DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH DOWNEAST ENERGY IN MAINE!
Your personal information is at risk. According to Steve McCusker, the company allows employees' "famil[ies]" to use their internet devices, such as iPads. A spouse or family member (even an estranged spouse!) might have the password to view your emails to the Downeast Energy company.
...and according to Stephen McCusker these devices may indeed be used for "family related" matters, as seen in the correspondence below.
I strongly disagree with Downeast's protocol on that, and thus have severed my relationship with that company (just waiting for them to finally take away their tanks).
NO ONE should be allowed to use company devices other than company employees. Information was compromised in at least one case, because a spouse of a marketing person went through all his emails. These emails may have contained sensitive information such as physical addresses and financial information.
I strongly disagree with Downeast's protocol on that, and thus have severed my relationship with that company (just waiting for them to finally take away their tanks).
NO ONE should be allowed to use company devices other than company employees. Information was compromised in at least one case, because a spouse of a marketing person went through all his emails. These emails may have contained sensitive information such as physical addresses and financial information.
ACCORDING TO STEVE MCCUSKER. ALL OF HIS EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS ARE VIA THE DOWNEAST ENERGY DEVICE. HE SAYS THERE IS NO WAY TO CONTACT HIM, OTHER THAN THROUGH HIS WORK-RELATED DEVICES.
.......a bit hard to believe, but let's go with that. He has no email access, nor a phone, other than through his work-related devices?
Since last November-----OVER TWELVE MONTHS AGO------he has had NO personal emails, and NO personal phone calls on these devices?
A few of our mutual friends would testify otherwise.
Since last November-----OVER TWELVE MONTHS AGO------he has had NO personal emails, and NO personal phone calls on these devices?
A few of our mutual friends would testify otherwise.
Did Steve discuss me with his employer, Downeast Energy? That would be an actionable violation of his Settlement of my defamation lawsuit against him. It appears that he did so....I have heard that he told them to not contact me about my privacy concerns. I have heard that it's likely that he told his employer not to worry about things because my lawsuit against Steve and his wife was not an important matter.
Geez, Downeast Energy.....do you REALLY think that the Cumberland County Superior Court granted me a Judgment against Stephen and Elizabeth McCusker without any damning evidence against them?
But in the meantime, let's have a look at Steve's letter:
This letter, wherein Steve McCusker expresses his "concern" over my true statements that I had seen Liz McCusker's online activity, implies that I had somehow done so nefariously.
It's a very BIG implication, because the innuendo is that I broke into Liz's-----and thus Steve's----email accounts. Since Liz was using Downeast Energy's device, he's basically accusing me of committing a felony.
Liz McCusker has what I consider an addiction to being on the internet. Internet activity leaves a clear trail. This is particularly true of facebook, about which recent lawsuits have proven there are no working "privacy settings".
Liz McCusker herself had stated in her depositions that she felt justified in stalking me [i.e. taking photos of my car while I was in a grocery store; investigating my assistant; investigating my pilot's license; attempting to contact my ex-husband; attempting to contact my ex-husband's very ill wife; and many other stalking behaviours). Her "trail" on the internet shows that she has not yet given up that task.
It's a very BIG implication, because the innuendo is that I broke into Liz's-----and thus Steve's----email accounts. Since Liz was using Downeast Energy's device, he's basically accusing me of committing a felony.
Liz McCusker has what I consider an addiction to being on the internet. Internet activity leaves a clear trail. This is particularly true of facebook, about which recent lawsuits have proven there are no working "privacy settings".
Liz McCusker herself had stated in her depositions that she felt justified in stalking me [i.e. taking photos of my car while I was in a grocery store; investigating my assistant; investigating my pilot's license; attempting to contact my ex-husband; attempting to contact my ex-husband's very ill wife; and many other stalking behaviours). Her "trail" on the internet shows that she has not yet given up that task.
But let's look at Steve's claims individually:
First he says that "on or about 10/21, I was asked to turn in my company iPad". Except that's not what he said at the time. In an email to me dated October 18, 2016 Steve states: "I am voluntarily turning in my iPad tomorrow". In a later email, he said he didn't turn it in until 6 days later.
