Has Naked Departure Crossed the Line?

Veronica_Cutting

Veronica Cutting

BU and many Barbadians are familiar with the website called Naked Departure run by Veronica S. Cutting. Our question: has Naked Departure crossed the line?

There is no doubt Cutting’s website has caused Barbadians to pay attention, mainly because of a high salacious content. The BU household has been quietly observing the rise of Naked Departure and we have resisted, until now, publicly commenting on the website. There is the popular saying to whom much is given much is expected. Given the explosion of the social media it has provided ordinary citizens with the platform to promulgate opinions that can be read by untold numbers across the globe in just seconds. BU do what we do because we love Barbados and although we will get our keyboards dirty from time to time, we try our level best to minimize collateral damage to the innocent. For example, when we have to call names we are usually sure we have gotten it right. In the odd case we have gotten it wrong we were quick to retrieve the situation and extend an apology. This approach has worked well for us for the last 9 years and is reflected in the quality of participation on the blog.

Although some stories posted on Naked Departure are true we are aware that many are not. The policy of Naked Departure appears to be one of posting all messages and videos received and deal with the fallout when it comes.  The BU household believes Sherri and Naked Departure have a lot in common. One common factor is that from behind our dashboards we see and smell the stench that exist away from the nostrils of an unsuspecting public. And it makes us so damn angry that we are driven to want to do something to make a difference. Perhaps where our philosophy and approach differ  is that the BU household understands social media tools must not be used to intentionally harm the innocent.

To answer the question posed above: has Ms Sherri Cutting gone too far? We respectfully say that she has.

Let us constructively review a few recent postings on Naked Departure to build a case.

“Kaneisha Taylor’s Mother, Kerryann, is a Whore” photo of a child under the age of 18, which, without the consent of both parents, is illegal in most countries.

“ADRIEL BRATHWAITE, a Banker is turning Windmill Hot Sauce into Cocaine in Canada, USA, UK”. If someone is manufacturing cocaine out of hot sauce in Canada and the USA, it is outside of Adriel’s jurisdiction. Instead of tipping off the people who are alleged to be are carrying out this criminal enterprise, Sherri ought to have reported her concerns to the relevant law enforcement authorities in the USA and Canada.

“Carl Moore of Nation News Barbados vs. The Naked Truth”. Sherri and Naked Departure describes the Nation News as, “the bordello of a cesspool”. Sherri shares what constitutes truth in defamation, “The TRUTH CANNOT BE DISPROVED!” Surely what must be considered is that the truth needs to be proved first.

“The Abed’s Made Their Money from Slavery”. Sherri alleges that they employed university students at below minimum wage to work on their various projects. There is no supporting documentation for the allegation that Abed paid below minimum wages and surely the concept of no concept of  “slavery” does not apply in this case.

It is not the motive of BU to be malicious in our critique of Naked Departure. However, we believe Sherri and crew should appreciate that our feedback is heartfelt.  Respect and integrity must be earned based on actions and behaviours displayed over time.  Blindly damaging the reputations of innocent people is not fair. There is still the opportunity for Naked Departure, Barbados Underground and other social media sites to highlight and report injustices and provide a voice for those who otherwise would have none.

To whom much is given much is expected.

Sherri, please hear our cry!

