Ashli Ford supporter wants grieving mother put in jail
Convicted podcaster posting her private messages leads to attacks on dead woman's family
NORWALK — For Tricia Shepard, Ashli Ford has become the menace who never stops menacing. The convicted podcaster posted private text messages of Tricia’s at her Facebook page overnight, pushing back against the grieving mother’s pleas to her to stop exploiting her daughter.
“It’s like she’s picking at me, picking at this giant wound on my soul, laughing at me,” Tricia said. “She won’t quit. She won’t stop.”
Sheriff’s deputies told Tricia this morning she has to stop worrying about what Ashli Ford posts at Facebook, that she needs to stop looking at it. That’s easier said, however, because for Tricia the haunting, horrible way her daughter died never leaves her thoughts. From her perspective, Ford is lying — pretending to be solving a crime and making up stories — all to “make a buck off Katelynn.”
“This isn’t right,” Tricia said. “Just out of common decency, she should please stop. Just please stop.”
The visit deputies made this morning is the first contact from the sheriff’s office since Tricia filed a harassment complaint against Ford on March 10. Ford, in podcasts and posts at Facebook and Patreon, claims she’s compiled evidence that reveals who killed Kaitlin. Tricia wants Ford, if she does have new evidence, to take it to police and prosecutors and stop trying to sell it online to the highest bidders.
New evidence? No
The sheriff’s office, in a report dated March 24 sent to StayTunedSandusky this week, stated that Ashli hasn’t provided any new information to investigators. Ashli said she hasn’t been asked for anything, but a message sent to Ashli by the detective clearly requests that she provide the specific information she has related to Kaitlynn’s death.
Ford provided the detective with what appears to be a disingenuous, dodgy response in a post Wednesday at Facebook, in which she claims that she’s been 100% cooperative.
“The intent of this message is not clear,” Ford responded to the detective’s request that she provide the new evidence she claims to have. “Are you asking me for information?”
Ford allegedly did the same thing in Huron after making what were determined to be false allegations against a Huron police officer. She claimed she represented victims but never provided investigators any names so they could interview her “clients.” In Perkins Township, Ford did the same thing, suggesting to a detective that she might “represent victims,” but never provided any names or other assistance.
The detective in Perkins Township said misinformation being posted at Ford’s Facebook page was putting innocent people including children — at risk. Ashli Ford did not remove the incorrect information; instead she filed a complaint against the detective with his department.
In the past Ford also has falsely accused the father of a missing boy of murdering his son, and she’s claimed to represent the family of a 5-year-old rape victim and shared identifying photos of the child after the girl was attacked, as clickbait at Facebook. She’s made many criminals complaints to area police departments, some of which had to be investigated in investigations that never generated charges, costing taxpayers thousands of dollars.
Critics say Ford files criminal complaints in retaliation toward those she sees as oppositional to her interests.
Mean girl
Tricia’s personal text messages Ford posted are private, intimate conversations she had with others about her daughter’s tragic death in 2018. Ford posted those private messages after StayTunedSandusky reported about Tricia’s complaint and about Ford’s unwillingness to share whatever “new evidence” she has with the detectives investigating Kaitlynn’s death.
Ford often gins up traffic by claiming to have new evidence, or by making disparaging comments or letting followers make defaming comments and getting her followers to exert pressure on people she targets. They pretend Ford has actually found new evidence and praise her.
“You basically hand over everything they need to prosecute her,” one of Ford’s supporters, using a fake name, wrote in praise Ford at her post. There is nothing that supports the claim. Ford and her supporter also claim she solved the Amanda Dean homicide without any evidence to support that, either. It’s unknown if Ford ever provided any information for any investigation, ever, that led to charges against anyone, ever.
“She’s a windbag,” said one critic, who shared that it was the nicest thing he could think of to say about her.
If you hear her tell it, however, or hear any of the misinformed people who follow her tell it, Ashli Ford is the greatest detective of all time. She’s as good or better than every TV detective you ever watched, from “Columbo,” to “Jessica Fletcher” and “Monk,” all rolled into one crime-fighting genius.
For prosecutors, however, Ford is a one-person crime spree. She faces trial in May on forgery and mortgage fraud charges and she is appealing her four felony intimidation convictions from last year, contending it’s her First Amendment right to threaten public official with whom she disagrees,
Section 2917.21 | Telecommunications harassment.
Effective:
August 16, 2016
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 151 - 131st General Assembly
PDF:
(A) No person shall knowingly make or cause to be made a telecommunication, or knowingly permit a telecommunication to be made from a telecommunications device under the person’s control, to another, if the caller does any of the following:
(1) Makes the telecommunication with purpose to harass, intimidate, or abuse any person at the premises to which the telecommunication is made, whether or not actual communication takes place between the caller and a recipient;
(2) Describes, suggests, requests, or proposes that the caller, the recipient of the telecommunication, or any other person engage in sexual activity, and the recipient or another person at the premises to which the telecommunication is made has requested, in a previous telecommunication or in the immediate telecommunication, that the caller not make a telecommunication to the recipient or to the premises to which the telecommunication is made;
(3) During the telecommunication, violates section 2903.21 of the Revised Code;
(4) Knowingly states to the recipient of the telecommunication that the caller intends to cause damage to or destroy public or private property, and the recipient, any member of the recipient’s family, or any other person who resides at the premises to which the telecommunication is made owns, leases, resides, or works in, will at the time of the destruction or damaging be near or in, has the responsibility of protecting, or insures the property that will be destroyed or damaged;
(5) Knowingly makes the telecommunication to the recipient of the telecommunication, to another person at the premises to which the telecommunication is made, or to those premises, and the recipient or another person at those premises previously has told the caller not to make a telecommunication to those premises or to any persons at those premises;
(6) Knowingly makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal to the recipient of the telecommunication that is threatening, intimidating, menacing, coercive, or obscene with the intent to abuse, threaten, or harass the recipient;
(7) Without a lawful business purpose, knowingly interrupts the telecommunication service of any person;
(8) Without a lawful business purpose, knowingly transmits to any person, regardless of whether the telecommunication is heard in its entirety, any file, document, or other communication that prevents that person from using the person’s telephone service or electronic communication device;
(9) Knowingly makes any false statement concerning the death, injury, illness, disfigurement, reputation, indecent conduct, or criminal conduct of the recipient of the telecommunication or family or household member of the recipient with purpose to abuse, threaten, intimidate, or harass the recipient;
(10) Knowingly incites another person through a telecommunication or other means to harass or participate in the harassment of a person;
(11) Knowingly alarms the recipient by making a telecommunication without a lawful purpose at an hour or hours known to be inconvenient to the recipient and in an offensive or repetitive manner.
(B)(1) No person shall make or cause to be made a telecommunication, or permit a telecommunication to be made from a telecommunications device under the person’s control, with purpose to abuse, threaten, or harass another person.
(2) No person shall knowingly post a text or audio statement or an image on an internet web site or web page for the purpose of abusing, threatening, or harassing another person.
(C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of telecommunications harassment.
(2) A violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), or (11) or (B) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree on a first offense and a felony of the fifth degree on each subsequent offense.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in division (C)(3) of this section, a violation of division (A)(4) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree on a first offense and a felony of the fifth degree on each subsequent offense. If a violation of division (A)(4) of this section results in economic harm of one thousand dollars or more but less than seven thousand five hundred dollars, telecommunications harassment is a felony of the fifth degree. If a violation of division (A)(4) of this section results in economic harm of seven thousand five hundred dollars or more but less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars, telecommunications harassment is a felony of the fourth degree. If a violation of division (A)(4) of this section results in economic harm of one hundred fifty thousand dollars or more, telecommunications harassment is a felony of the third degree.
(D) No cause of action may be asserted in any court of this state against any provider of a telecommunications service, interactive computer service as defined in section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, or information service, or against any officer, employee, or agent of a telecommunication service, interactive computer service as defined in section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, or information service, for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly arises out of the provider’s, officer’s, employee’s, or agent’s provision of information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order that is issued in relation to the investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of this section. A provider of a telecommunications service, interactive computer service as defined in section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, or information service, or an officer, employee, or agent of a telecommunications service, interactive computer service as defined in section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, or information service, is immune from any civil or criminal liability for injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly arises out of the provider’s, officer’s, employee’s, or agent’s provision of information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order that is issued in relation to the investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of this section.