This may not sound like a big thing. But it's indicative of how, throughout the course of time and litigation, Steve and Liz have twisted the truth to suit whatever point they were trying to make at the time. Either that, to give them the benefit of the doubt, they are chronic at "misremembering" things.
This may not sound like a big thing. But it's indicative of how, throughout the course of time and litigation, Steve and Liz have twisted the truth to suit whatever point they were trying to make at the time. Either that, to give them the benefit of the doubt, they are chronic at "misremembering" things.
Then there's that "facts I testified to" line
This is very confusing.....did his employer put him under oath? He had to testify in a deposition or something?
But McCusker misses the real issue.
The issue is that his wife was able to access proprietary information because she had his password to his Downeast Energy email account, and thus could access email from customers. One of those customers was me. I don't care to have Liz know my street address or how much oil and propane I use.
But McCusker misses the real issue.
The issue is that his wife was able to access proprietary information because she had his password to his Downeast Energy email account, and thus could access email from customers. One of those customers was me. I don't care to have Liz know my street address or how much oil and propane I use.
Steve says he's "somewhat concerned" that I had compromised his business information.
Apparently he has me confused with his wife. How is it that I compromised his business information by looking at his wife's facebook postings?
How do Liz's tens of thousands of facebook postings and "Likes" relate to any knowledge on my part about his business-dealings?
It appears he is admitting that she compromised his business dealings, and posted that on facebook.
How do Liz's tens of thousands of facebook postings and "Likes" relate to any knowledge on my part about his business-dealings?
It appears he is admitting that she compromised his business dealings, and posted that on facebook.
Is it really true that Downeast Energy allows these iPads and phones to be used for "family related' issues?
Yikes. So does Downeast Energy's policy thus mean that an iPad, say, can be used by all of the employee's family? Does it extend to allowing spouses access to emails sent to "employee"@downeastenergy.com? Because that's certainly what Liz McCusker did.
Because this is where Steve's story really breaks down into what appear to be untruths:
There we were in May of 2016, and he'd been saying since November 2015 that he has no email address, and no phone-----other than the ones that belong to Downeast Energy. He says he can't use them for ANY non-work communication.
But his wife has a personal email account, and he's also said that he cannot be communicated with via his wife's email account. And that she's allowed to use Downeast Energy's devices.
So I'm trying to understand this here: Liz McCusker has a personal email account. Steve told me that Liz's computer crashed (sometime prior to mid-October of 2015). So she's accessing her account via Downeast Energy's devices.
OR......Liz does have a computer now. Steve could use it if he wanted to; he's just hiding behind the excuse of the "no non-business email or phone calls". Not too many people these days have no way of contact other than snail-mail.
In my opinion he's been fudging the truth all along about his ability to use his company-issued devices. I know for a fact he has used his company-owned device to contact our mutual friends or more than one occasion.
Liz, Steve, and I likely going to be back in court shortly on their Defaults. I did reach out to try to settle the matter. Liz refuses to allow Steve to discuss a settlement. Any settlement would include my offer to relieve their debt to me.
But his wife has a personal email account, and he's also said that he cannot be communicated with via his wife's email account. And that she's allowed to use Downeast Energy's devices.
So I'm trying to understand this here: Liz McCusker has a personal email account. Steve told me that Liz's computer crashed (sometime prior to mid-October of 2015). So she's accessing her account via Downeast Energy's devices.
OR......Liz does have a computer now. Steve could use it if he wanted to; he's just hiding behind the excuse of the "no non-business email or phone calls". Not too many people these days have no way of contact other than snail-mail.
In my opinion he's been fudging the truth all along about his ability to use his company-issued devices. I know for a fact he has used his company-owned device to contact our mutual friends or more than one occasion.
Liz, Steve, and I likely going to be back in court shortly on their Defaults. I did reach out to try to settle the matter. Liz refuses to allow Steve to discuss a settlement. Any settlement would include my offer to relieve their debt to me.
A long story from 2015, but so illustrative........
Steve and I email each other occasionally. We've been doing so for decades, although in recent years the emails have been friendly but to the point. We try to keep the tone friendly----perhaps commenting on the most recent Patriots game-----but these emails are not exactly love letters.