218 comments

  • There she was sayig something about know statute of limitations. She has tripped up. Statute of limitations is two years where she is at. The fact , she mentions statute of limitations to suggest she thinks she is scott free and time has ran out when statute of limitations is not barred. Shows she is aware she is committing crimes the more she says the better for a case. Not that I am shocked. Because I will press charges against her. A year of being harassed , stalked and the victim of cyber crimes. She posted *ALLEGED Revenge Porn and admitted to doing so though she said she was banned for this suspended for dirty pics no the criminal term is Revenge porn the state she resides in this is a crime prosecutable and indcitable as well. Screensaving. building a case has been time consuming. It threw me for a loop to be victimized and cyber stalked, harassed and bullied but “Thank Goodness there are laws to protect victims like myself. I will go to heaven and hell and every corner of the universe to see she faces the justice she deserves for the injustices. No she can not hide out in Canada we have an agreement with Canada and once she is charged in the US she can and will be extradited here. We exradite Canadians back to Canada and Canada back to the USA. They have access to our FBI data base and we have reciprocity agreements . She can not seek amenesty because the evidence is abundant. She can however be stripped of her US NATURALIZED citizenship which comes with conditions and not only exratdited but deported. See getting her charged in the USA makes grounds for all this all the more stronger. I put up with enough of being bullied. I am INTJ personality. I am a strong soul I care about others and someone who is imhumane as she is and far far from a humanitarian gets under my skin. I was told by police and lawyers to send cease and desist steps to getting a permanent injunction seattle here I come. She has been warned the fact she has been banned twice suspended from facebook and Word Press twice. ( Two liberal sites ) only makes the case in the USA Stronger and the articles about her crossing the line which she has and the fact she is wanted for prosecution in Barbados all makes building a case against her stronger.

    Like

  • HAD NOT FOR ND WE WOULD NOT KNOW ALOT OF THINGS, BUT SHERI DON’T LIVE HERE SO SOME ONE OR MANY IS FEEDING HER INFO THAT COULD VERY WELL BE IN THE KNOW, ANY WAY I’M HAPPY UR BACK ON LINE, CAN’T TOUCH YA

    Like

  • RCW 9.61.260 Two years to file for Gross Misdemeanor and then get an injunction no contact order cease and desist who represents the victims police, DA, same police she has publically bashed will be working to get an indictment after order is in place any violation is seen as contempt of court and goes to a felony charge. You can not stalk, harass, intimdate your victims like this. Law is against this not pro cyberabuse. Barbadians can file in the state she is sending this from know statute of limitations is two years plenty of time. The Police investigate prepare case for DA she has to either take a public defender or pay a private criminal lawyer which will be costly in cases like this 20,000 US and upwards . Public defenders work on small salaries sadly and case overloaded and DA;s try cases they feel they can win here
    Cyberstalking.
    (1) A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party:
    (a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act;
    (b) Anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation occurs; or
    (c) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the person called or any member of his or her family or household.
    (2) Cyberstalking is a gross misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.
    (3) Cyberstalking is a class C felony if either of the following applies:
    (a) The perpetrator has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, with the same victim or a member of the victim’s family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact order or no-harassment order in this or any other state; or
    (b) The perpetrator engages in the behavior prohibited under subsection (1)(c) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.
    (4) Any offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been committed either at the place from which the communication was made or at the place where the communication was received.
    (5) For purposes of this section, “electronic communication” means the transmission of information by wire, radio, optical cable, electromagnetic, or other similar means. “Electronic communication” includes, but is not limited to, electronic mail, internet-based communications, pager service, and electronic text messaging.
    [ 2004 c 94 § 1.]
    NOTES:
    Severability—2004 c 94: “If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.” [ 2004 c 94 § 6.]
    Effective dates—2004 c 94: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [March 24, 2004], except for section 3 of this act, which takes effect July 1, 2004.” [ 2004 c 94 § 7.]

    Like

  • NOTES:
    Harassment: RCW 9A.36.080, chapter 10.14 RCW.

    9A.46.010
    Legislative finding.

    The legislature finds that the prevention of serious, personal harassment is an important government objective. Toward that end, this chapter is aimed at making unlawful the repeated invasions of a person’s privacy by acts and threats which show a pattern of harassment designed to coerce, intimidate, or humiliate the victim.
    The legislature further finds that the protection of such persons from harassment can be accomplished without infringing on constitutionally protected speech or activity.
    [ 1985 c 288 § 1.]

    9A.46.020
    Definition—Penalties.

