a voice for men antifeminism crackpottery doxing evil women false accusations harassment irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) rape rape culture

Men’s Rights website falsely accuses Ohio University student of being a false rape accuser

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c): False accuser
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c): False accuser

Well, this is depressing. The Raw Story is reporting that

An Ohio University sophomore has deactivated her social media accounts and is afraid to leave her house after she was falsely identified as the woman who reported she’d been raped in an incident captured on cell phone video by a passerby.

The student, Rachel Cassidy, now falsely accused of being a false rape accuser, has had her personal information — not just her name but her address, the name of her sorority, her social media accounts, even her Pinterest page — listed on a Men’s Rights site called Crimes Against Fathers. (I won’t link to it.)

The man behind Crimes Against Fathers? None other than the notorious Men’s Rights extremist and crackpot Peter Andrew Nolan — or, as he prefers to be known, for reasons I don’t fully understand, Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) . Apparently taking inspiration from Paul Elam’s, Nolan’s site does what Register-Her only threatened to do: it actually releases the personal information of those it identifies as “Man-Hating Women.” He will even add names of women you don’t like to the list for a fee of $70 (Australian).

So far the site has several hundred women listed, most of them apparently women who have run afoul of Nolan or his most active lieutenant on the site, the pseudonymous “John Rambo” of “Boycott American Women” fame, either online or in real life. In most cases, luckily, the amount of personal information given out is relatively scanty and the number of people who’ve actually viewed the posts (which is listed on the site) has been small.

That’s not the case with Cassidy, whose life Nolan and “Rambo” have set out to ruin as thoroughly as they can. In addition to her personal information, the site has also dug up an assortment of pictures of her scraped from various sites on the internet.

And, unwilling to believe that she is not the woman in the video — and a false accuser of rape — the two have taken aim at those who’ve stepped forward to defend Cassidy. They’ve posted the personal information of Jenny Hall-Jones, the Dean of Students at Ohio University, for the “crime” of publicly saying that Cassidy is not the woman in the video, as well as several other women who’ve come out in support of Cassidy.

On Crimes Against Fathers, “Rambo” writes

[C]onsidering that women will always try to cover for their fellow women, and will NEVER hold their fellow women accountable, there is a very strong possibility that Jenny [Hall-Jones]  is LYING and that Rachel Cassidy IS the girl in that video. This means that Jenny Hall-Jones is a CRIMINAL because she is covering up for the CRIME of making a false rape accusation. Therefore, she is a criminal and needs to be publicly exposed as such.

Neither “Rambo” nor Nolan has leveled similar accusations against Ohio University president Roderick McDavis, a man, though he too has said that the woman in the video is not Cassidy.

Men’s Rights activists like to say that Nolan isn’t really one of them. If this is the case, they should be willing to stand up and denounce his reprehensible actions, and the very idea of his Crimes Against Fathers “Man-Hating Women” directory.

EDITED TO ADD: I should note that Nolan’s site also has a “Name and Shame the IgnorMANuses” forum directed at alleged man-hating men, including Vince Gilligan (creator of Breaking Bad) and Nacho Vidal (the pseudonymous dude behind The list is considerably smaller than that of the Man-Hating Women directory, and none of the entries I saw listed any personal information that went much beyond links to Facebook pages.

380 replies on “Men’s Rights website falsely accuses Ohio University student of being a false rape accuser”

I just don’t get our trolls. They’re all like, saying something is sexist or racist is worse than actual sexism or racism. Being accused of rape is worse than actually being RAPED.

I’m going to go back and fine what you said about mistaken witnesses, because I don’t think you were very clear, but first I have to deal with this:

What we know for sure is that the case against the young man was too weak to prosecute. We know the prosecutor brought it anyway.

What we know is that one grand jury felt the case against the man was too weak to prosecute. And we know that the DA felt differently, which is why s/he brought it to the grand jury in the first place.

