Cyber Stalked: Book Bit 092

Time to get started harassing yet another owner of another web site I had made. This one was for a man who was running for mayor.

“If [deleted] becomes mayor, the police union won’t let him be replaced by a city manager. Why do you think LIE$inger the holster sniffing badge bunny backs [deleted] (and runs his campaign website)?”

Medusa couldn’t have that so she made sure he and I went through hell. She tried saying we did something “illegal”, then reported the candidate to Google saying he did something illegal with his Google donation button (wasn’t true). Then she reported him to the City for what, I’m not even sure – he was, of course, cleared but it was a hassle. All of that simply because I made his web site. And it was a darned nice one, too, if I do say so myself.
He dropped out of the race way before the election.
This really festered her hate-saturated soul, because she just HAD to – again – try to get me in trouble, and the innocent candidate.
More lust for lies

11-29-2008, 07:06 PM: “Reisinger runs Bill Wangemann’s campaign website. If you click on the “Donate” button, it takes you here: [inactive link] Where you see a Google checkout button that says “Donate” on it.
In order to be eligible to use the Google checkout button that says “Donate,” Google requires that you “clearly” display your 501(c)(3) status on the website. Not only that, but a 501(c)(3) organization is not even supposed to engage in political campaign activities. See: [link]
If you’re a 501(c)(3), you follow these instructions: [link]
Is Reisinger trying to pull a fast one? Is she collecting political contributions as a charitable 501(c)(3) organization?
Either way, she’s violating someone’s rules. Either Google’s, or the IRS’s.

Well, she’s all on her own with this balderdash – but as is usually the case, that doesn’t stop her. She keeps answering herself.

“Here’s an example of how a 501(c)(3) charity is supposed to display the “Donate” Google button: [deleted]/Donate.html Notice how that site clearly displays its 501(c)(3) status next to the checkout button.”

“In order to get that Google ‘Donate’ button, they had to submit an actual address and Tax ID number of a nonprofit organization to Google. Wonder which non-profit they signed up under? Are they INTENTIONALLY not displaying a 501(c)(3) status notice because they know darn well they’re violating the rules? By using that non-profit donate button, they can avoid paying Google’s 2% and 20+ transaction fee for the rest of 2008. I think it also gets around having to provide donor information which is supposed to be public record. If they were using Google’s ‘Contribution’ button like they’re supposed to be doing, it automatically captures supporters’ occupation and employer information and displays a custom contribution policy message within the checkout process.”

Trying to keep this nonsense alive, Medusa adds to this topic, on 11-30-2008 at 07:23 PM, a link to Google’s Policies and Guidelines page, with a short quote from the page.
Policies and Guidelines
Oh gosh darn it all, no one is biting on this, so let’s try a made-up name and see if that doesn’t spark some “outrage at the LIEsinger!!!”
“i wonder how much [deleted] will ever see from Jeni?”


Now that just proves how ignorant a person is when they talk about something they truly know nothing about.I never saw a thing from any of his donations -they went right into his bank account. Grief.


Now look at this next post closely – her supposed “proof” is a fake. She is a fraud. Look where the link goes – that is no google link. Again I ask, who’s the REAL liar here?

Evil fraud

12-09-2008, 03:38 PM:
Now “Revere” (aka Jeni or one of her boot-lickers) posts on the Press forum that this is all “a complete and outright lie.”

Of course that’s after they have my post deleted — twice.

She’s the low-life bitch who’s lying, because here is what Google e-mailed me when I asked them about it:

Organizations can only use Google Checkout to collect donations if they represent a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that is based in the United States, and complete the required steps outlined at

Click on the link he provided, and the instructions CLEARLY say you must apply as a 501(c)(3), THEN you may display the “Donate” button. AND you must clearly display your 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status ON THE WEBSITE that you display your donate button on.


Not shouting, emphasizing: THAT IS HER DOMAIN!!! It was a fake-out.

Not a link to Google at all. Does anyone really think Google is going to direct you to Mary Struck’s tiny little domain for a response on their policies? The gall of that she-devil is astonishing.