So on June 15, 2015, Steve was really scratching his head about how Liz had found out that he and I had occasionally met for coffee. By the next day he told me to "suspend emails for now" because it was clear that Liz was reading his emails. She had specifically mentioned dates that she thought he and I had met for coffee (actually citing incorrect dates----Steve was not sure why that would be other than he believed she read them surreptitiously and thus quickly).
How ironic that it was when we were actually having coffee together a few days later that he told me he had figured out that Liz had used his work-issued iPad to "creep" on him (to use a word Liz likes to use....I gather she means "spy"). I brought up the fact that his employer would likely not be very happy that she was using his company-issued iPad to read emails sent to the company....and he was clearly angry with her and agreed.
So on June 15, 2015, Steve was really scratching his head about how Liz had found out that he and I had occasionally met for coffee. By the next day he told me to "suspend emails for now" because it was clear that Liz was reading his emails. She had specifically mentioned dates that she thought he and I had met for coffee (actually citing incorrect dates----Steve was not sure why that would be other than he believed she read them surreptitiously and thus quickly).
How ironic that it was when we were actually having coffee together a few days later that he told me he had figured out that Liz had used his work-issued iPad to "creep" on him (to use a word Liz likes to use....I gather she means "spy"). I brought up the fact that his employer would likely not be very happy that she was using his company-issued iPad to read emails sent to the company....and he was clearly angry with her and agreed.
Fast forward to October......
Fast-forward to October. As noted elsewhere, he'd been telling me not to email after 8:00 a.m, which I found weird, since his usual M.O. is to ask me to ONLY contact him during business hours. On the phone on October 14 he told me why this is-------it's because he leaves his COMPANY-OWNED iPad home with Liz all day so that she can access the internet......apparently her computer crashed. This is wrong on so many levels, but let's get to the most important:
Steve works for Downeast Energy, a local branch of a national energy company. I and many in my family were customers of that company. Liz is now into that company's server.....this means she can likely access various data that reside there.
Liz needs Steve's passcode to get onto the iPad. But once she's done that, she can access all his email that is on the company's server. Not only CAN she do that; she HAS done it. Steve told me that day that he would expect that she cruises through his emails in order to find anything she thinks might be from me. So, as far as Steve's own customers are concerned, bye-bye expectation-of-privacy!!! Liz McCusker, a non-employee of the company, is reading your emails, perhaps with your financial attachments.
Steve works for Downeast Energy, a local branch of a national energy company. I and many in my family were customers of that company. Liz is now into that company's server.....this means she can likely access various data that reside there.
Liz needs Steve's passcode to get onto the iPad. But once she's done that, she can access all his email that is on the company's server. Not only CAN she do that; she HAS done it. Steve told me that day that he would expect that she cruises through his emails in order to find anything she thinks might be from me. So, as far as Steve's own customers are concerned, bye-bye expectation-of-privacy!!! Liz McCusker, a non-employee of the company, is reading your emails, perhaps with your financial attachments.
First I freak out, then Steve freaks out
I emailed Steve very early the morning of 10/15/15 (6 a.m.------he'd told me not to email after 8 a.m., nor am I allowed to email after 4:30 p.m., so early morning seemed reasonable). I told him that I had discussed the matter with my ex, who is a HUGE customer of Steve's company, via not only his residence (which the ex and I still happily own together) but also via a big commercial account.
Rewinding the tape for a moment here, my ex had reason to worry. Liz McCusker, particularly during her charades as "Jack Hill", made many many attempts to find out information about me----including the addresses of my homes, financial information, etc. She even attempted to contact my ex via email on several occasions. From the ex's perspective, Liz's foray into Downeast Energy's email server was all about collecting information.....and needless to say, he is livid that Steve has put his commercial account at risk.
It should be noted that I received a Protection from Harassment Order against Liz, which specifically cited her "stalking".
Steve didn't seem to understand that even an innocuous email to him from a colleague could open the door to Liz's finding proprietary company information. But my ex sure understood that, and that evening I agreed with the ex that since Steve was disinclined to stop giving in to Liz's "requirements" that she be allowed to access his work-emails, we needed to put ourselves on record as objecting to Downeast Energy allowing a non-employee access to passcodes for Downeast Energy-owned devices.