    (1) A person is guilty of harassment if:
    (a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
    (i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or
    (ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the actor; or
    (iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical confinement or restraint; or
    (iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and
    (b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. “Words or conduct” includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication.
    (2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who harasses another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
    (b) A person who harasses another is guilty of a class C felony if any of the following apply: (i) The person has previously been convicted in this or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim’s family or household or any person specifically named in a no-contact or no-harassment order; (ii) the person harasses another person under subsection (1)(a)(i) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person; (iii) the person harasses a criminal justice participant who is performing his or her official duties at the time the threat is made; or (iv) the person harasses a criminal justice participant because of an action taken or decision made by the criminal justice participant during the performance of his or her official duties. For the purposes of (b)(iii) and (iv) of this subsection, the fear from the threat must be a fear that a reasonable criminal justice participant would have under all the circumstances. Threatening words do not constitute harassment if it is apparent to the criminal justice participant that the person does not have the present and future ability to carry out the threat.
    (3) Any criminal justice participant who is a target for threats or harassment prohibited under subsection (2)(b)(iii) or (iv) of this section, and any family members residing with him or her, shall be eligible for the address confidentiality program created under RCW 40.24.030.
    (4) For purposes of this section, a criminal justice participant includes any (a) federal, state, or local law enforcement agency employee; (b) federal, state, or local prosecuting attorney or deputy prosecuting attorney; (c) staff member of any adult corrections institution or local adult detention facility; (d) staff member of any juvenile corrections institution or local juvenile detention facility; (e) community corrections officer, probation, or parole officer; (f) member of the indeterminate sentence review board; (g) advocate from a crime victim/witness program; or (h) defense attorney.
    (5) The penalties provided in this section for harassment do not preclude the victim from seeking any other remedy otherwise available under law.
    [ 2011 c 64 § 1; 2003 c 53 § 69; 1999 c 27 § 2; 1997 c 105 § 1; 1992 c 186 § 2; 1985 c 288 § 2.]
    NOTES:
    Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.
    Intent—1999 c 27: “It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that electronic communications are included in the types of conduct and actions that can constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent of the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to restrict in any way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or stalking.” [ 1999 c 27 § 1.]
    Severability—1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9A.46.110.

    9A.46.030
    Place where committed.

    Any harassment offense committed as set forth in RCW 9A.46.020 or 9A.46.110 may be deemed to have been committed where the conduct occurred or at the place from which the threat or threats were made or at the place where the threats were received.
    [ 1992 c 186 § 3; 1985 c 288 § 3.]
    NOTES:
    Severability—1992 c 186: See note following RCW 9A.46.110.

    9A.46.040
    Court-ordered requirements upon person charged with crime—Violation.

    (1) Because of the likelihood of repeated harassment directed at those who have been victims of harassment in the past, when any defendant charged with a crime involving harassment is released from custody before trial on bail or personal recognizance, the court authorizing the release may issue an order pursuant to this chapter and require that the defendant:
    (a) Stay away from the home, school, business, or place of employment of the victim or victims of the alleged offense or other location, as shall be specifically named by the court in the order;
    (b) Refrain from contacting, intimidating, threatening, or otherwise interfering with the victim or victims of the alleged offense and such other persons, including but not limited to members of the family or household of the victim, as shall be specifically named by the court in the order.
    (2) Willful violation of a court order issued under this section or an equivalent local ordinance is a gross misdemeanor. The written order releasing the defendant shall contain the court’s directives and shall bear the legend: Violation of this order is a criminal offense under chapter 9A.46 RCW. A certified copy of the order shall be provided to the victim by the clerk of the court.
    (3) If the defendant is charged with the crime of stalking or any other stalking-related offense under RCW 9A.46.060, and the court issues an order protecting the victim, the court shall issue a stalking no-contact order pursuant to chapter 7.92 RCW.
    [ 2013 c 84 § 27; 2012 c 223 § 1; 2011 c 307 § 4; 1985 c 288 § 4.]

    9A.46.050
    Arraignment—No-contact order.

    A defendant who is charged by citation, complaint, or information with an offense involving harassment and not arrested shall appear in court for arraignment in person as soon as practicable, but in no event later than fourteen days after the next day on which court is in session following the issuance of the citation or the filing of the complaint or information. At that appearance, the court shall determine the necessity of imposing a no-contact or no-harassment order, and consider the provisions of RCW 9.41.800, or other conditions of pretrial release according to the procedures established by court rule for preliminary appearance or an arraignment.
    [ 1994 sp.s. c 7 § 447; 1985 c 288 § 5.]
    NOTES:
    Finding—Intent—Severability—1994 sp.s. c 7: See notes following RCW 43.70.540.
    Effective date—1994 sp.s. c 7 §§ 401-410, 413-416, 418-437, and 439-460: See note following RCW 9.41.010.

