Kochran Kardashian | Nik Richie + Dirty Army intel, opinions, gossip, satire, and celebrities

Hubby Drama

April 5, 2013 Kochran Kardashian, Portland 220

THE DIRTY ARMY: Update to “the fat wannabe kardashian” This is Nicole Hallgrimson. Bad parenting alert! Leaves baby alone for hours while she does whatever it is to make her face look like that. She is using her husband for money. She even got herself knocked up (before being married of course) just to keep him around. Lazy woman wants to do nothing but lay around bein a slut. She sleeps with everyone else besides him-no wonder he is always at the strip clubs. Poor guy basically lives there! I’am not saying he is cheating…but i have seen him in strippers car twice now. Cant blame him tho, my friend “E” dated her and said she has bacon vag. Everyone look out, hide your wallet…she will steal it!

Why not just buy some bronzer…- nik

+ Submit More Info 220 Comments

We Need To Shut Her Up

October 9, 2012 Kochran Kardashian, Wichita 4

THE DIRTY ARMY: Nik, this B*tch’s name is Amy Layton from clearwater Ks. Shes got 6 kids & think she’s god’s Gift to everyone and LORD HELP YOU if you piss her off or dont bow down to her AWESOMENESS because she will try to go for the throat. She deserves to have a serious Beat down… Not to mention She got fired and Handcuffed at the Walmart she WAS Employed at for Stealing Jewelry out of her Own Department!!! LOL But she’s hot sh*t (in her mind) Please Get Down and Dirty with the Trash talking on this one!!!

That is classic.  Stealing from the place you work at.- nik

+ Submit More Info 4 Comments

Court The Trash

March 8, 2011 Kochran Kardashian, Sacramento 68

Court the whore

Court the whore

Court the whore

THE DIRTY ARMY: Nik, this is Courtney Card, she is so trashy and disgusting. She is known for being a sophomore party wh*re and giving it up to any guy she can, but then she complains to everyone how her friend Brooke left her after she finally had sex with him. She is every guy’s last resort at a party, she will drunk-kiss anyone, and she’s usually first to ask. She skips school at least once a week because she emotionally can’t ‘handle’ things. She is a piece of sh*t and only lives for drinking and telling everyone what a sloot she is. Put her on the dirty, she is filthy!

I don’t care, she’s fat.- nik

+ Submit More Info 68 Comments

Candice Wilson

March 3, 2011 Kochran Kardashian, Wichita 36

Candice Wilson

Candice Wilson

THE DIRTY ARMY: Nik, This Girl Is A Wh*re who likes anal and has sex with every BLACK GUY in Witchita and the surrounding cities. Her p*ssie smells like old patato salad and it is beat up it looks like a gobble on a turkey’s neck…She Gave 6 people drd’s in Winfeild within the last year..is a that a Slore or what?

You just gave me the worst mental picture ever.- nik

+ Submit More Info 36 Comments

Sweetest Sloot

March 29, 2010 Auburn, Kochran Kardashian, Washington DC 1

THE DIRTY ARMY: Nik This bitch is a p*ssy rich snob who acts like the sweetest angel ever wen realli shez a stuck up catty little f*ckin slutty bitch. She def define the term a takerrrr but not a giver if you catch my drift. she is one of those chicks that is always around but never actually has a role in anything. she gets whipped as f*ck w/ her fagg*t choice of bfs .. thiz chick moved to BC and yet still comes to visit.. wudnt b surprsed if she aint on the Vancouver one, bet she be whoren it A town style there oto. shemakes out w. every chick wen shes drunk n practically flirts with everyguy. Rave whore to the max and lovesit in the ass. this UDUB wanna be gurl will always trik u into gettin wat she wants. On the right we have cara and she is known for being the biggest h*e in the shortest amount of time after breaking up with her then boyfriend. the blnd chick on the left is her three sum buddy. they always hook up, lez-be-honeesst..LOL soo now you tell me nik … would you?

