The tape of Kate “Bristol Blarney” Peter’s defeat vs. Turtleboy in Attleboro District Court is uploaded to our YouTube channel, and as it turns out everything I said happened did in fact happen, while her claims that the judge said she had an “actionable civil claim” turned out to be complete fiction.
Top 15 highlights:
15. When she lied about using the Aitch Paul account to post a threat to herself using the Turtleboy Facebook page.
Maloney: “Do you own Aitch Paul.”
I do not.
Maloney: “Did you own the handle?”
Kate: I did not.
Maloney: “Did you have access to it.”
Kate: I had access to it August 2019 when I was under Facebook suspension.
14. When she told the judge that the NAPD exonerated her of hacking into my account because she showed them a copy of her IP addresses, which they obviously did not do and would not understand because they are computer illiterate, and which would also prove nothing. She then threw Mike Hilario under the bus and said that he was the one who was using the Turtleboy page at the exact same time that Kate wrote the threatening post to herself.
“He is asserting that I hacked into his Facebook account to write myself a threatening message. That did not happen. I provided the NAPD with a copy of my IP addresses, all my log ins, and my location history to them to show them I had no access to them at the time. They took some witness testimony about an individual who had removed his Facebook accounts from admin privileges from Mr. Kearney’s page because he did not want to be involved in this situation.”
13. When Attorney Maloney called her out on her BS and asked for both orders to be dropped, which is exactly the reason I filed my order against her in the first place, and then the bailiff yelled at Mike Hilario and Ashley Azevedo again.
Maloney: Your honor this is reiterating hearsay repeatedly. The fact that an alleged arson situation is even being brought up here is totally inappropriate. This is the case of a disgruntled employee that went south. Miss Peter participated extensively in online performances that were done to elicit a strong public support. Miss Peter having worked for Mr. Kearney for the better part of 18 months used that platform as a spinoff to promote her own platform. I would suggest that neither requests to solicit an order fall within the purview for the order and I believe both should not be extended. He’s looking to move on with his life, and it was filed in part as a defensive mechanism when he was being attacked online.”
Bailiff – quiet please
12. When the Judge asked her for evidence of harassment and she confessed to shutting down our online store, which was opened using her email address.
Judge: “What are the acts of harassment?”
Kate: “He accused me of maliciously shutting down his online store. Painting me as some sort of psychotic, bitter, ex employee. That is not the case. I provided evidence to the police they did document that. I did have an account with his store it was under my personal email. After February 13 I shut down that account because why would I keep it open if I had no more affiliation?”
11. When Kate lied and said that the threatening comment she posted towards herself after hacking into the TB Facebook account was up for three hours according to the NAPD. The comment was up for less than 15 minutes. The mere fact that she hacked into the account to post this threat, and then attempted to use it as evidence of harassment in court, was exactly what I alleged her motive was.
Kate: “The post in question as the police noted as well was posted within a minute and he said it was deleted. They found out it was up for three hours. It was an extremely pointed and threatening post. I understand that he contends that (she hacked the account) but again there is absolutely no evidence I did that.”
Kate quoting me: “There is a psychopath hacking into our accounts, burning trucks, and trying to send me to jail.”
Judge: “What are you saying? He’s alleging that you’re trying to hack into his account?”
Kate: “He tried to get me prosecuted for it. The police thoroughly investigated it and I did not do that.”
1O. When she said that I made disparaging comments about her children and husband after posting screenshots of disparaging comments that she has made about her children and boyfriend, because she isn’t married and doesn’t have a husband.
“He makes disparaging comments about my children, my husband.”
9. When Kate told Attorney Maloney that she doesn’t run the Masshole Report account, refused to say who did, then admitted she had access to it, and when confronted with a comment she made using that account in which she stated that she doesn’t fear me, said that she changed her mind. And during that exchange Mike Hilario and Ashley Azevedo were reprimanded by the Judge because they wouldn’t stop making noises.
Maloney: “Do you own the platform Masshole Report?”
Kate: “I do not. I am familiar with it, I am associated with it, but I am not the owner.”
Maloney: “Who is the owner?”
Kate: “Do I really have to say that in open court?”
Maloney: “Do you have access to that handle?”
Kate: “I do.”
Maloney: “So you’re able to post using that handle?”
Kate: I am.
Maloney: “Miss Peter can you look at this document and read that please.”
Bailiff – quiet please.
Kate: This post was before the issuance of the order.
Maloney: “For clarity, this was drafted a few days before the order.”
