Holiday Hill Marina VAGINA Finder: Libby, Audrey, Hannah & Jennifer L. Decker
(too old to reply)
2013-11-12 23:30:21 UTC
http://tinyurl.com/markwdecker - his BIGGEST LIE yet!


Just republishing what is on the internet because of Mark W.
Decker's censoring tactics

Now I know why this is info is repeated everywhere on the net
because Mr. Decker is having the search results sanitized.
What would Mr. Decker be trying to hide, oh, well read on:

Why doesn't Mark W. Decker have a professional page on LinkedIn
or Spoke or ZoomInfo highlighting his past employment history?

ANSWER: Because he has an abysmally bad and appalling business record
as a president and/or company executive replete with: 1) running the
organizations into the ground, 2) filing for corporate bankruptcy, 3)
charges of bribing federal contractors, 4) draining company finances,
5) retaliating against those who "whistle-blew" on him, etc. etc.

1) First, he worked at UNC, Inc:
Mark W. Decker, Vice President
UNC Inc.
175 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
DOB: January 7, 1957
reported age was 37 in 1993 at UNC, Inc. according to:

Mr. Decker has served as Vice President, Corporate Development since
August 1993. Previously he served as President of the Company's
Accessory Services Group since January 1992 and prior to that he
served in various senior management positions with the Company for
more than five years.

2) Second, he worked at Mentor Technologies:
Mark W. Decker, President & CEO
Mentor Technologies Group, Inc
201 Defense Highway
Annapolis, MD 21401

Mentor Technologies in Middle East deal
December 4, 2000

"Today's fast-paced information culture demands a learning system
(vLab) with the convenience and cost effectiveness of Web-based
delivery," said Mark W. Decker, president and chief executive
officer of Mentor Technologies.

Ebosswatch.com rating for Mark W. Decker with Mentor Technologies
Rated by his peers as "Unfavorable" in 7 different job categories

In 2001, Mentor Technologies ceased its operations and filed for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

3) In the Fall 2001, Mr. Decker began work at Belfort Instrument
Company and has found himself unemployed since 2005 when he was
shown the exit door by CEO & Owner Bruce R. Robinson:

Mark W. Decker, President
Belfort Instrument Company
727 South Wolfe Street
Baltimore, MD 21031

Ebosswatch.com rating with Belfort Instrument Company
Rated by his peers as "Unfavorable" in 7 different job categories

And now Belfort Instrument Company (dba DigiWx AWOS, Gamma
Scientific, UDT Instruments, Advanced Retro, RoadVista, KR
Acquisition Corporation) finds itself in United States Bankruptcy
Court as evidenced by:

Belfort Instrument Company financials are so BAD that CEO Bruce R.
Robinson has his primary residence in a trust as noted at:

You might ask "Why would someone put their home in a Trust?" at:

"Belfort's owners have "valuables" (like their homes) held in a trust
to prevent creditors (in this case, the bank that lent Belfort
Instrument Company all that money) from seizing their personal
home(s) when Belfort can't pay back the business loans. In the case
of Belfort Instrument Company, this was a smart move (some might
consider this a sneaky move also) because I pulled Belfort's credit
reports from the 3 main credit bureaus and Belfort is currently
delinquent and "past due" with several creditors by more than 90
days and in some cases 120 days. This means the money isn't coming
in fast enough from sales to pay for the company's debts. I even
found notes that some of Belfort's creditors are on a "cash only
basis" meaning Belfort needs to cough up money for goods and services
(raw materials) before another company will even sell them those goods
and services. This is NOT a pretty picture. This has been going on
for years. If you would be inclined to buy finished product from
Belfort, you may find a company which doesn't stand behind that
product because they went out of business. Info from Dun & Bradstreet
indicates turnover in this very small privately-held company at the
managerial and executive level so people's heads are probably
rolling there and it is likely only a matter of time before this
business is no more!

So who was driving these companies into the hole...... because there
is a common theme here...... his name is Mark W. Decker...... and he
lives at: 289 Long Point Road, Crownsville, MD 21032-1853. Call for
a personal appointment if you'd like to see how he can drive your
organization off a cliff!

Wanker Mark W. Decker Shatters World Masturbation Record

ATTENTION: Mark Wilson Decker is apparently posing as a photographer
based upon his Workface, LinkedIn, Posterous, Twitter About.me,
BigSight, Ziki, tBlog and Wordpress profiles --- just goes to show
you how sneaky AND creepy he really is! He's an unemployed fired POS!


Well, have a LOOK at this:
Two federal cases that specifically mention Mark W. Decker:
U.S. Department of Labor Case # 2006-SOX-57
U.S. Department of Labor Case # 2006-SOX-81

According to:

Mark Wilson Decker was investigated for:

"FAA is investigating Belfort Instrument President Mark W. Decker and
Digiwx AWOS Tech M. Tylor Burton for bribing federal FAA officials."
"DOL is investigating Belfort Instrument President Mark W. Decker
for retaliating after suing a former employee who ratted Decker
Pecker out under a federal whistleblower protection program."
Did Bruce R. Robinson, Nicholas C. Kaufman, Debra S. Alascio Lange,
Ralph F. Petragnani and M. Tylor Burton aid in this conspiracy?

And there is MORE:
All the info contained herein has been published in some form
since at least 2005. Mark Wilson Decker gave up any legal right
(he may now be asserting) a long time ago that this info is
injurious to him or his family since the statute of limitations
to bring a libel lawsuit is 1 year in each of the 50 U.S. states.