(E)(1) This section does not apply to a person solely because the person provided access or connection to or from an electronic method of remotely transferring information not under that person’s control, including having provided capabilities that are incidental to providing access or connection to or from the electronic method of remotely transferring the information, and that do not include the creation of the content of the material that is the subject of the access or connection. In addition, any person providing access or connection to or from an electronic method of remotely transferring information not under that person’s control shall not be liable for any action voluntarily taken in good faith to block the receipt or transmission through its service of any information that the person believes is, or will be sent, in violation of this section.
(2) Division (E)(1) of this section does not create an affirmative duty for any person providing access or connection to or from an electronic method of remotely transferring information not under that person’s control to block the receipt or transmission through its service of any information that it believes is, or will be sent, in violation of this section except as otherwise provided by law.
(3) Division (E)(1) of this section does not apply to a person who conspires with a person actively involved in the creation or knowing distribution of material in violation of this section or who knowingly advertises the availability of material of that nature.
(4) A provider or user of an interactive computer service, as defined in section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall neither be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider, as defined in section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code, nor held civilly or criminally liable for the creation or development of information provided by another information content provider, as defined in section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code. Nothing in this division shall be construed to protect a person from liability to the extent that the person developed or created any content in violation of this section.
(F) Divisions (A)(5) to (11) and (B)(2) of this section do not apply to a person who, while employed or contracted by a newspaper, magazine, press association, news agency, news wire service, cable channel or cable operator, or radio or television station, is gathering, processing, transmitting, compiling, editing, or disseminating information for the general public within the scope of the person’s employment in that capacity or the person’s contractual authority in that capacity.
(G) As used in this section:
(1) “Economic harm” means all direct, incidental, and consequential pecuniary harm suffered by a victim as a result of criminal conduct. “Economic harm” includes, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(a) All wages, salaries, or other compensation lost as a result of the criminal conduct;
(b) The cost of all wages, salaries, or other compensation paid to employees for time those employees are prevented from working as a result of the criminal conduct;
(c) The overhead costs incurred for the time that a business is shut down as a result of the criminal conduct;
(d) The loss of value to tangible or intangible property that was damaged as a result of the criminal conduct.
(2) “Caller” means the person described in division (A) of this section who makes or causes to be made a telecommunication or who permits a telecommunication to be made from a telecommunications device under that person’s control.
(3) “Telecommunication” and “telecommunications device” have the same meanings as in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code.
(4) “Sexual activity” has the same meaning as in section 2907.01 of the Revised Code.
(5) “Family or household member” means any of the following:
(a) Any of the following who is residing or has resided with the recipient of the telecommunication against whom the act prohibited in division (A)(9) of this section is committed:
(i) A spouse, a person living as a spouse, or a former spouse of the recipient;
(ii) A parent, a foster parent, or a child of the recipient, or another person related by consanguinity or affinity to the recipient;
(iii) A parent or a child of a spouse, person living as a spouse, or former spouse of the recipient, or another person related by consanguinity or affinity to a spouse, person living as a spouse, or former spouse of the recipient.
(b) The natural parent of any child of whom the recipient of the telecommunication against whom the act prohibited in division (A)(9) of this section is committed is the other natural parent or is the putative other natural parent.
(6) “Person living as a spouse” means a person who is living or has lived with the recipient of the telecommunication against whom the act prohibited in division (A)(9) of this section is committed in a common law marital relationship, who otherwise is cohabiting with the recipient, or who otherwise has cohabited with the recipient within five years prior to the date of the alleged commission of the act in question.
(7) “Cable operator” has the same meaning as in section 1332.21 of the Revised Code.
(H) Nothing in this section prohibits a person from making a telecommunication to a debtor that is in compliance with the “Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,” 91 Stat. 874 (1977), 15 U.S.C. 1692, as amended, or the “Telephone Consumer Protection Act,” 105 Stat. 2395 (1991), 47 U.S.C. 227, as amended.
Ashli Ford is a bonafide grifter and most of her outspoken fans are actually her own fake profiles and her little band of ex-cons, felons, and should-be felons. Her mortgage documents and 2 audio files reveal her to be a complete liar, lending credence that her ridiculous claims against decent people are greedy fabrications. But what can you expect from a person who financially-benefits from accusing the grieving family of a victim (of what looks more and more to be a serial killer) of being complicit in the murder?!!! She and her entire crew are complete trash.