You’re trying to imply that the DA brought it to the grand jury even though s/he knew it was to weak to prosecute. As I’ve explained, I think very clearly, it is unlikely the DA brought it to the grand jury knowing it was too weak to prosecute.

In response to someone asking you about punishing mistaken witnesses, this is what you said:

Yes, the possibility exists. How sure do you think she should be 10%, 50%? Pull a number out of a hat? It’s only a man’s life. What does it matter if the wrong one is punished? The important thing is to punish someone. And if she gets it wrong, why bother to tell the jury she’s an unreliable witness? Maybe she could accuse 5 or 10 more guys. Hey, we might not get convictions, but we could subject them to an invasive forensics exam. That should teach them how a woman feels, right? Maybe we get lucky and find one that can’t make bail. We wouldn’t even need a conviction then. Holding him till the trial is a jail sentence already.

How is this not saying a mistaken witness is a false accuser? And you’ve already said you think all “false accusers” (i.e. a woman who makes an accusation but the grand jury disagrees) should be punished.

I just don’t get our trolls. They’re all like, saying something is sexist or racist is worse than actual sexism or racism. Being accused of rape is worse than actually being RAPED.

Shiraz – they’re upholders of rape culture, every last one of ’em. They may not be rapists themselves, or think they are; they may be the same as the men in that survey who admit to rape as long as it’s not called that. At the very least they are enablers, and it all goes back to what Freemage mentioned in the current Fartiste thread: it’s about control. Rape or the fear of it is a way of controlling women, and that’s what these MRA haters really want: the return of all the power men used to have over women.

John: Did that include Stuebenville, the Daisy Coleman case, all the military sexual assault cases or is it just limited to DAs who won’t file charges for false rape claims?

So Stuebenville was false?

Your answer is trust the DA, which seems to mainly apply to instances where charges for false rape claims are not filed. I’m sure if I checked back through these forums I’d find instances where regulars have disagreed with prosecutors, judges, and juries.


1: sure we have (I am still in an ongoing debate with someone about Zimmerman). The difference is, in those cases, we are looking at the specific case. You seem to have gotten your wee-little mind hung up on this case; to the point you’ve failed to cozen that what we are discussing is fundamentally different.

You have conflated your ire about this case, with the general mass of rape cases. You want to hold women who have been raped to a higher standard, with a siege perilous status.

Which makes it harder to get rape reported, which, de facto, makes it easier to commit rape.

That’s what we are arguing. You, however, are bleating about how horrid false rape accusations are, and how much NEED there is to go after all those horrible women who make them (while pretending no man has ever made a false charge against a woman, nope… men are “better” than that, or some such shit).

You believe men should essentially be punished for crimes they didn’t commit and women should essentially be able to imprison men on a whim,

Where did I say any such thing.

Crickets. I bet I hear crickets.

That’s been attributed to me, but I haven’t said it. I’ve actually been on record as saying that I believe that a misidentification shouldn’t automatically be considered a false allegation.

The same reply as when you used, “necessarily”. You still think the option for a “false report” should be open for women who misidentify a man.

So no pressure there. You never did say how sure she had to be. 99 percent? 99.5? 100?

How do you measure? If she hesitates does that mean she loses the benefit of the doubt? If the DA offers it to the Grand Jury, and they refuse? If he’s acquitted?

You, son, want women to be afraid of, “getting wrong”. You may not want to admit, but you are advocating for more rape.

Well, there’s a myth and fact page at the Students’ Center of Health sponsored by West Virginia University. It says this:

“There are a lot of false rape reports.”

Fact: The false report rate for rape is similar to other false felony reports. The FBI estimates that about 2% of reported rapes are false.

“Myth: Most people report rape or sexual assault to the police.”

Fact: The truth is that rape and sexual assault are two of the most underreported crimes in our society. Estimates show that between 50–90% of rapes go unreported. Factoring unreported rapes together with the odds of an arrest being made and the chances of getting a felony conviction, only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. In other words: 15 of 16 rapists walk free.