Once Steve found out that at least two of us intended to contact the company about that issue, he started emailing and phoning me. He appeared panicked, saying that if I contacted Downeast about this issue, he'd lose his job.
Rewinding the tape for a moment here, my ex had reason to worry. Liz McCusker, particularly during her charades as "Jack Hill", made many many attempts to find out information about me----including the addresses of my homes, financial information, etc. She even attempted to contact my ex via email on several occasions. From the ex's perspective, Liz's foray into Downeast Energy's email server was all about collecting information.....and needless to say, he is livid that Steve has put his commercial account at risk.
It should be noted that I received a Protection from Harassment Order against Liz, which specifically cited her "stalking".
Steve didn't seem to understand that even an innocuous email to him from a colleague could open the door to Liz's finding proprietary company information. But my ex sure understood that, and that evening I agreed with the ex that since Steve was disinclined to stop giving in to Liz's "requirements" that she be allowed to access his work-emails, we needed to put ourselves on record as objecting to Downeast Energy allowing a non-employee access to passcodes for Downeast Energy-owned devices.
Once Steve found out that at least two of us intended to contact the company about that issue, he started emailing and phoning me. He appeared panicked, saying that if I contacted Downeast about this issue, he'd lose his job.
Why is Steve McCusker back-pedaling?
Steve's legs must be sore from all the back-pedaling he did on 10/15/15.
First he told me via email at 7:24 a.m. that he had taken the iPad with him to work; the implication being that Liz would no longer have access to it. This turned out to be a lie------he told me in a late-afternoon telephone conversation that he had actually said he'd take the iPad away from Liz the following day. A review (subsequently sent to him) of his 7:24 a.m. email showed that I had not misinterpreted his 7:24 a.m. email; he had said in the email, "I am taking iPad back to work today!!!". I interpreted that as a statement by him that he had taken the iPad to work (Duh). Most people would assume that meant that, if the iPad was at work with him, Liz would not have access to it. So that 7:24 a.m. email seemed to have been sent to mislead me as to his actual actions about my and my ex's concerns.
But the biggest back-pedal was his ratiocination about why he allowed Liz to use his company's iPad all day......
First he told me via email at 7:24 a.m. that he had taken the iPad with him to work; the implication being that Liz would no longer have access to it. This turned out to be a lie------he told me in a late-afternoon telephone conversation that he had actually said he'd take the iPad away from Liz the following day. A review (subsequently sent to him) of his 7:24 a.m. email showed that I had not misinterpreted his 7:24 a.m. email; he had said in the email, "I am taking iPad back to work today!!!". I interpreted that as a statement by him that he had taken the iPad to work (Duh). Most people would assume that meant that, if the iPad was at work with him, Liz would not have access to it. So that 7:24 a.m. email seemed to have been sent to mislead me as to his actual actions about my and my ex's concerns.
But the biggest back-pedal was his ratiocination about why he allowed Liz to use his company's iPad all day......
If you thought it was OK to allow your wife to use Downeast Energy's device as her personal computer, then why worry? If it's OK to allow Liz into Downeast Energy's email-server, why worry? [calling Hillary Clinton here....]
Unlike our June meeting, wherein Steve was clearly cognizant of the ramifications to his career of Liz accessing his work-email, on October 15 Steve was defiant.
He told me that immediately that day he had gone to his supervisor and owned-up to what he had done in allowing Liz to use the Downeast Energy-owned iPad as her own personal computer. He told me that he was only told "It's probably not a good idea". Given the environment we operate in today, that attitude on the part of Downeast Energy defies logic.
But here is the real issue:
Steve clearly knows that allowing his spouse to use the company-owned iPad to read emails addressed to Downeast Energy's server is wrong. He said, "She only reads the ones from you", which indicates that she at least scans all his emails. (Or maybe I'm secretly contacting her husband via a fake email address? Oh heck , she'd better read them all!)
He also clearly knows that allowing Liz to use company property as her personal computer was wrong. Otherwise, why is he so nervous about Downeast Energy finding out? I asked him that question at least 4 times in our telephone conversation, and he avoided answering all four times.