Answer: no.  Her face is angled and she can’t hide her horse head with that kissy face.

+ Submit More Info 1 Comments

Heres The Dirty Truth

March 2, 2010 Chicago, Illinois, Kochran Kardashian 19

dirty truth

dirty truth

dirty truth

THE DIRTY ARMY: Dear Nik, this is mary SL** its only been the first semester in college and shes already banged at least EIGHT guys (without applying the rule of 3 -american pie) she admits to liking it in the butt ..she admits to wanting three somes. shes taken E at LEAST 4 times already and cannot get enough of it. she is the JOKE of every party around here. she is legit DIRTY tooo. HORRIBLE hygiene, sweats prefusely, i wouldnt even doubt that she never showers, gross! shes a fat bitch and thinks WAY too much of herself. she thinks her friends dont judge her but PUHLEASE everyone knows whats up with that slut. yup, big time SLUTTTTTTTT no guy should EVER date this chick or even bang her. TRUST ME SHE HAS BEEN AROUNDDDDDD word is she was an even BIGGER slut in high school. god help this chick. So Nik, would you?

Answer: no.  I’m embarrassed that you even asked.

+ Submit More Info 19 Comments


November 26, 2007 Kochran Kardashian 3



Let me know if you want us to send a C&D letter to Old Navy for them stealing your thunder…and YES, I was actually cruising through Old Navy this weekend and saw this shirt on the clearance rack (the only size left was small; I guess they sold out of all the others).


+ Submit More Info 3 Comments

Kochran Kardashian

November 12, 2007 Kochran Kardashian 0

EMAIL:> ——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Removal of potential defamatory material: Post 921
From: “Jaclyn Ward”
Date: Tue, October 30, 2007 9:20 pm

To whom it may concern,

I am writing in regards to a post (921) made on your website this morning,
Tuesday October 30th.

This picture of me was taken and posted without my consent. I have
provided a link to the picture specifically pertaining to me:


I have read through your site and understand that legally you do not take
reponsibility for any defamation or libelous print that may occur.While I
understand the legal basis supporting the freedom of speech and your ability
to do as you please with pictures and information as it becomes available to
you, I am particularly concerned with the potential defamation of reputation
and privacy that I may incur from both the picture and its comments. While
you assert that speculation and false information may readily occur on your
website, this does negates the fact that public access to such false
information and speculation about me may potentially harm my ability to
succeed in the work force in the future and maintain a reputable standard
for myself to adhere to. I feel the specific instance I am portrayed in
does not supplement the stated purpose of your website as it did not occur
in Scottsdale and thus does neither help nor hinder the success of your

I am not currently interested in pursuing legal action, although I have
consulted a judge, as well as a lawyer specifying in libel and slander, to
better understand the legal ramificatios of the situation. I only
respectfully ask that the picture and the accompanying comments are removed
as soon as possible. I respect the intentions of your website and do not
wish to hinder its success but rather assert that the succeess of your
website is not pursued at the sake of my own privacy and reputation.

The following information can be found on Ivan Hoffman’s, attorney at law,
website and may provide the foundation for justifying the removal of the
material concerning me on your website.

“The remedies the FTC has imposed on sites has generally been to order the
sites to notify those who provided information and make provision for those
parties to delete that information (opt out provisions). The violating
sites are often required to notify the third parties to whom the information
was provided to delete such information as well.”

I ask that you address the situation promptly and respectfully. I
appreciate your attention to the issue in advance.

Please contact me with any questions.


Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 9:52 AM
To: Jaclyn
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: [FWD: Removal of potential defamatory material: Post 921]

Miss Ward,

This firm represents the website www.DirtyScottsdale.com (“DS”). The operator of DS has sent me your email which is copied below in which you request the removal of “potential defamatory material” about you posted on DS including both comments and a photo in which you appear with two other people.