    9A.46.060
    Crimes included in harassment.

    As used in this chapter, “harassment” may include but is not limited to any of the following crimes:
    (1) Harassment (RCW 9A.46.020);
    (2) Malicious harassment (RCW 9A.36.080);
    (3) Telephone harassment (RCW 9.61.230);
    (4) Assault in the first degree (RCW 9A.36.011);
    (5) Assault of a child in the first degree (RCW 9A.36.120);
    (6) Assault in the second degree (RCW 9A.36.021);
    (7) Assault of a child in the second degree (RCW 9A.36.130);
    (8) Assault in the fourth degree (RCW 9A.36.041);
    (9) Reckless endangerment (RCW 9A.36.050);
    (10) Extortion in the first degree (RCW 9A.56.120);
    (11) Extortion in the second degree (RCW 9A.56.130);
    (12) Coercion (RCW 9A.36.070);
    (13) Burglary in the first degree (RCW 9A.52.020);
    (14) Burglary in the second degree (RCW 9A.52.030);
    (15) Criminal trespass in the first degree (RCW 9A.52.070);
    (16) Criminal trespass in the second degree (RCW 9A.52.080);
    (17) Malicious mischief in the first degree (RCW 9A.48.070);
    (18) Malicious mischief in the second degree (RCW 9A.48.080);
    (19) Malicious mischief in the third degree (RCW 9A.48.090);
    (20) Kidnapping in the first degree (RCW 9A.40.020);
    (21) Kidnapping in the second degree (RCW 9A.40.030);
    (22) Unlawful imprisonment (RCW 9A.40.040);
    (23) Rape in the first degree (RCW 9A.44.040);
    (24) Rape in the second degree (RCW 9A.44.050);
    (25) Rape in the third degree (RCW 9A.44.060);
    (26) Indecent liberties (RCW 9A.44.100);
    (27) Rape of a child in the first degree (RCW 9A.44.073);
    (28) Rape of a child in the second degree (RCW 9A.44.076);
    (29) Rape of a child in the third degree (RCW 9A.44.079);
    (30) Child molestation in the first degree (RCW 9A.44.083);
    (31) Child molestation in the second degree (RCW 9A.44.086);
    (32) Child molestation in the third degree (RCW 9A.44.089);
    (33) Stalking (RCW 9A.46.110);
    (34) Cyberstalking (RCW 9.61.260);
    (35) Residential burglary (RCW 9A.52.025);
    (36) Violation of a temporary, permanent, or final protective order issued pursuant to chapter 7.90, 9A.46, 10.14, 10.99, 26.09, or 26.50 RCW;
    (37) Unlawful discharge of a laser in the first degree (RCW 9A.49.020); and
    (38) Unlawful discharge of a laser in the second degree (RCW 9A.49.030).
    [ 2006 c 138 § 21; 2004 c 94 § 4; 1999 c 180 § 7; 1997 c 338 § 52. Prior: 1994 c 271 § 802; 1994 c 121 § 2; prior: 1992 c 186 § 4; 1992 c 145 § 12; 1988 c 145 § 15; 1985 c 288 § 6.]
    NOTES:

    Like

  • FOR GOD’S SAKE
    GET LOSS DO

    Like

  • Cyberstalking, harassement, revenge porn are all considered gross misdemeanors in the state of Washington where Ms Cutting is residing two years to file law is law as you see above electronic communications included in this and a non resident by Washington law has longer length to file law is law and breaking the law is a crime cyber stalking, harassing , revenge porn etc all are laws she has broken and she continues to even in her own words screensaved admit to such guilt. I will file on her in Washington state and she can get herself a lawyer the more she abuses her victims the stronger the case against her is she can explain why she does what she does . I hope she gets help because she has causes unecessary mental anguish for those she abuses , taunts and terrorizes this was and is her intention to cause and inflict emotional duress on those she cyberbullies and victimizes.