And she just cannot quit with this insanity. She added yet another LONG post with stupid (fake looking I might add) supposed screen shots of “testing” she did. Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. I can only grab a partial screen shot because it was so long, but will post the text of her prattle after the screen shot.
She is certifiable

“I did an experiment. I went to some charitable sites that use the Google ‘Donate’ button just like the one on [deleted]’s site: Then I went to some political candidate sites that use the Google ‘Contribution’ button like this one. (There’s a difference between the two buttons in how you register for them). I clicked the buttons on each site as if I were going to donate. The donation forms for the charities were exactly like [deleted]’s, whereas the contribution forms for the political candidate’s sites were completely different. Here’s what the contribution form for the political candidate’s site looked like (with my personal info. blacked out). I made like I was donating $250.00. Notice it asks for employer and occupation, and lets you know the campaign contribution limits and legalities. Here’s what the donation form for [deleted]’s site and the non-profit charity sites looked like. Again, it looks just like the form you get when donating to charitable sites using Google donation checkout. I made like I was donating $25,000 — way over the campaign limit. Sure looks to me like Reisinger is using a checkout intended for tax-exempt charitable donations rather than political contributions. There are no safeguards on it to protect against illegal political contributions like the other candidate’s form has. Plus, it appears you have to provide proof of 501(c)(3) status to even apply for this type of checkout.”


She’s not done yet.

She's not done yet.

12-11-2008, 04:12 PM
Nobody is accusing [deleted] of not filing the proper candidacy paperwork or illegally collecting donations. Contacting all those people is overkill.

I’m merely questioning why the Google checkout on his website is one that is normally used by tax-exempt, non-profit charities.

Google has 3 types of checkouts you can apply for.

The regular merchant checkout for selling stuff.
The donation checkout for non-profits, and
The contribution checkout for political candidates.

From what I read on Google’s page, the only way to get the code for the Donation button is by applying as a 501(c)(3).

I asked Google about it, and all they’ll say is they’re looking into it, and only legitimate 501(c)(3)s can collect donations.

Still going

12-12-2008, 11:40 PM
[deleted]’s donation page doesn’t mention any campaign contribution laws, and it says checks should be made payable simply to “[deleted].” There’s nothing stopping someone from taking up a collection from a bunch of people and sending him a personal check and he could spend it however he chooses. How would the bank or anyone else know it was a campaign contribution if his website is instructing people to make checks payable to “[deleted]”? Oh wait. That’s right. IT’S NOBODY’S BUSINESS how a mayoral candidate collects donations, according to his intrepid webmaster Jeni Reisinger.

This should be basic stuff for a guy who’s been an alderman for awhile, and is running for mayor of a city of 50,000. He promises a transparent government on this page, and says it’s his belief that “every citizen of Sheboygan should have available to him, or her, complete information in plain easily understandable language . . .” But he doesn’t know enough to look at other candidate websites to see what should go on them (or hire someone who has basic knowledge of political campaigning). And then he goes and hires someone who’s in the process of bringing a frivolous lawsuit against the city to do his campaign site.

Gotta question this guy’s common sense. Seriously.

And then his supporter [deleted] sends a letter to the editor that sounds almost verbatim to the bullshit Reisinger blogs.


And if all that wasn’t bad enough, a letter was also sent to the Government Accountability Board. Here is their response:


—–Original Message—–
From: Bohringer, Richard – GAB []
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 2:13 PM
To: Becker, Jonathan – GAB; Falk, Shane – GAB; Haas, Michael R – GAB
Cc: GAB HelpDesk; Richards, Sue
Subject: RE: [deleted] Campaign Fundraising

I don’t see anything here that is a violation of Chapter 11, Wisconsin statutes. There may be grounds for contacting Google regarding a violation of their website policy.

The website has a disclaimer at the bottom of all pages. I don’t know what information the candidate is receiving from the contributors for reporting purposes. There doesn’t appear to be anything on the donation page to prohibit corporations or individuals giving excessive amounts, or a way to capture the contributor’s occupation/employer information required for donations over $100.

My recommendation to this individual would be to contact Google regarding [deleted].com/ not following the terms and conditions on the use of the tools available. There does not appear to be any campaign finance violations for the GAB or District Attorney to act on.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Richard Bohringer
Campaign Auditor
Government Accountability Board


Of course, Ms. Lust for Lies has an answer for that, too.

“The point is, somebody running for mayor should know the basics about campaigning. And so should his big “Sheboygan watchdog” webmaster who thinks she’s the expert on a running a city.”

All I did – again – was make a web site. That’s it. Nothing about it was any of her business. She couldn’t have even voted in the election, had he seen it through. What the candidate did with his financial affairs was none of my business – and that is all I’ve ever said, because I was not a treasurer, I was a web developer, period.
This bitch would have NEVER bothered with the candidate at all had I not been the one who made his web site. That stands for itself as pure, unadulterated evil.
She be crazy.
She be crazy.

But why, oh why must I keep paying for the psychotic destruction she causes?

Share Button

Comments are closed.