Kate: It was drafted 10 days before.
Maloney: “Can you read it for me.”
Kate: I’m certainly not afraid of Aidan Kearney….
Maloney: “So prior to you seeking the order, you drafted a memo online that said I’m not afraid of Aidan Kearney?”
Kate: Circumstances change.
8. The many, many times the Judge made it clear to her that he doesn’t want to hear about third parties contacting her because it’s completely irrelevant.
Kate: “I have had my job threatened by individuals associated with Mr. Kearney”
Judge: You have to understand something. There is one plaintiff and one defendant in front of me. So when you mention other people it’s not germane to the question.
Kate: “Right here I do have some comments from an individual. He clearly cites the reason, the only cause I see here is Turtleboy. I’m not going to sit back and watch this drunk psycho sit back and destroy something I enjoy.”
Judge: But it’s not from Mr. Kearney, it’s another individual?
Kate: “Correct. But this individual has referenced by job over a dozen times. They’re always contained in this private Riders 2.O group.”
Judge: So it’s another person and it’s not germane to this hearing.
Kate: “I’ve also received numerous anonymous phone calls and emails to my job demanding that I be fired. Several of them reference TBS or Aidan Kearney by name.”
Judge: Are you saying he sent them?
Kate: “I couldn’t tell you who sent them. That’s one of the pitfalls of anonymity of the Internet. However, I have never had these issues with work prior to this incident.”
Kate: “He’s written, one, two, three, four, five incendiary blog posts about me. I’ve had no contact with this man. As a result of this it does incite people to act. He’s also involved with a waste called Not Turtleboy Sports which was designed just to target to me. He absolutely is connected to. Right here is a comment from someone who says Aidan told us to name it that. He also has a documented connection to the page with the profile that he uses Terrance Collie.”
7. When Kate admits to the judge that she actively participated in orchestrating harassment campaigns against me while trying to present herself as a victim of harassment.
Judge: “You say there were words that were unpleasant, what were you referring to?”
Kate: “I called him a scam artist, I said that if he’s not able to support himself with his blog and he needs to solicit donations then he needs to get a job. They weren’t nice things. They were rather pointed.”
6. When the judge made it clear that this was nothing more than an online pissing match that she equally participated in with me.
“In the testimony before the court there is an awful lot of public trash talk that you’ve prevented. It’s awful stuff. And you’re mentioning family members and you’re mentioning that this is serious. But there’s also credible evidence that in retaliation to that you’ve submitted responsive comments which were designed to poke the nose…it is in evidence ma’am, and I know that you’re shaking your head and maybe you’re disagreeing with me. But that language is in there. And that’s your words yourselves. It may not be retaliation, but it’s to that end. This sort of going back and forth. At some point our society will put statutes in place to prevent this type of behavior because as a civilized society we have to ask ourselves do we want to have our children’s lives treated in such a fashion that you both have presented to the court today, on both sides? It’s alleged on both sides. The answer is no, we don’t wanna put up with this. But to the extent that it’s out there it is not part of this case.”
5. When she admitted collecting money from an advertiser without telling me, but said she did nothing wrong because the money was never intended to go to the company she worked for and broadcasted her show off of.
Maloney: “What was the reason for your termination?”
Kate: I left because I was uncomfortable with some of the ways that he operated. It was a personal decision that I made.”
Maloney: “At any point did you receive compensation via Venmo for clientele that was intended to go towards Mr. Kearney?”
Kate: Umm, that was intended to? No.
Maloney: “Did you receive compensation via Venmo that was intended to go to the Turtleboy Sports corporation?”
Kate: Umm no, I did not.
Maloney: “I’m going to show the court officer one more picture, can you please look at the highlighted yellow.”
Kate: Yea, I said in general I should’ve consulted you about Chris but it was fucking careless not malicious. That venmo that I received was not intended to go directly through Mr. Kearney. I expressed my regret that I did not better communicate with him, but to frame it as some sort of theft is ludicrous and the business owner has stated that as well.
4. When Kate attempted to blame me for burning the company truck that she probably lit on fire on March 1, just as I predicted she would, but inadvertently gave herself away by stating that it was intentionally lit, something she would have no knowledge of if she did not start the fire.
We also had an incident where there was a truck fire intentionally lit on my property. Am I alleging that Mr. Kearney did this directly? No. But we have never had these incidents prior to this conduct. And this fire was set within four days within receiving the order.