<***@utilipoint.com> wrote:

Three little w h o r e s,
Three little w h o r e s,
See how they s u c k,
See how they f u c k,
Their daddy feels them up all day,
Their daddy probes their c u n t s all day,
Their days pimps them out all nite,
They're three D e c k e r w h o r e s!

Somebody is censoring this stuff; the truth must hurt!

Onze afternoon, i wasz catchin a snooze in my backyard on a sunny
day. Much to my surprize, i lifted my hat and found my neighborz
Jenn Racey unzipping my pants. Shez gestured to me with herz indexes
finger over herz slender lips to be quiet. I say figures okay, she
then unzipped my pants and reached in and tuggzed on my big black
mamba! Immediatelzly, my blacks a mamba becomes engorged with hot
burstz of human excitementz. With a big tugz with both of herz
handz, Jennifer Lynn Racey pluckz me black mamba to a full erctionz!
Shez then opened herz mothz and slipsz it over my full manhoodz. She
gagz and coughz a bit but begins herz suckin action upz and downz!
She repeatedlyz goez faster and faster untilz i feelz my venemouz
black mamba release a massive explozion into herz mouth. At first,
shez triyz to swallow it but my venomouz fluidz keepz jaculating
in herz mouth. Then, she pullz herz head awayz with herz handz
still clenched on my black mamba. She coughz and gagz a minute over
the concretes but then placez herz lips back on myz black mamba.
Once aginz, she jerks it hard withz both handz. Again, I'z begin to
release a strong venemouz fluid at a fullz flow into herz small
mouth. Myz black mamba squirmz in herz handz as i release all of my
venemous fluid from myz snake into herz mouthz. i'z kannotz waitz
til my neighbor Jennifer Lynn Racey sneaks back over to my house for
zome afternoonz delight. Next timz, me thinks i shall let my black
mamba go hogwildz in herz anuz. If she suckz me this good next time,
i shall let myz snake ezcape in herz anuz andz give her zome my
brotherly love. Myz black mamba has neverz felt so good after
Jennifer Lynn Racey wrapped herz lipz around the big headz on meez

Mark W. Decker has a boat named Spoony:

What do you think the chances are that he has already
"spooned" and felt-up all three of his daughters (Audrey,
Hannah and Libby Decker) aboard his boat with his "vessel"
which he has a propensity to play with.... even in public!
Let's see if this causes Mark Kacucha some legal trouble:

Belfort President Mark W. Decker (U.S. Naval Academy alumnus), let
me tell you about this lowlife. Starts the workday between 9-10AM
by checking work and personal email. Come 11-11:30AM, he's ready
to go to the local gym to work out. Gets back in the office around
1PM and only then decides to take a lunch break as if the gym work-
out didn't count for a lunch break. By 1:30PM, he's checking work and
personal email and maybe making a few entires in his family diary
which he keeps at work on the company hard drive. Come 3-4PM, he's
getting anxious and is looking to wrap up his workday so he can go
home and coach soccer league for one of his three daughters.
Needless to say, all thru-out his "playful" workday, one gets to
see all his dirty nasty habits including:

1) scratching his balls,
2) stroking his c o c k,
3) farting (and then asking someone else if they farted),
4) belching,
5) biting his fingernails,
6) picking his nose (and eating the choice boogies),
7) scratching his ass,
8) picking at his toenails
9) coughing (he has a chronic productive cough... yuck)
10) he has kidney stones (and urinates with pain)

Now keep in mind that this is a US Naval Academy graduate (Class of
1979) who's motto is "don't do as I do" but "do as I say!" Makes
complete sense because he superiors in the U.S. Navy recognized his
lack of leadership very early on. That's why Lt. Decker didn't last
in the U.S. Navy and decided to enter the corporate world where he
could use his skills of conniving, lying, denying, concealing,
deceiving, and making things up!

Let's get this straight, he been with at least three different
companies over the past dozen years, all where he had a hand in
running them into the ground. Doesn't a midshipman know how to steer
a boat to prevent it from running into the ground? He's been with:

1) Unc, Inc.
2) Mentor Technologies
3) Belfort Instruments

And now there appears to be evidence that he either resigned or
was fired from Belfort Instrument Company for "poor performance."
Seems like he spent four years trying to sell DigiWx and DigiWx AWOS
and was a miserable failure at all of it while dragging down the
finances for the rest of the Belfort company. It's easy to conclude
that Mark W. Decker is "all that and a bag of chips" along with
some "s h i t" salza on the side!

How many freakin passes does this lowlife (who was born with a silver
spoon in his mouth) get? What kind of role m o d e l is he for his
three daughters Audrey, Hanna, and Libby Decker? And how about his
wife Jennifer Racey who decided to keep her maiden name (maybe
because she knew about the lowlife she married).

Why do we have lowlifes like Mark W. Decker around? This guy thinks
he the best thing since sliced bread. He doesn't think his s h i t
stinks and he doesn't think too highly of woman in general either.
Wonder how he'll explain that one to his three daughters one day?