He told me that immediately that day he had gone to his supervisor and owned-up to what he had done in allowing Liz to use the Downeast Energy-owned iPad as her own personal computer. He told me that he was only told "It's probably not a good idea". Given the environment we operate in today, that attitude on the part of Downeast Energy defies logic.
But here is the real issue:
Steve clearly knows that allowing his spouse to use the company-owned iPad to read emails addressed to Downeast Energy's server is wrong. He said, "She only reads the ones from you", which indicates that she at least scans all his emails. (Or maybe I'm secretly contacting her husband via a fake email address? Oh heck , she'd better read them all!)
He also clearly knows that allowing Liz to use company property as her personal computer was wrong. Otherwise, why is he so nervous about Downeast Energy finding out? I asked him that question at least 4 times in our telephone conversation, and he avoided answering all four times.
And as usual, it's that sense of entitlement
And all of this-----Liz putting Steve in the position of possibly losing his job-----is because Liz apparently felt entitled to use an iPad that does not belong to her.
How did she get his passcode in the first place? Did she surreptitiously take it? Did he give into a demand from her for it?
Her computer crashed, and thus she "needs" to use Downeast Energy's device. It's not as though she is without internet----she has a state-of-the-art smart phone for which they pay an enormous amount of money per month.
And when my personal computer has crashed----twice in the last 4 years-----I go to my public library to access the internet. I do not presume to use my office's devices for personal matters----and I own the damn company! Our office, like most companies today, has strict rules about personal use of our tech devices. I adhere to these rules myself, because they are put in place to prevent security breaches, and to protect our clients'/customers' information.
I am pretty damn sure Steve knew this, particularly given our in-person conversation at the coffee house in June. But as is usual with those two, it seems the rules don't apply to them.
So no wonder he's worried about his job. It's been my experience that he'll do just about anything to keep the peace with Liz, and her 1) breaking into his iPad to peruse his emails; 2) then wanting to use it all day in spite of this likely jeopardizing his job; speaks volumes about her attitude.
How did she get his passcode in the first place? Did she surreptitiously take it? Did he give into a demand from her for it?
Her computer crashed, and thus she "needs" to use Downeast Energy's device. It's not as though she is without internet----she has a state-of-the-art smart phone for which they pay an enormous amount of money per month.
And when my personal computer has crashed----twice in the last 4 years-----I go to my public library to access the internet. I do not presume to use my office's devices for personal matters----and I own the damn company! Our office, like most companies today, has strict rules about personal use of our tech devices. I adhere to these rules myself, because they are put in place to prevent security breaches, and to protect our clients'/customers' information.
I am pretty damn sure Steve knew this, particularly given our in-person conversation at the coffee house in June. But as is usual with those two, it seems the rules don't apply to them.
So no wonder he's worried about his job. It's been my experience that he'll do just about anything to keep the peace with Liz, and her 1) breaking into his iPad to peruse his emails; 2) then wanting to use it all day in spite of this likely jeopardizing his job; speaks volumes about her attitude.
....But it's everyone else's fault
What really made me see red on October 15 in my conversation with Steve was his usual dance about how this is everyone else's fault but his. But it wasn't me that gave his company-owned device and passcode to Liz.
His default-speech about others is "that's so low", a statement he made about my ex. He made the statement in a context of high dudgeon----as though he is being picked-on.
When I asked, 'What do you mean, that's "low'?", he said "It's low to try to harm another person's livelihood".
Well thank you Stephen R. McCusker for once again admitting the harm you did to me by your vile postings as Jack Hill. Your and Liz's statements "harmed my livelihood" to the tune of $300,000. Does that not count, because it's not about you?
His default-speech about others is "that's so low", a statement he made about my ex. He made the statement in a context of high dudgeon----as though he is being picked-on.
When I asked, 'What do you mean, that's "low'?", he said "It's low to try to harm another person's livelihood".
Well thank you Stephen R. McCusker for once again admitting the harm you did to me by your vile postings as Jack Hill. Your and Liz's statements "harmed my livelihood" to the tune of $300,000. Does that not count, because it's not about you?