3. When Kate attempted to say that it was OK to post a picture of my 1 year old son on Discord because it was a private forum, even though there was nearly a thousand people on there at one point, anyone could join, and she regularly shares links to the Discord group using her Facebook page and YouTube account with thousands of followers. Then justified posting a picture of a child on a public forum because she had to prove that it was possible for people other than her to know that I went to Disney in order to prove that she didn’t run the Aiden Blarney account, which she most certainly did.
Maloney: “Prior to deactivating them had you posted any information about Mr. Kearney?”
Maloney: “You didn’t post any information about him or his family?”
Kate: Public? No. Privately, yes.
Maloney: “At any point did you post pictures of Mr. Kearney’s children?”
Kate: Privately or publicly? The reason I ask your honor is because Mr. Kearney has been accessing a private Discord server that I have. I have some information about Discord it is a private platform but he continues to access it.
Maloney: “Miss Peter can you please identify this picture and specify where you posted it?”
Kate: This is a picture of Aidan Kearney, his son with a disney character during a Disney vacation that he posted to his Facebook account. It was posted privately to a private Discord server. And to elaborate on that it was to elaborate on a retort that he had mad publicly that no one knew he went to Disney. He did post pictures of Disney on his Facebook.
Maloney: “Miss Peter, is it fair to say you published pictures of Mr. Kearney and his family when you were disgruntled or concerned with the way you were treated online?”
Kate: Disgruntled? No. To refute a claim? Yes.
2. Starting off strong by lecturing the judge on being computer illiterate before citing an irrelevant DOJ 2O16 bulletin from the Attorney General’s Office, in Washington DC, that had absolutely nothing to do with a harassment order hearing in district court.
Kate: “I don’t want to presume the court’s cyber literacy or lack thereof is US DOJ cyber misbehavior attorney’s bulletin from 2016 volume 64.”
Judge: “What is it you’re reading from? This is some sort of a regulation?”
“What I need you to focus on are the allegations in this case. The question here in Massachusetts is whether the person asking for relief has been subject to harassment as defined as under our law. So it’s not so much the Attorney General or the US system, it’s what the statute in Massachusetts that governs what I have to decide.”
1. When the Judge tells her he’s not granting the order, makes it clear that both sides are posting about the other, and she shakes her head and tries to interrupt, but once again fails miserably to make a valid legal point.
Judge “Could it give rise to civil remedies? Absolutely. And those people who put this stuff out do so at their own peril. But what’s alleged before this court is that somebody is doing illegal activities for purposes of their own gain. That’s what is alleged. For both sides. The only agreement I would have is that that sort of public discourse is for another forum. It is not the basis for a harassment prevention order. Ma’am it looks like you want to get my attention.”
Kate: I would like to reiterate Mr. Kearney’s communications with me where he did explicitly communicate with me that he was intending to put me in fear. In the Zoe Quinn gamergate case….
Judge: “I have seen that this does apply. Make no mistake about it, I’m not saying that somebody that says something online is immune from liability.”
Cites Michelle Carter case as an example
“The criminality was that that person had encouraged that person to pursue suicide after abandoning it. So words have consequences folks. I’m not saying that at all. And I understand what you’re saying with the Zoe Quinn case, but under the circumstances of this case it does not meet the criteria.
Hey Kate, how do you like my “Walmart attorney” now?
Or how bout that $2K you claim you just forked over for an attorney to sue me for exposing factual things about you.
Or the wiretapping charges you’re now telling your cult members that I am facing?
Or your Turtleboy knockoff blog?
Or your accidental posting of a screenshot between you and Hadassah Robeson showing a close relationship?
In conclusion, everything I said that happened in court that day was validated with this tape. Kate and Shannon Pereira attempted to say otherwise, but clearly they lied once again. Hilario, Azevedo, Pereira, and Kate were all asked to leave the courtroom prior to this case being called as well because they were so loud during other cases, but came back in when our case was called.
Stay tuned next week for the final installations of this series.
Please consider supporting local journalism by donating to the Turtle fund:
Hello Turtle Riders. As you know if you follow Turtleboy we are constantly getting censored and banned by Facebook for what are clearly not violations of their terms of service. Twitter has done the same, and trolls mass reported our blog to Google AdSense thousands of times, leading to demonitization. We can get by and survive, but we could really use your help. Please consider donating by hitting the PayPal button above if you’d like support free speech and what we do in the face of Silicon Valley censorship. Or just buy our award winning book about the dangers of censorship and rise of Turtleboy: