Steve Manson Authored Slanderous Fliers Littered Across McHenry County
This actual predator, Steven M. Manson, is the one who produced these fliers.
Over a thousand fliers were found, dozens of police reports were filed, several businesses were disrupted, they were found on sidewalks, streets, taped to business counters at stores, taped to donation bins at charity receptacles, at McHenry West Highschool, in children’s parks, at the beach, in McHenry, Johnsburg, Antioch, and on the porches of the harassment victims. The Mansons even deflated the tires of some of their victims when they dropped fliers off in the early morning hours.
Clearly, with evidence put forward Steven Michael Manson Jr. is the one responsible for creating and distributing the heinous slanderous fliers found across McHenry county throughout the months of June and May. Public court records indicate several SNCO petitions filed against the Steve Mansons pleading for them to stop their onslaught. Testimony from these cases indicate he even admitted to taking the pictures and distributing the fliers.
Fliers distributed by Steve Jr on Sunset Avenue near a Children’s Park while Children were present
The Mansons disclosed this screenshot planning the “revenge” fliers while in a fight with their in-laws.
They also posted information only found on the fliers before and after they were produced:
Steven L. Manson lived across the street from the address he claimed was the “house of horrors” from his release until November 2023. The people who appear on the fliers are apparently relatives of Steven M. Manson’s wife, Amber Manson.
Steven M. Manson began the assault on his father’s neighbors because they called the police on him out of concern when he threatened to murder his wife on Easter and Steven L. Manson abducted her children and forced her to abandon her kids during the holiday. By this time, Steve Mansons had not known these children for even one year.
After the disabled neighbor woman called the police, Steve Mansons began a relentless assault on her and their other neighbors
Only two days after the event, Steven M. Manson was harassing, screaming, blasting music, and yelling a scheme to frame and accuse whistleblowers of “Child Porn”. In this video a resident tries to quietly pick up some hardware from installing a light only to be verbally assaulted by Steve Manson the registered child sex offender.
The constant onslaught, visitors, antagonizers, harassers, phone calls, passerbys, and even curious children asking questions became so exhausting to the victims of the Manson’s slanderous leafleting the residents put up a sign with QR codes, a link, and submitted information to this blog site in order to clarify and expose the truth.
This video appears after the fliers were distributed where a woman who apparently read the flier was so convinced to attack the residents that she screamed at the man in the driveway in attempt to harass and intimidate him. The man in the driveway being screamed at by the woman in the SUV is an autistic man with no criminal record, literally boasting a clean record aside from one single speeding ticket.
The neighbors across the street from the Manson house had little choice but to put a sign in front of their yard pointing to the person who created the fliers with a link to this public community blog effort first initiated by Red Phoenix LLC in 2019. Through collaboration effort the information here has been put together to set the record straight and unravel the obfuscation and confusion begot by these de-facto criminals, the McHenry Manson family.
Dezarae Kennedy was an accomplice in producing and distributing these fliers. Dezarae specifically targeted criminals, seedy individuals, and dangerous people to distribute the fliers to, with the intention of gaining the attention of dangerous biker gangs in order to have them attack the victims who were slandered in the fliers. Motorcycles were heard regularly down the roads of the victims. One motorcyclists explained that he was directly handed a flier by “a twiggy blond girl” who matched the description of Dezarae Kennedy, and she said to him “why don’t you take care of your child f**king outlaw buddies? Too much of a coward for murder?” Before she scurried off into their red truck and drove away, tossing fliers out the window as she went. But nobody on the fliers has any association with any Outlaws or other biker gangs — it is the Mansons who continue to mock, ridicule, defame, and slander the Outlaws, among other biker gangs.
The People Who Were Slandered by the Flier
“The Outlaw Biker”
Before going to prison, Steven Mansons had done side jobs for the family of one “Randy” who appears on the fliers. After chumming up to them, the Mansons stole the family medicine safe full of prescription medications for the disabled matriarch and her sick mother who has since died due to medical complications. Incidentally, the Steve Mansons had robbed a home up the road of Park Lane Avenue of their prescription medications where the mentally ill resident was driven to so much strife and pain that she killed herself. Not dissimilar to Gary Manson, a one legged disabled man who had been living with his mother and grandmother before the Mansons left prison and filed perjerous court petitions against the helpless one-legged man for trying to visit his mother on her death bed. Being smeared, harassed, and ostracized from his family from his brother’s and nephew’s actions despite standing by their side while they were in prison and helping to create this blog effort as well as trying to paint Steve Manson as a helpless victim of the prison system; Gary Manson committed suicide shortly after his mother and daughter died of health complications from COVID-19.
The so-called “Outlaw Biker” is a man who was employed by Local 150 for over three decades, a family man, a hard worker, and proud American. He has not ever been or ever claimed to be associated with any “Outlaw” biker gang. There is no history or indication in his life history, personal stories, or case records to indicate he had ever been sexually indecent toward children.
“The Child Madame”
The homeowner of the house across the street from Joanne Manson’s resident was a long-time friend of Joanne Manson, having long discussions with her, emails, texts, letter correspondence, and very regular talks for over two decades. Steve Manson knows she knows him better than anyone in the world because his mother had disclosed everything about the Manson family to her friend, her neighbor. Because Steve Manson knows the woman is in poor health, he has attacked her and her family relentlessly trying to push her closer to the grave in order to silence the truth.
“The Gambling Addict”
A homeowner of the house across the street from Joanne Manson. Papi is a disabled, illiterate, man who suffered a head injury in his young adulthood which rendered him unable to learn how to read or write. His family takes care of him. The Mansons sicked their dogs on him, screamed at him, taunted him, and harassed him in every way possible just to denigrate and attack his family members.
“The Producer”
An disabled man on the autism spectrum and full-time activist, Labor Organizer, Heroin-Awareness-Foundation activist, member of NAARPR, supporter of Red Phoenix LLC, published author, vegetarian Humanist with a clean record free of any criminality. Full disclosure their entire court records consist of one speeding ticket and a frivolous lawsuit filed against him by Steve Manson which was Denied — Twice. It is ironic an innocent Peace Activist should be so defamed, harassed, and slandered by an actual white supremacist Neo-Nazi. He is in the process of pressing charges against the Manson family, any donations made to his cause are presently going to legal fees.
“Courtney”
Before going to prison, Steve Mansons coerced their neighbor’s daughter into robbing her grandfather of his old coins to pawn for hard drugs. She had money, they had drugs, so they promised her a deal, and promised her work. They then drugged her, violated her, stole her belongings, and kicked her to the curb. It was only discovered that this happened when Steve Manson tried to sell the bicycle Courtney had stolen from her Mother back to her family. The Mansons had done to Courtney what Steve Sr. did to his own niece. Had he not subdued his victims into silence through violent threats and coercion all of the pain could have been avoided. The silence of Steve’s Niece and her sweeping everything under the rug allowed this continued abuse to happen. Courtney’s adopted mother co-founded the Heroin Awareness Foundation in effort to raise awareness of such criminality in our neighborhoods and reproach stigma for proactive solutions.
The only criminals mentioned in the fliers are related to Amber Manson, (“Amber Kennedy” on the flier) her Brother, Cousin, Aunt, Nephews, Sister-In-Law, and Mother are listed on this flier. Of the few that actually do have criminal records of some concern-Law Enforcement has already held them accountable. By conflating her entire family with the two or three bad apples Steven M. Manson has effectively smeared his entire family, both blood relatives, and in-laws.
There is no “drug network” aside from the Manson criminal empire which crumbled a decade ago when they stopped selling drugs out of the icecream truck they bought when Steve M. Manson was robbed of his drugs and called the cops on the children who stole his drugs. It is alleged the Mansons continue to deal meth and fentanyl, especially to children and younger people via Amber Manson’s Daughter Dezerae Kennedy, but they have yet to be caught as they tend to narc or frame the people they rip off.
More evidence of the Manson’s criminal behavior can be found in the McHenry Manson DMZ Chronicles https://medium.com/@McHenryDMZ/the-mchenrydmz-manson-chronicles-2185cd8b43ab
Steven Manson has been involved in more than two dozen protective orders since his release from Prison. Including a protective order for a victim of a hit-and-run accident despite being ticketed more than half a dozen times for continuing to drive recklessly under the influence on a revoked license.
Several orders of protection have been put in place against Steven M. Manson since. At least half a dozen people are protected by Stalking No-Contact Orders after being terrorized and harassed by him.
In 2003, the mother of Steve’s child victim filed for a protective order against him.
In turn, Steven Michael Manson, then 19-years-old, threatened to commit suicide if he was not allowed to pursue his relationship with the then-twelve-year-old. He and his father then stalked and harassed her entire family, threatening to murder them and feed them to pigs if they stood in the way of their drug addled romance. To date he has not stopped harassing and threatening their family, leaving derogatory remarks, calling her employer, and defaming them online under numerous aliases, such as “Mark Walker”.
The Mansons are career criminals who attack their victims and then blame them. Their records are public as are their victim’s. Because the Mansons pushed their neighbors to desperation, they were forced to put signs in their yard, and publish their security videos via youtube to make it clear to everyone who the real perpetrators are. While the Manson family is in hiding plotting their next attack on your communities.
The Next Door Neighbors on either side have resorted to installing cameras and other means in order to protect themselves from Mr. Manson’s onslaught. Mr. Manson has called the police on them, threatened them, screamed at them, and relentlessly harassed them. On June 2nd Mr. Manson was charged with Disorderly Conduct for facing a light into the bedroom window of the 20-year-old woman who lives next door to him, placing a camera in her window, and putting stereo speakers facing their windows playing nonstop, then proceeding to scream at and threaten the police for intervening.
The Neighbors Behind the Manson home have had to put up light blocking curtains and have come together and met with the neighbors in front of the Manson residence to ask why Mr. Manson is so hostile to everyone around the block asking if there is anything they can do to help stop them Manson’s community abuse.
The relatives of Amber Kennedy who live in Lakeland Park have had to install security cameras and other means to safeguard their homes after finding their vehicle ablaze. Two separate family members report the same kind of abuse — threats, harassment, fliers on their porch, deflated tires, one van set on fire, and one motorcycle destroyed by fire. Around the same time the Mansons got insurance money for a garage fire at their residence in Antioch. Is so much arson a coincidence? Somehow everyone the Mansons get mad at end up hurt, missing, or on fire. Not limited to the investigating detective Steve Sr. attempted to murder, but was able to plea-bargain down into a simple “intimidation of a witness” charge.
People who live on Ponca St. featured in the flier face relentless harassment, attacks, fliers on their street, honking, loud noises, obnoxious harassment, screaming threats, racist slurs; a relentless torrent of hatred coming from the Red, White, Maroon, Black ford trucks the Mansons have been known to drive in. They’ve had to check their tires before they leave as they’ve found the tires deflated entirely while fliers were found on their street.
The Manson property is currently facing chancery court due to a plethora of ordinance violations, environmental destruction, nuisance behavior, and for devaluing relative property severely. However, the police have been unwilling or unable to properly serve him. He continues to reside in Parkland, loiter, and harass people. Even posting online about the child victims he violated.
One neighbor who misattributed the Manson’s malice to another household stated on facebook saying “no one is innocent here” in regard to the Mansons attacking a victim-truly, everyone who is not actively fighting against this obscene behavior is guilty of being complicit with the Manson’s onslaught. When one party is a swastika-covered neo-confederate registered sex offender it isn’t profiling any more, the “two sides” are actual fascist predators and American citizens who fall victim to them. The “Neighbor Dispute” is an entire neighborhood and its community vs. one obscene “Neighbor”.
The victims are tired of being accused of perpetrating the tempest unleashed by the Manson family, please think critically and for yourself.