Mark W. Decker (the "w" stands for "wiener" which he scratches)
Jennifer L. Racey (probably wife)
289 Long Point Road (assessed value of $968,280 as of 1/1/05)
Crownsville, MD 21032-1853
DOB: January 7, 1957 according to http://anybirthday.com
SSN: 212-60-0049

And then we have this:
Hannah, Audrey & Libby Decker (daughters) were found dead in a
second family home owned by Ralph P. Decker, Mary Ann Decker, Mark
W. Decker and Jennifer L. Racey according to land records available
from the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation. No
immediate cause of d e a t h was available. The second family home
is located at: 11 Silverwood Circle SILVERWOOD Unit 3, Building 11,
SC 3, Annapolis, MD 21403.

No explanation was available about how Hannah, Audrey & Libby Decker
ended up in this second family home versus the other family home at
289 Long Point Road, Crownsville, MD 21032-1853 which is noted as
being the family's primary residence according to land records
available from the Maryland State Department of Assessments and

And then this:
COCK Scratching Belfort Digiwx President Mark W. Decker

Pecker Scratching Belfort Digiwx AWOS President Mark W. Decker:

Dilbert: WHY ME?

Pecker Scratching Belfort Digiwx AWOS President Mark W. Decker: YOU


Pecker Scratching Belfort Digiwx AWOS President Mark W. Decker: JUST


Pecker Scratching Belfort Digiwx AWOS President Mark W. Decker: BID


Pecker Scratching Belfort Digiwx AWOS President Mark W. Decker: YOU

Just a typical day at Belfort Instrument Digiwx AWOS company with the
likes of Pecker Scratching Belfort Digiwx AWOS President Mark W.
Decker, Resident MURDERER Debra S. Alascio Von Lange (aka Debra
Lange), Jowl, Belly & Ass Ralph F. Petragnani, and the other THREE
STOOGES: William C. Gordon, Bruce R. Robinson and Nicholas C.

Lastly, we have this:
Belfort Instruments Digiwx has t-shirts emblazoned with the phrase:
"The Wright Brothers Relied on Us"

American history seems to tell a very different story!

There is a press release with President Mark W. Decker
name on it as the contact at:

Mr. Decker says "The Wright Brothers monitored these
(i.e. Belfort's) instruments as they prepared for
their famous flight on December 17th, 1903."


Here is what the Wright Brothers really wrote
on December 17, 1903:

"We had a 'Richard' hand anemometer with which we
measured the velocity of the wind. Measurements made
just before starting the first flight showed velocities
of 11 to 12 meters per second, or 24 to 27 miles per
hour. Measurements made just before the last flight
gave between 9 and 10 meters per second. One made just
after showed a little over 8 meters."

And then there is that indisputable picture of:

Belfort Instrument Company President Mark W. Decker
is trying to re-write history to include mention of
Belfort and/or Friez. This is a shame and a sham!
Buy anything except Belfort Instrument Digiwx AWOS
from Bruce R. Robinson and company.

MARK WILSON DECKER (Class of 1979 U.S. Naval Academy)

Mark came all the way across town to attend Canoe U. Plebe year he
became a news column regular from a starting position on the varsity
soccer team and co- captain of the plebe lax team. Youngster year
brought endless hours of study and a permanent nickname, " Max."
He strove to max all he did and was involved in everything from hang
gliding to " 4 pts. " and stars and strips. His home became the
refuge for many youngster autos and drunk classmates, none the
less the welcome mat was always out, and the hospitality was
deeply appreciated. Second class year saw the dawning of the
star fleet command of which Max was the CO. Even though Mark
had female pussy connections in nearly every college in Maryland
and Virginia, his 20-10 was primarily focused on the Ivy Leagues.
Whether commanding a squadron or managing a corporation,
you can bet Max will maximize and run it into the ground.

Last but not least:
Path: g2news1.google.com!...
From: George Orwell >
Newsgroups: md.annapolis
Subject: Mentor Technologies Mark W. Decker liked playing pocket
Message-ID: >
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 22:07:29 +0200 (CEST)

I saw where Mark W. Decker is now working at Belfort Instrumentation
as I always wonder where he went after skipping out of Dodge City
just barely when he left Mentor Technologies. If he hadn't left
in 2001, Decker would have been shown the exit after his dismal
performance at Mentor. The thing I will always remember about Decker
was his passion for playing pocket pool, the kind one plays when
they have something nasty growing in their crotch out of control. I
mean get some Desenex or something for that jungle rot. He was
absolutely icky just watching him work his hands in his pants pocket
as he attempted to reach his private parts in search of a much
needed scratch. Several coworkers wondered exactly why he scratched
his crotch in public for everyone to see and notice. I guess he
figured that he could be a Baltimore Oriole Cal Ripkin on the
baseball diamond and nobody would notice, well many people did
notice and found it disgusting and repulsive to say the least.
I always wonder what his wife must have growing in her crotch as a
result of him passing along his germs and god knows what else to
her. Anybody at Belfort Instrumetnation seen Decker digging at his
pecker in public? I would bet he still is!

Belfort Instruments suing fired worker Mark W. Decker

A Baltimore manufacturer of weather instruments is suing a fired
employee it claims is on an anonymous Internet rampage. Belfort
Instrument says Mark W. Decker has been harassing current Belfort
employees via e-mail, calling the company's customers and partners
alleging unethical business practices, and posting trade secrets on
the Internet. Defendant Decker has an alarming history of engaging
in such 'anonymous' Internet attacks against those who he believes
may have slighted him (including past employers), and, absent a TRO,
will continue his historical pattern of making outrageous & harmful
attacks against the material business interests of Belfort
Instrument, reads Belfort's complaint, filed earlier this month in
Baltimore County Circuit Court. Belfort, which obtained a temporary
restraining order against Decker on Nov. 15, is suing him for
misappropriating trade secrets, breach of contract, defamation and
tortious interference with contractual relations. The company is
seeking $1M. After consulting with his client, Belfort attorney Doug
W. Desmarais declined to speak about the case. My client's position
is that this is a dispute that they have chosen to resolve through
legal channels, and they're going to let it play out through legal
channels, Desmarais said. Decker could not be located for com-
ment; his phone number is unlisted and a reverse search of his
Annapolis, MD address produced no results. According to the
complaint, when Decker started working for Belfort in 2001, he
signed a contract promising that, if he left the company, for two
years afterward he would not say negative things about it; if he
did, he would face court action. He is also bound by the Maryland
Uniform Trade Secrets Act not to divulge privileged information,
Belfort says. Decker was fired on Oct. 20 of this year and then
started to harass his ex-girlfriend, still a Belfort employee, via
e- mail, the suit reads. He also allegedly emailed the company's
general mailbox anonymously, promising to fight back against
the company and drive it out of business. The company also
claims he called their customers and made untrue allegations.
Decker also used an Internet newsgroup to criticize the Belfort
product he had been in charge of marketing, the DigiWx AWOS digital
weather transmitter, calling it DigiSHIT, Belfort claims. He also
allegedly listed which of Belfort's customers were using DigiWx. The
motion does not state how Belfort knows that Decker is behind the
anonymous e-mails, phone calls and Internet postings, but a letter
from Desmarais to Decker warns that Belfort can easily trace the
communications to Decker. Belfort also claims that Decker has a
history of using pseudonyms to criticize whoever has offended [him]
on a particular day. Indeed, a search of Google's newsgroups shows
lots of chatter about Decker, including several posts purporting to
unmask him as the anonymous source of negative comments about

Does anyone have anything good to say about Belfort's Digiwx AWOS?


BUY Belfort Instruments DigiWx-SHIT... Have a PILE OF SHIT

Google Belfort Instruments owners and managers:

Meet the Decker Family of Phantom Shitters:

Rest in Hell Decker Family:


Here's some MORE links for the Mark Wilson Decker Shitting Clan:







Ralph Pryor Decker
Holiday Hill Marina Owner
3912 Calawasse Road
Edgewater, MD 21037
Owns the Shiloh III which he masturbates all over!




Deborah Ann Bradford (nee: Decker)
Blythe T. Bradford III
917 Ridgewood Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401-3345


David Wayne Decker (divorced from Lisa Marie Scott)
Decker Construction Company
342 Hall Road
Crownsville, MD 21032-1821



Looking for this LOSER in Annapolis, MD...
2013-11-13 00:59:24 UTC
Why are you so angry at this Decker guy?

Did you lose a job, investment or what?

If he can't sue you for libel then
why don't you identify yourself?
Robert Baer
2013-11-13 14:40:32 UTC
Post by Greegor
Why are you so angry at this Decker guy?
Did you lose a job, investment or what?
If he can't sue you for libel then
why don't you identify yourself?
This idiot has a fetish; unending until he dies.
2013-11-13 03:51:49 UTC
Post by Greegor
Why are you so angry at this Decker guy?
Did you lose a job, investment or what?
If he can't sue you for libel then
why don't you identify yourself?
Is your news client fucked up again, and you are posting your pussy
group horseshit into this group?

Chill, dipshit. Ya fucking kook.
2013-11-13 02:28:15 UTC
Are you Mark Stephen Scarborough, 58 of Townville, SC
or Mark Anthony Kukucka, 53 of Kingsville, MD
who got fired by Mark W Decker at
Belfort Instrument Company sometime before 2005?
2013-11-13 03:36:41 UTC
Post by Greegor
Are you Mark Stephen Scarborough, 58 of Townville, SC
or Mark Anthony Kukucka, 53 of Kingsville, MD
who got fired by Mark W Decker at
Belfort Instrument Company sometime before 2005?
Is there ever a time or a group where you are not fucking with
someone, you miserable piece of shit?

Take your retarded, off-topic stupidity and stick it up your ass.
2013-11-13 20:03:28 UTC
Why do you feel so picked on, Nymbecile? LOL



MARK A. KUKUCKA * * C-2008-135175


Upon consideration of all pending petitions and motions, oppositions thereto, and hearings having been held, it
is this 10th day of January 2011, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland,

Procedural History:

This case is about tracing and removing anonymous defamatory internet publications.

The plaintiff, Mark Decker (Decker) in this case is the former employer of the defendant, Mark Kukucka
(Kukucka). Decker is the past President of Belfort Instruments Digiwx AWOS. He fired Kukucka who
allegedly retaliated with defamatory statements about Decker. Later, Decker, too was fired.

On October 7, 2008. Decker filed a Petition for Injunctive Relief against Kukucka alleging that he posted
anonymous defamatory publications about Decker and his family on the internet. On the same date a temporary
restraining order was granted. On October 27, 2008 a preliminary injunction was granted.
Neither matter was contested.

On March 27, 2010 this court granted a permanent injunction after a contested hearing held on March 17th. The
court found Kukucka responsible for several postings on an internet news group and ordered him to remove them
from the websites to which they were posted. The court further enjoined Kukucka (prospectively) “from directly
or indirectly posting on any website any defamatory statements against Plaintiff or his family or engaging in
any conduct that is subject to any penalty under Maryland or Federal law.” On April 9, 2010 Kukucka
filed a Petition to Alter or Amend the permanent injunction order.

Shortly thereafter, Decker filed an Emergency Petition for Civil Contempt of this court’s March
order alleging that Kukucka violated the Permanent Injunction by continuing to post defamatory, obscene and
harassing statements against Decker and his family. That petition was heard by the Honorable Philip
Caroom on June 16 and 17, 2010. At the end of the hearings, Judge Caroom filed a carefully reasoned
written opinion assessing little or no credibility on the part of Kukucka and finding him
responsible for several more defamatory internet postings than the ones set out in the Permanent
Injunction Order. These publications post-dated the permanent injunction. Judge Caroom also
ordered that Kukucka search the websites where these statements were posted and then make a good faith effort
to remove them. Kukucka filed a Second Petition to Alter or Amend Judgment on July 12, 2010. Judge Caroom
scheduled a review hearing on July 21, 2010 to ensure compliance with his order.

This court conducted that hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing on July 21
this court ordered Kukucka to perform certain actions designed to investigate further the alleged
defamatory postings while allowing Decker to file another petition for contempt if any further postings
occurred in the meantime. Decker filed a (second) Petition for Contempt and Kukucka filed a Motion
to Dismiss. This court held hearings on all pending motions and petitions on December 3
and 7th, 2010 and took the case
sub curia
. This opinion addresses all outstanding motions and petitions.

Kukucka’s defense to all of the defamatory postings is that Decker has not provided sufficient evidence to
prove that he posted them. In fact, at his hearings in December he presented evidence indicating that
they were posted by a bipolar individual from Townville, S.C. named Mark Scarborough.

Internet Postings

“The internet is an extremely open system with very low barriers to access and use.” Vint Cerf, Goggle VP
and co-author of the TCP/IP system.

The issues raised in this case concern the authentication of the postings; namely, the authorship of the
content and once authenticated, the way or ways to remove them. Authorship for purposes of this case
involves the identification of the person who first published the message. It does not involve those who
may have republished the message, or the server through which the message was published. Suffice it to
say that Congress has immunized re-publishers and servers under the Communication Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C
§230 as described below. Accordingly, this case involves potentially actionable material not immunized by
the CDA or the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In order to make sense out of this case, which may be one of first impression in Maryland, it might be helpful
to observe a few things about the internet itself. Presumably, the court can take judicial
knowledge of these observations because anyone who wants to learn about internet postings will come up with the
same common knowledge.

Through the Communication Decency Act (CDA) Congress made the legislative judgment to effectively immunize
providers of interactive computer services from civil liability in tort with respect to material disseminated
by them but created by others. In recognition of the speed with which information may be disseminated, and the
near impossibility of regulating information content, Congress decided not to treat providers of interactive
computer services like other information providers such as newspapers, magazines or television and radio
stations, all of which may be held liable for publishing or distributing obscene or defamatory material written
or prepared by others. While Congress could have made a different policy choice, it opted not to hold
interactive computer services liable for their failure to edit, withhold, or restrict access to offensive
material disseminated through their medium.

The principal provider of access to the internet in this case is Google, specifically a server identified as
the Google Group. Google Group contains the world’s most comprehensive archive of Usenet postings dating
back to 1981. Using Google Group allows a user to search this archive the same way one would search the
world wide web. Moreover, a user can use Google Group to post one’s own comments to an existing Usenet
newsgroup. This encourages discussion in a format which allows users (ordinarily) to state their
innermost thoughts and defamatory, obscene and vicious statements free from civil recourse by their victims.
Google does not monitor these newsgroups, but it does provide a way to remove postings from a particular
site through specific court orders to do so. Although the CDA provides immunity for a publisher, it does not
provide immunity for an author.
47 U.S.C §230.

Usenet is an online bulletin board system that began at Duke University in 1979. Usenet users can post messages
to newsgroups that can be read (and responded to) by anyone who has access to the system through a newsreader.
Over the years, the number of newsgroups has grown into the thousands; they are hosted all over the world and
cover every conceivable topic.

Identifying the author is problematic and is the condition precedent to the plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief in this case. That is because the internet is nothing if it is not open and confidential.
What the Maryland Court of Appeals said in the defamation case of
Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie
. 407 Md. 415 (2009) bears repeating here: "Since the early 1990's, when Internet
communications became available to the American public, anonymity or pseudonymity has been a part of the
Internet culture."..a user "can choose not to provide" the user's real name.
. at 425, 424 n.3. The court noted that instead, users may join the online community anonymously, by
registering under password and user names that are self-selected and confidential. Access to the profile may be
obtained by logging in on the Web site with the confidential user name and password.
at 425. The court further observed that other social networking site features preserve the veil of
anonymity or pseudonymity, by allowing members to communicate electronically using their chosen screen names,
both via private message sent to other members, as an alternative to traditional e-mail in which "users
generally know with whom they are communicating",
. at 422, and via an "in-house" instant messaging option that allows members to conduct real-time "chats" with
other members by use of their screen names. Social networking sites and blogs (weblogs) are sophisticated tools
of communication where the user voluntarily provides information that the user wants to share with
at 424.

Faced with this background of an open, but potentially abusive form of communication, Decker carried a heavy
burden to unmask Kukucka as the author of the defamatory posts involving him and his family. In short,
Decker was tasked to authenticate thousands of defamatory posts ostensibly identified by anonymous screen names
and aliases and prove they came from Kukucka.


Kukucka filed a petition to alter or amend this court’s permanent injunction order of March 27, 2010 on two

That there was insufficient evidence authenticating the identity of Kukucka.

That someone else was the author of the posts.

As to the first ground:

At the permanent injunction hearing this court found that two defamatory postings were attributable to Kukucka.
They were posted under the aliases “awos” and “deckerpecker” on
respectively. The court found that the circumstantial evidence surrounding those postings more
likely so than not proved that Kukucka authored them. Those were only two of many anonymous postings that
Decker attempted to prove came from Kukucka. Decker testified that he never found any disparaging
statements about him or his family before Kukucka was terminated from Belfort.

To date, very few Maryland courts have dealt with the authentication of ESI (electronic storage information).
The seminal case seems to be the federal case of
Lorraine v. Markel Am. Ins
., 241 F.R.D. 534 (D Md. 2007) in which the Hon. Paul Grimm discussed the applicability of the Federal Rules of
Evidence in authenticating electronic evidence. Maryland’s appellate courts have addressed the
issue in the
case and the very recent criminal case of
Griffin v. State
, 192 Md. App. 518 (2010);
granted 415 Md. 607 (2010).

is particularly instructive since it provides criteria a trial court judge should consider in determining the
source of a publication. It cites, with approval, the illustrative criteria set forth in Md. Rule
5-901(b)(4). The Rule provides, by way of illustration, that circumstantial evidence, such as
“appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, location, or other distinctive characteristics”, may be
sufficient to establish that the offered evidence is what it is claimed to be.

As to the anonymous postings identified with the acronym AWOS (automated weather operating system) this court
found that by virtue of the time the posts were made, shortly after Kukucka was fired, his identification with
an AWOS product known as “digiwx”, the content of the posts compared with similar disparaging accusations
against his employers and importantly, because he had admitted his use of the term in the past, they were
admitted into evidence.

As to the anonymous “deckerpecker” postings, the court admitted those because the content was known
particularly to Kukucka, they were similar to other posts with identical content linked to Kukucka, and they
were first posted shortly after Kukucka was fired.

Kukucka’s arguments that “awos” is not a unique term and that there was insufficient proof to link him to the
“deckerpecker” alias ignore the timing of these posts and their particular linkage to the marketing activities
of Kukucka who was in charge of the AWOS technology before he was fired. His further argument that these
aliases or screen names could have been authored by others, including Decker himself, is unsupported by any
persuasive evidence.

Accordingly, defendant’s petition to alter or amend the preliminary injunction is denied. The second
ground is addressed in detail below.

Petition to Alter or Amend Judge Caroom’s Order

Kukucka also filed a petition to alter or amend Judge Caroom’s order enrolled on July 1, 2010 based on similar
grounds as stated in his prior petition.

As to the first ground relating to insufficient evidence, Judge Croom’s written opinion addressed that in
meticulous detail.

As to the second ground that someone other than Kukucka was responsible for the posts this court declines to
rule on that because Judge Caroom has not had an opportunity to assess this new weapon in Kukucka’s defensive
arsenal; namely, the discovery of the alleged real author of all of the defamatory postings.

The Second Petition for Contempt and Motion to Dismiss

Decker contends that Kukucka should be held in contempt of both injunction orders. The permanent
injunction order enjoined Kukucka (prospectively) “from directly or indirectly posting on any website any
defamatory statements against Plaintiff or his family or engaging in any conduct that is subject to any penalty
under Maryland or Federal law.” Decker’s contempt petition contends Kukucka has continued to post
defamatory material about him in violation of both the permanent injunction order and Judge Caroom’s order.
Additionally, he contends that Kukucka has not complied with Judge Caroom’s order to remove certain
postings from the internet. Kukucka has filed a motion to strike the petition for contempt.

The court will treat these pleadings together because they raise the same issues. This court takes the
position that it has been asked not to determine the correctness of Judge Caroom’s order but rather to
determine whether Kukucka has complied with it. Basically, Kukucka has mounted a two prong attack on Decker’s
contempt petition; one, that he is not the author of any of the defamatory posts and two that in any event, he
has complied with the removal order.

Post Injunctive Defamatory Material

All of the evidence in this regard was raised before this court during the March, July and December hearings.
This court reserved its rulings on this issue until now. Those postings were identified in Decker’s
petition for contempt and in his trial testimony. They were fully addressed by Kukucka in his motion to
alter or amend, his motion to strike and his trial testimony. They all involved anonymous posters or
remailers who were identified by Kukucka’s expert as either “trolls” or “spoofers” (see discussion

But in order to determine whether Kukucka has continued to post defamatory statements in violation of either of
the injunctive orders, the court must first address Kukucka’s primary defense that it was someone else who did

The Six Publications Identified to Kukucka

Kukucka has presented evidence through two experts in forensic internet science that it is more likely so than
not that Kukucka is not the author of those internet postings (and others like them). He argues that he
has had his personal and business computer hard drives searched at considerable expense to determine whether
they contained any data or metadata related to any defamatory posts to any website. There were none found
on the drives he furnished to his expert witness, Donna Eno of Computer Forensics Associates.