    Like

  • Georgie Porgie. Yuh pervert u get loss. Yuh moniker tells alot about you.

    Like

  • @Poetic Justice

    Wait until if and when you win your case/cases and then tell us the results. NO ONE is reading your grievances. The site is hers, but she has anonymous posters. that is why we, including you, post here under nom-de-plumes.

    Like

  • Violet C Beckles

    why dont you all focus on the crooks in bim as none of you want to address, Those of you run from the white man raping you to someone who let you know what the paid news in Bim dont want you to know. So have your poster gone to far in the wrong direction? people are robbed each day in Bim and none of you seem to focus on cleaning up the crook, liars and scumbags Ministers from the PM down , Over taxing, can get deeds, cant show equal law enforcement , What must be in the water in Bim for the Yard Chicken heads that cant speak for self or defend self, Lawyers and Ministers need to study who they covering up for,

    Can not blame ND, If you a bajan, you heard must more in the streets and you call yourself good people, nothing more than suckers for white lies coming out of black mouths, Paid slaves ,
    BU need to call out the crooks , state the truth on land fraud, restore the records removed on the BU cover up, Using ND as a reason Violet Beckles information on land fraud, Seem the Harris family is much bigger than we know.

    Like

  • She is sole propeitor of website and as you see in electronics communications violations a website owner in California was charged for republishing defamatory and revenge porn.Word Press can have all the complaints sent to them subpoened. Some of the comments LEO law enforcement acess to FBI files say are from her IP they know where she is at and as stated state she is doing this in two years for statute of limitations to file and once the no contact , retraining order and protective order are issued and charges made any other electronic communication after order is in effect becomes felony charges. She ( herself) had made direct threats on the internet. The fact she spends time, effort to release all the information on seach engines and other social media sites shows she is intending to cause humilation and malicious harm intent for victims. Cease and desist does not work neither does asking for empathy. This is not her wanting to expose alledged land fraud because most her articles have little to nothing to do with this subject. More a personal vendetta and retaliation revenge even to those who never hurt or harmed her are only caught in cross fires and considered collateral damage and unless you have been stalked, harassed, cyber bullied, badgered and intimidated violated you will never know why there are now laws to make this a federal crime and laws to protect victims and now as some states the first warnings are misdemeanors some states felonies. Some states want to make these crimes felonies in every jurisdiction and state. I never knew what teens who suffered this and some who even committed suicide actually felt at the hands of their abusers. I would see and read stories and tears but when you experience cyber abuse terrorism bully up close and personal you feel and you feel that hurt and then get thrown into something you wish to be no part of/.

    Like

  • LOL @ GP
    Don’t you recognise the psycho from a previous blog…?

    Like

  • Poetic Justice while I sympathize with you I think you are going overboard in running after Sheri Veronica. Use your energy to go after the person or persons who violated you physically. ND did not commit the sin of rape.As a Barbadian I am ashamed of stories in ND. I actually know a lot of them are true.I am ashamed of not speaking out on some issues myself or pushing to expose more myself. My only problem with ND is that it paints all of us with the same brush,but maybe it is time for Barbadians to clean up their act.

    Like

  • Veronica Cutting lives in Florida. I am minded to place her address up on this site so that some disgruntled person can go and have a chat with her.

    Meanwhile, let us track teh IP addresses of those who post stories to her site. After all ND is just a conduit. perhaps a visit to a few persons who post defamatory comments via ND make help us all unravel this.

    Like

  • What is wrong with that little island?
    There seem to be an ongoing interest in
    (1) Getting the name of boggers
    (2) getting their IP addresses, and then
    (3) visiting some bloggers
    I don’t want to see you. Don’t visit….

    Like

  • @BajanBully, she doesn’t live in Florida. Close tho.

    Like

  • We have removed Naked Departure and will continue our campaigns against them.

    This is just the beginning

    Like

  • I have suspected that Well Well and… may be of ND …. her comment above certainly tends to support such ….

    Like

  • Of course, at least she can continue to voice her thoughts here now that her site is finished, though without the defamation that is so prevalent on that awful site.

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s