You won’t find mugshots of the innocent people. You don’t find mugshots of people without criminal records. Certainly not the ones featured on the flier Steve Manson tried to smear everyone’s name with. Because the only real criminals relevant to this very confusing absurd attack on our community are members of the McHenry Manson family.
To this day, the Mansons conspire to bring violence to the police, their neighbors, and anybody else who crosses their path of destruction:
Youtube Playlist With Some Interactions With Steve:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvioTeZWVv4&list=PLKPeLWVgF1hJNdonODszlHdVofKWnPMZM
Manson Criminal Offenses Public Information:
McHenry County:
2020 CM 000881 (Criminal Misdemeanor, Steve’s Wife took the charges because he was still on Parole)
2021 FV 000557 (Divorce Via Coercion of Grooming Victim, Won by Default after intimidating her not to appear)
2022 OP 000127 (SNCO Against Distraught Crippled Uncle Who Committed Suicide in Reaction to Harassment)
2022 OP 000959 ( Brother-In-Law SNCO Against Steve)
2022 OP 001159 (In-Law SNCO Against Steve)
2022 CF 170 (Johnsburg/ 2 theft charges/stole from dying grandma)
2022 CF 189 (McHenry/ 8 theft charges/stole from dying grandma)
2023 TR 4969 (McH county / seat belt violation)
2023 TR 5236 (spring grove / driving 21–25 above)
2023 MT 1083 (McHenry/revoked and speeding 26–35 above)
2023 OP000705 (Plenary SNCO Won by Father’s-Neighbor Against Steve)
2023 OP 001291 (Plenary SNCO Won by Father’s Neighbor Against Steve)
2023 CF 767 (Lakewood/6 counts involving hit-and-run accident with injury on a revoked license)
2023 SC 000628 (PNC Lawsuit Against Estate of Joanne Manson for Credit Theft/Fraud)
Lake County:
22 CM 332 3–28–22 (Criminal damage)
22 MT 4925 9–16–22 (Major traffic)
22 CM 1629 12–14–22 (disorderly conduct)
22 OV 1232 12–28–22 (Open Burning)
23 CH 40 3–6–23 ( Chancery/Injunction)
23 OV 507 5–30–23 ( Open Burning)
23 OV 642 7–14–23 ( Open Burning (impersonating father @ son’s residence)
23 OP 1698 8–2–23 (SNCO)
Sangamon County:
2024 OP 000138 (SNCO From Victim)
2024 OP 000139 (SNCO Filed by late Cousin’s Husband)
2024 OP 000156 (SNCO)
2024 OP 000157 (SNCO)
2024 OP 000621 (SNCO)
2024 OP 000624 (SNCO)
2024 OP 000625 (SNCO)
2024 OP 000805 (SNCO)
2024 OP 000845 (SNCO)
2024 MT 001730 (Driving on a Revoked)
2024 OP 000804 (SNCO Filed Against Wife)
2024 FA 000032 (Child Support for wife’s abducted child)
2024 TR 002507 (Wife’s Traffic ticket for Truck he bought)
Registered Sex Offender, Steven Jr. https://isp.illinois.gov/Sor/Details/X19A1630
Sex Offender Public Notice: https://lakecountygazette.com/stories/610070065 -steven-m-manson-living-in-antioch-a-registered-sex-offender-as-of-oct-26
News Release: https://www.shawlocal.com/2012/01/05/man-gets-same-sentence-as-father-20-years/acnsanq/
Release information: https://mchenrytimes.com/stories/574867287-25-inmates-sentenced-in-mchenry-county-to-be-released-from-illinois-department-of-corrections-during-q1
Charged 20 years for aggravated intimidation and DUI: https://mchenrycountyblog.com/2011/08/15/20-years-for-aggravated-intimidtion-and-dui-felonies/
Steve M. Manson’s Public Record in IL Available, Search:
“Manson, Steven L”
and
“Manson, Steven M”
Lake County:
https://circuitclerk.lakecountyil.gov/publicAccess/html/common/index.xhtml
McHenry County:
https://caseinfo.mchenrycountyil.gov/pca
Definitions:
LEGALITY AND DEFINITIONS:
All information, pictures, video, media, and footage is provided for EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. No media contained within this playlist may be used to defame, harass, ridicule, or attack any individuals, their identities, or lifestyle. Any names or information is publicly available, and not property to any private persons.
