld her
that “family members have seen her name pop up on a porn site.” Ignoring the
fact that she just put on public record, via Marcia Newell’s e-mail, that h=
er
family looks at porn, let’s focus on the “She said she has copies of it.” I
have asked Maureen Rupe to PROVE that she has c=
opies
of it and have yet to receive anything. IF I do receive anything besides the
already discredited search engine result, I will forward it to all of you.<=
/p>
Tell me something. If you were webmaster of a porn site
would you not be more careful with the links you post for your customers? A=
fter
all, if you’re webmaster of a porn site and you =
link
to any website that isn’t porn or porn related would you not be boring your
customers and losing them for those “bad” links? If you’re interested in
scrapbooking and you visit a scrapbooking website and the links there take =
you
to the Human Genome Project =
or
something about potatoes, would you stay at that website long? No. You go
somewhere else. This is another consideration in weighing whether to believe
Maureen Rupe’s allegations against
MaureenRupeExposed.com, Pete Costello and myself. Maureen Rupe’s resignation attack =
on Pete
Costello was nothing more than an effort to get Pete kicked off of the PSJA=
B.
Consider the facts: ·
She resigns attacking him in her resignation letter but her
alleged “proof” is against me.=
·
She says her family was “devastated” by something Pete Costell=
o had
allegedly done, but does not tell what it was he allegedly did. ·
She says both she and her family were “devastated” by Pete
Costello’s actions and that they were “n=
ot
something that any decent person would do.” However, her “proof” was about =
porn
and then she tells Marcia Newell that her “family members have seen =
her
name pop up on a porn site”, too. So it’s bad for her name to allegedly be ON a porn site, but <=
span
class=3DGramE>it’s
·
Pete Costello did start the PAC, Maureen ·
Maureen Rupe met=
with
Pete Costello after either the April or May PSJAB meeting and ranted that P=
ete
had to make ME take MaureenRupeExposed.com down. She didn’t complain about =
him
at the time. She tried to get him to control ME (which no one except my hub=
by
is capable of doing). ·
Maureeen Rupe has not provided any substantiated proof of her
vicious, fallacious allegations against MaureenRupeExposed.com, nor against
Pete Costello. If she were actually so “devastated” would she not have some=
non-discredited proof? Has she pr=
ovided
anything to any of you? Remember: Maureen Rupe’s v=
ague,
vicious, fallacious attack against Pete Costello in her resignation letter =
was
intended to get him kicked off the PSJAB. It almost worked. In an e-mail se=
nt
from his iPhone, May 7, 2015, Comm. Fisher wrote: “From:
Commissioner, D1 “Tall
to her. When is his term up? “When is his<=
/b> term
up?” His first reaction was to find out when Pete Costello would be out of
there. I have another question for all of you. If you get on Maureen Rupe’s “bad side”, when will she do the same to you? =
It’s
something to think about is it not? If you have read this far, thank y=
ou for
your time. I know it’s a rather long e-mail, but it is the TRUTH. =
p>
Sincerely, Linda McKinney Owner/Editor/Webmaster MaureenRupeExposed.com, PSJHistory.com,
SpaceCoastConservative.com
“Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 9:16 PM
“To: Newell, Marcia
“Subject: Fwd: Resignation
“This message is sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typos. 😄”