Kukucka presented an expert witness, Phillip Mellinger, Chief Scientist for Trusted Knight Corp. a company
specializing in cyber-security. Mellinger reviewed hundreds of defamatory postings involving Decker and
his family and concluded that they were written by an individual named Mark Scarborough in Townville, S.C.
Mellinger traced these records to Scarborough after Kukucka subpoenaed the records of Scarborough’s IP
service provider. Mellinger opined that Scarborough was a “troll” and a “spoofer” who in internet
security terms trolled the internet looking for material with which to start web fights by appropriating, or
spoofing, someone else’s address as if it was their own.

Mellinger testified that the surest, and possibly only way, to trace the certain identity of a poster who uses
anonymous or pseudononymous screen names is to locate the IP address as discussed above. Without the IP
address one cannot tell where any anonymous posting comes from. He further stated that his area of
expertise stops in criminal cases where the government’s begins with its ability to obtain search warrants to
seize computer hard drives and search for admissible evidence of suspected criminal activity. This is
because network addresses must be unique by nature of the internet and design rules that have evolved; and any
network traffic associated with an IP address is also unique to that IP address.

The Scarborough Profile per AT&T

Kukucka’s paramount argument is that Mark Scarborough is responsible for all of the defamatory postings Decker
attributes to Kukucka. His smoking gun, so to speak, is an IP address that has been identified by an IP
document subpoenaed from an IP service account that specifically profiles Mark Scarborough. The profile
is set forth in Defendant’s Exhibit F. According to the exhibit used by Kukucka’s expert witness, on
August 28, 2010
a posting on the newsgroup known as
was traced directly to a poster who was NOT Kukucka. The posting discussed a quoted message from a Brian
Whatcott relating to Kukucka and hate mail against Decker. That exhibit was obtained by subpoena from the
Manager of Internet Legal Compliance for AT&T’s Internet Services. It states under Contact
Information that an individual with the username of
had an AT&T account belonging to Mark S. Scarborough with a phone number and street address in Townville,
S.C. According to AT&T the username is an “Enabled PPP login (and) the primary Email ID for ‘Mark
Brown’”. The account was active (and still is) during the dates relevant to these proceedings and
was first established on April 13, 2009. Titled “MPS & Email Provisioning” it states that
“Mark Brown” is identified with a “handle” known as “markiv200", a “domain” name of “att.net”, an “email”
address of
and more importantly, for purposes of Kukucka’s main argument a “contact email” address of
This exhibit also identifies two “Child Accounts” associated with the AT&T account; namely,
The point is that this post about Kukucka and Decker, although quoting an individual named Brian Whatcott, was
traced to Mark Scarborough who used a screen name of Agent Gibbs from the blueriverday e-mail

The Blueriverday Argument

Besides the August 28, 2010 posting discussed above, Kukucka presented four other publications (Def Ex R)
from March 30, 2010 to April 2, 2010 that his expert opined came from Mark Scarborough. All four messages
came from
They were posted on several newsgroups one of which refers to Belfort Instrument, Decker and Kukucka’s
former employer, one of which purportedly is evidence of Mark Scarborough quoting himself trolling about Ari
Silverstein and one which, again, quotes a defamatory post about Decker. They were apparently offered to
show that Scarborough was clearly in the game as early as March 30
,just after the date of the Permanent Injunction Order.

Mellinger also testified that he reviewed over 9000 postings from blueriverday and certain court documents he
identified as coming from Scarborough between January and September 2010 and matched them to the profile
provided by AT&T. With one exception, the 8/28/2010 posting discussed above, none of these referred
to Decker or Kukucka. The thrust of Mellinger’s testimony was to show that Scarborough had a proclivity to be
angry about unrelated matters and that, inferentially, he must have had a hand in all of the Decker posts
attributed to Kukucka.

Melllinger also testified that Scarborough used multiple screen names, to wit, Napoleon Solo, Pablo Escobar and
Agent Gibbs to bolster his opinion that the defamatory messages about Decker could have come from him and not
from Kukucka.
Def Ex Q. Mellinger could provide no expert opinion that any of these posts were not written by Kukucka.
And he said that posters could put anything they wanted in allegedly quoted messages. The only
point he could make with reliable authority was that these messages did not come from either of the two hard
drives Kukucka furnished to Ms. Eno.

On cross examination Mellinger acknowledged that he did not investigate Kukucka’s screen names, did not know
his email address, and did not look at his hard drive at his place of employment.

Decker has largely ignored the testimony of Kukucka’s experts and has argued that the hard drive examination
was limited only to what Kukucka sent to Ms. Eno and that the expert evidence concerning Scarborough is
“worthless” or
de minimis
. He also testified that he believes Kukucka has done exactly what he accuses Mark Scarborough of doing; that
is, stealing or adopting Scarborough’s identity of blueriverday email address and the aliases associated with

Here Decker has the better argument. Even without the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of anonymous
publications that repeat the same defamatory statements about Decker and his children, there were enough to
convince two trial judges that Kukucka was the author of some of them. That his fingerprints are on some
leads this court to suspect (without deciding) that he is responsible for many of the others. Trolls,
notwithstanding, it was Kukucka who threw the first stone in the internet waters shortly after he was fired by
Decker. Circumstantial evidence in the opinion of two trial court judges make it more likely than not
that Kukucka was the author of at least six postings that clearly disparage Decker and his family. Decker
is not required to prove and this court does not have to find that every one of the countless anonymous
postings about Decker can be traced back to Kukucka.