DOMESTIC TERRORISM “is generally defined by law as involving criminal acts dangerous to human life on U.S. soil that appear intended to coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct of government.” The intimidation of citizens, police officers, and household with the objective of manipulation, coercion, or to promote action or inaction among those members is the definition of DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
PSYCHOPATH is generally defined by law as someone who is delusional, or experiencing a form of Psychosis not limited to: Groupthink, Mob-Mentality, Group Psychosis, Hallucinations, Ideological Delusions, etc.
GROOMING the act of deliberately establishing a relationship with a child to prepare them for abuse.
PREDATOR a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor as defined by the law.
CONSENT permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. The law defines that a Minor does not have the developmental capacity to give consent, and this fact is inarguable.
RACISM Racism is prejudice or irrational hate against any nationality and/or the anti-scientific belief in the idea of various human populations, ethnicities, nationalities, and groups as separate “races” of the human species.
SUPREMACY-IDEOLOGY the belief that a certain group of people is superior to all others.
HARASSMENT the Law defines Harassment as: Unlawful violence, like assault or battery or stalking, OR. A credible threat of violence, AND. The violence or threats seriously scare, annoy, or harass someone and there is no valid reason for it.
INTIMIDATION an act or course of conduct directed at a specific person to cause that person to fear or apprehend fear.
MOLESTATION to make unwanted or improper sexual advances towards (someone), especially a child.
DRUG a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
It is against the law in several areas for someone with a felony conviction to not disclose the information that they have been convicted of a Felony if the question is raised as to whether they have a felony.
copyleft(ɔ) all rights reversed
Nothing on this site may be reproduced for the intent of profit or illegal activity [defamation, hearsay, harassment, abuse, bullying, etc.,] but may otherwise be redistributed freely. This work is the product of group effort and historical circumstance. No individual or incorporated entity may claim ownership of the content on this page or likewise accuse any group, organization, or individual of any ownership or attribution.
The disclosure of information “acquired from non-record sources — such as observation, office emails, discussions with co-workers and the ‘rumor mill’– does not violate the Privacy Act . . . even if the information disclosed is also contained in agency records.” Lambert v. United States at *5 (quoting Cloonan, 768 F. Supp. 2d. at 164); Thompson v. BOP, №1:10-CV-00578-JOF, 2012 WL 13072105, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 20, 2012) (For “a disclosure to be covered by section 552a(b), there must have initially been a retrieval from the system of records which was at some point a source of the information.” (citations omitted)); Savage v. Geren, No. CV-08-S-2189-NE, 2010 WL 11519448, at *13 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 15, 2010) (“[T]he Privacy Act does not prohibit disclosure of information or knowledge obtained from other sources other than ‘records.’…In particular, it does not prevent federal employees or officials from talking — even gossiping — about anything of which they have non-record-based knowledge.” (citations omitted)). . .