With regard to your photo, I appreciate your concerns but there is no legal basis for you to request the removal of this photo. First, since you appear to be looking directly at, and, in fact, posing for the camera, it is difficult to believe that “This picture was taken … without [your] consent.”

Second, regarding the fact that the photo has been posted on a publicly available website (DS), this is a matter of free speech and your consent is not required in order for the original photographer to send, or for DS to post, the photo since it depicts an interesting and (perhaps unfortunately) humorous situation (as the numerous comments beneath it reflect). The common law and the laws of many states do generally recognize an individual’s right to privacy in some situations, but that right does not extend to photos taken in public places such as bars, restaurants, streets, parties, or other public locations; “The taking of a photograph is not an invasion of privacy where the picture is taken on the public streets, or in a public place. This is true even if the photographer continuously follows the plaintiff, causing emotional distress.” 62A Am. Jur. 2d Privacy § 113 (citing Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1205, 28 A.L.R. Fed. 879 (2d Cir. 1973) (applying New York law); King v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 5 Ohio App. 3d 49, 449 N.E.2d 14 (6th Dist. 1982) (unauthorized photographing of plaintiff in restaurant parking lot)).

Separate and apart from the photograph, I understand that you are upset about some of the comments beneath the photo. Because you did not specifically identify which comments are offensive to you, I cannot respond directly with regard to whether or not the comments are capable of a defamatory meaning. However, in general, you need to understand that these comments were written by users of the DS site and not by the site itself.

In this situation, because DS is an “interactive website”, even if a user were to post a defamatory comment about you, DS is entirely immune from any lawsuit based on those comments because of a federal law called the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (the CDA).

This federal statute, which was passed by Congress with the intent to “promote unfettered speech, provides in relevant part: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (emphasis added). Section 230 further provides that [n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section. Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465, 470 (3rd Cir. 2003) (noting that the CDA, precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publishers role, and therefore bars lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publishers traditional editorial functions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone, or alter content.)

Secondary authority has also explained that:

[The CDAs] provisions set up a complete shield from a defamation suit for an online service provider, absent an affirmative showing that the service was the actual author of the defamatory content. Accordingly, a number of courts have ruled that the ISP was immune from liability for defamation where allegedly libelous statements were made available by third parties through an ISP or were posted by third parties on the server’s billboards, as the ISP fell within the scope of 47 U.S.C.A. § 230.

Jay M. Zitter, J.D., Annotation Liability of Internet Service Provider for Internet or Email Defamation § 2, 84 A.L.R.5th 169 (2000) (emphasis added) (citing Pantazis, Note, Zeran v America Online, Inc.: Insulating Internet Service Providers From Defamation Liability, 34 Wake Forest L. Rev. 531 (1999)); see also Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 102728 (9th Cir. 2003) (recognizing, Making interactive computer services and their users liable for the speech of third parties would severely restrict the information available on the Internet. Section 230 therefore sought to prevent lawsuits from shutting down websites and other services on the Internet.) (emphasis added) (quoting Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online Inc., 206 F.3d 980, 98384 (10th Cir. 2000).

I do not know which judge/lawyer you may have consulted with, but if they are at all familiar with Internet law, they should have advised you that Arizona has reviewed, applied and adopted the CDA as providing complete immunity to interactive websites such as DS. See Austin v. Crystaltech Web Hosting, 211 Ariz. 569, 125 P.3d 389 (App. 2005) (holding website operator/ISP was entitled to immunity under the CDA for statements posted by a third party).

What all of this means is very simple — if a user of DS posted something defamatory about you on the site, you have every right to sue that person for what they have said (assuming the statements are actually false and defamatory). However, you cannot sue DS for any statements posted by its users because the CDA provides immunity to the site absent an affirmative showing that the site itself authored the defamatory statements.

Having said all of this, if you wish to identify any specific comments which you believe are false/defamatory, I will gladly discuss them with the operator of DS and determine whether DS is willing to delete those comments, even if it is under no legal obligation to do so.

+ Submit More Info 0 Comments