Moreover, what Mellinger said about Scarborough’s proclivity to troll and spoof could also be said for Kukucka.
And it is more reasonable to believe that the content of the posts was linked more with Kukucka’s
relationship with Decker than with Scarborough’s relationship with Decker. Decker testified he did not
know Scarborough. This court finds that it is more likely than not that Kukucka adopted the blueriverday
alias and is in violation of both injunctive orders that prohibited post-injunction defamation.

It may well be that there are other defamatory posts that a court of competent jurisdiction could find
attributable to Kukucka if Decker met the requisite evidentiary hurdles. For example, Decker testified that he
suspected Kukucka posted some publications substituting his name for Decker’s. Indeed, Decker attempted
to admit hundreds of others by affidavit and oral argument during these proceedings but these were the only six
the court has identified. Courts, like Hamlet, need grounds more relative than those

Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to strike is denied and the plaintiff’s petition for contempt is granted in

Whether Judge Caroom may be persuaded to exculpate Kukucka and find Mark Scarborough as a sort of bipolar
troller responsible for the post-injunctive publications is not for this court to say. Kukucka remains
free to bring that up with Judge Caroom in light of this opinion.

The Removal of Certain Postings

Decker also contends that Kukucka is in violation of the Permanent Injunction Order and Judge Caroom’s order by
failing to make a good faith effort to remove certain postings from the internet. He has presented
argument that there are thousands of other anonymous publications that are attributable to Kukucka.
However, for purposes of the contempt of court arguments there were only two identified in
the Permanent Injunction Order as discussed above and four in Judge Caroom’s Order. They are as

“Dave U. Random” and address “***@anonymitaet-im-inter.net”

“Nomen Nescio” and address “***@dizum.com,”

“Anne Onime” and address “***@rip.ax.lt,”

“anonymous remailer” and address “***@remailer.privacy.at,”

To the extent that Kukucka has presented evidence of his efforts to remove those postings, this court cannot
say that he is in contempt of those court orders. He has presented evidence that he wrote Google (where these
posts originated) at the address to which Google directed requests for removal of abusive publications be sent
together with copies of both court orders. He has also provided evidence of writing dozens of other
domains all over the world where these publications have likely originated with the same removal requests and
copies of court orders. He has further presented evidence through an expert witness of the enormous
difficulty in achieving removal of defamatory posts from the internet. Decker testified that he has spent
hundreds of hours attempting to get the offensive posts removed from various websites. Mellinger
confirmed that difficulty in his testimony. Proxy sites are impossible to monitor. These enable a
user to bypass one’s own Internet provider altogether and browse through the proxy web site. All that the user
has to do is type in the web site address and begin browsing and posting. The user’s real IP address is
not seen or traceable.

In short, Decker has not persuasively rebutted that evidence. This court believes Kukucka has made
a good faith effort to do so and cannot find him in contempt of those court orders.

Accordingly, the plaintiff’s petition for contempt is denied in part.

The Remedy

This is an injunctive relief case and the court is constrained by the limited sanctions provided by Md. Rule
15-207 for constructive civil contempt. In the first place, the rule does not permit attorney fees
to the prevailing party
. Bahena v. Foster
, 164 Md. App 275, 289 (2005). Secondly, although this court has found Kukucka in contempt of
proscriptive conduct set out in two court orders relating to future defamatory postings, it has not found him
in contempt of his efforts to remove past postings.

Sanctions in a civil contempt proceeding serve to coerce a defendant into future compliance with a court’s
injunction or order. The court is also mindful that a defendant must be given the right to purge a finding of
contempt. Kukucka has complied with part of the court’s order to remove defamatory posts but has not complied
with the other part of stopping them. The court has recognized the enormous task required to do so and
believes that it will be impossible to remove all of these postings.

Accordingly, the court will order Kukucka to continue his attempt to remove from the internet all publications
identified in this opinion that disparage Mark Decker, his wife Janet, or his three daughters.
Decker will monitor his efforts and bring to the court’s attention any evidence Kukucka has not been
diligent in those efforts. Kukucka will be required to retain, at his expense, an independent third-party
(selected by Decker and approved by the court) with sufficient expertise to address and attempt to accomplish
this undertaking.

While all of the disparaging posts should be addressed, the court is most keenly concerned at the outset of
this undertaking with those posts that mention or relate to Decker’s daughters. The court will set a
follow-up hearing on the progress of the compliance 90 days after the date of its Order. At that time Kukucka
will provide the court with evidence of those efforts.


James J. Lombardi, Judge
2013-11-14 05:56:53 UTC
Post by Greegor
Why do you
Why do you post 671 lines of retarded off-topic horseshit?

Oh... that's right.. Because you ARE a fucking retard.

You are not "neurotypical". You are neuroretarded, self induced.

Fuck Off And Die, little mental midget dumbfuck.
Gib Bogle
2013-11-13 21:48:03 UTC
Post by Greegor
Are you Mark Stephen Scarborough, 58 of Townville, SC
or Mark Anthony Kukucka, 53 of Kingsville, MD
who got fired by Mark W Decker at
Belfort Instrument Company sometime before 2005?
I am not.
2013-11-14 13:09:11 UTC
Thank you Gib.