. . . A plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that a “disclosure” by the agency has occurred. See, e.g., Askew v. United States, 680 F.2d 1206, 1209–11 (8th Cir. 1982); Zerilli v. Smith, 656 F.2d 705, 715–16 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Boyd v. United States, 932 F. Supp. 2d 830, 835 (S.D. Ohio 2013); cf. Hernandez v. Johnson, 514 F. App’x 492, 500 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding that “disclosure is not actionable because it identified [plaintiff] only by his first name and neither recipient knew who ‘Jaime’ was”); Luster v. Vilsack, 667 F.3d 1089, 1097–98 (10th Cir. 2011) (rejecting appellant’s contentions that “mere transmission of the documents to a fax machine at which unauthorized persons might have viewed the documents constitutes a prohibited disclosure” and that “the possibility that a record might be revealed to unauthorized readers by negligent or reckless transmission is sufficient to constitute a prohibited disclosure under the Act’”); Whyde v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 101 F. App’x 997, 1000 (6th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he fact that [a company] somehow came into possession of documents that might have been included in plaintiff’s personnel file . . . gives rise only to a metaphysical doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.”); Brown v. Snow, 94 F. App’x 369, 372 (7th Cir. 2004) (ruling that district court grant of summary judgment was proper where no evidence was found that record was disclosed, and stating that “burden is on the plaintiff at the summary judgment stage to come forward with specific evidence”); Lennon v. Rubin, 166 F.3d 6, 10–11 (1st Cir. 1999) (where agency employee testified that, despite memorandum indicating otherwise, she had disclosed information only within agency, and where plaintiff responded that whether his file was reviewed by other individuals is question of fact he “want[ed] decided by a fact finder, ‘not an affidavit,’” finding such “arguments misapprehend [plaintiff’s] burden at the summary judgment stage”); Russell v. Potter, №3:08-CV-2272, 2011 WL 1375165, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2011) (holding that plaintiff cannot prove disclosure violation where “the only agency involved, the Postal Service, received rather than ‘disclosed’ the information in question”); Collins v. FBI, №10-cv-03470, 2011 WL 1627025, at *7 (D.N.J. Apr. 28, 2011) (dismissing claim and stating that plaintiff’s “conclusory allegations” of unlawful disclosure, “without identifying or describing who acted against Plaintiff or what the person did, is insufficient”); Roggio v. FBI, №08–4991, 2009 WL 2460780, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2009) (concluding that plaintiffs “fail[ed] to allege sufficient facts supporting that the FBI, as opposed to some other law enforcement body, disclosed [one plaintiff’s] rap sheet” on the Internet, where plaintiffs “base[d] their allegation on . . . the mere fact that [a particular Internet] posting contained some expunged information”), reconsideration denied, №08–4991, 2009 WL 2634631 (D.N.J. Aug. 26, 2009); Walia v. Chertoff, №06-cv-6587, 2008 WL 5246014, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2008) (concluding that plaintiff failed to make out prima facie case under subsection (b) of Privacy Act because plaintiff alleged merely that records were accessible to other individuals in office, rather than that they were actually disclosed); Buckles v. Indian Health Serv., 310 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1068 (D.N.D. 2004) (finding that plaintiffs failed to “prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that IHS disclosed protected information” where plaintiffs did not “have personal knowledge that [the memorandum was disclosed]” and witnesses at trial denied disclosing or receiving memorandum); Meldrum v. USPS, №5:97CV1482, slip op. at 11 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 21, 1999) (finding lack of evidence that disclosure occurred where plaintiff alleged that, among other things, file had been left in unsecured file cabinet), aff’d per curiam, №99–3397, 2000 WL 1477495, at *2 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2000). But cf. Speaker, 623 F.3d at 1386 (finding plaintiff’s complaint sufficient to survive summary judgment because he “need not prove his case on the pleadings” but rather “must merely provide enough factual material to raise a reasonable inference, and thus a plausible claim, that the [Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention] was the source of the disclosures”); Ciralsky v. CIA, 689 F. Supp. 2d 141, 156–57 (D.D.C. 2010) (concluding that plaintiff’s allegation of CIA disclosure to unidentified government officials, who were unrelated to handling of plaintiff’s case, was “not unacceptably vague” and need not include identities of alleged recipients for CIA to “understand Plaintiff’s charge”); Tolbert-Smith v. Chu, 714 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 2010) (ruling that plaintiff had stated claim for relief under Privacy Act where plaintiff “pled that a member of [agency] management placed records referring and relating to her disability on a server accessible by other federal employees and members of the public”). (RETRIEVED FROM: https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/disclosures-third-parties )
Originally published at https://menardcc.blogspot.com.