For more information about Rape Myths & Facts, go to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.

Not caught up but “Has anyone emailed David about it?”

He must know, because I’m sure my comment immediately followed pecunium’s and now it has Johnny boy’s in the middle — that was in a mod and got let out in other words.

Hey folks, I got the emails and I agree that, given his “jokes” and general assishness, we really don’t need any more John Anderson here. So he’s banned.

(I admit I wasn’t reading the stuff of his that was in moderation very carefully before letting it through; should have banned him a long time ago.)

“I am still in an ongoing debate with someone about Zimmerman”

Fuck, really? I’ll head over there when I catch up here.

Also, Steubenville? Really? The one where there were widely circulating videos of them raping her and her being carried around because she couldn’t walk, let alone consent? (Fuck, was she even still conscious?) Not the example you want to use for “bet you disagreed with that DA” seeing how the entire fucking internet accessing population of the world could see that she was raped and thus we knew far more than we do in this case.

Which is only semi-related to your continued desire to make this about all rape accusations ever.

What, btw, do you think should happen if she drops the charges? (pecunium, lean over and find me some vodka or whiskey please, I’m going to need it when he answers that)

Oh good, he won’t be answering that and I won’t be needing to raid pecunium’s liquor cabinet.

Thanks David!

I am now exceedingly happy that I went to bed when I did and so missed all Johnny boy’s flailing around. At least he never pulled “but I was so polite and civil and you’re so rude” after accusing us all of wanting innocent men convicted of rape. I mean, after all, he didn’t say “fuck”, am I right? 😉

Delighted to see him banned.

The fundamental dishonesty was his pretense this was “all about justice”. If it were he would have been able to provide (or willing to discuss) the relative rates of prosecution for false accusation.

He would also have been (as I said) militating for increased investigation/prosecution of other police reports which don’t lead to charges being filed: e.g the friend of mine who was robbed; a checkbook was stolen. It was later used to purchase pizza. The police didn’t follow up. Now this is a slam dunk to prove, the cops have an address (because the pizza place delivered).

Since this would have been easy to prove (the checking account had been closed three weeks before. We found out about it because the bank tried to charge him for NSF), and no charges were filed it must have been false. But they never investigated him for fraudulently claiming someone else used his checkbook.

And that’s the chilling aspect of it. He wants women to know that if their rapist isn’t charged, or if they make a mistake in IDing someone who raped them, they will be hounded by the police, investigated by the DA. Not, “automatically”, but rather at the caprice of election year politics, and based on the vindictiveness of the person they mistakenly identified, or worse, the malice of a rapist who was lucky/clever enough to have a case the DA couldn’t/didn’t want to prove.

Do yeah, he can cuddle up to a teddy bear cholla before he fucks a barrel cactus, what with is, “outrage over things people didn’t say: When people give female rapists a free pass, it sends me into a rage

All the while expecting us to not care that he wants to make it harder on women who bring charges of rape; in effect encouraging society to give rapists a free pass.

I hope, someday, he comes to a full and complete realisation of just what sort of person he has been.

Having repotted my cactī bed to include my new succulents, the barrel cactus is indeed very spiky. (Dear gods were the roots a mess, five decently sized succulents in a 4″ pot!)

I’ve been looking into sovereign citizens lately, and I ran across these:

A Canadian law decision in a divorce case and a blog post about it. From the blog post:

Justice Rooke’s decision in Meads not only identifies almost every OPCA indicia and deconstructs almost every OPCA concept and argument, but also explains why each cannot succeed and what courts, lawyers and litigants can do if faced with OPCA litigants’ tactics and arguments.

“Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” = sovereigns, freemen-on-the-land, etc.

It’s an excellent resource for understanding these people, and it’s a pretty funny read if you’ve got the patience.

It’s unrelated to MRAs (except that they’re both crackpots), but if you want to know why “Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c)” spells his name like that, this should explain why.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.