What started as ugly YouTube drama may now be a federal criminal case.
A blogger gets death threats. He posts proof. The person who made the threats tries to erase the evidence by calling it “copyrighted.” Then she calls his webhost to shut him down.
The Threats
A former Scientologist named Marisa Dawn Sigmond posted violent threats against blogger Allen “Alanzo” Stanfield (alanzosblog.com), who is both a critic of Scientology and a critic of its critics.
In her own words, she said she would “rip his throat out” and bragged that her martial arts training made her capable of doing it:
“I could take Alanzo’s bacon grease fucking thyroid gland and rip it out of his fucking throat. Which I will do.
Alanzo copied those threats onto his blog to protect himself and show the world what she said.
The Cover-Up
Allen Alanzo Stanfield
Then Sigmond tried to erase the evidence. She filed complaints with Google claiming her violent threats were “copyrighted” and that Alanzo was stealing them. She told his webhost the site contained “defamation” and “trademark violations.” The host briefly shut him down.
Alanzo said:
“After hiding almost all of her videos and community posts from her YouTube channel, she contacted my webhost… claimed defamation and intellectual property infringement for my documentation of her violent threats to me. My webhost temporarily suspended this website based on her false claims.”
She also managed to get YouTube to remove Alanzo’s video identifying her, presumably on the same bogus claims.
The Law
Here’s the problem for Sigmond:
Death threats aren’t free speech. If a reasonable person feels threatened, it’s a crime — even if the speaker later says, “I was joking.”
The internet makes it federal. Since Alanzo and Sigmond live in different states, the FBI can step in. Sending threats across state lines can mean up to five years in prison.
You can’t copyright a crime. Trying to claim ownership of your own violent words is like calling 911 to report a burglary you committed. Filing false DMCA claims is abuse of the law — and it can backfire.
Covering your tracks makes it worse. If investigators believe Sigmond deleted posts or filed false claims to hide evidence, that’s obstruction of justice. Courts often take that more seriously than the threats themselves.
Bottom line: what started as internet drama could now be five separate crimes — threats, perjury, DMCA abuse, wire fraud, and obstruction.
The FBI’s Likely Move
The FBI has Cyber Task Forces whose full-time job is investigating online threats. They can move fast to preserve evidence from YouTube and Google, even if posts are deleted.
An agent would likely:
Interview Alanzo in detail.
Check Sigmond’s background — criminal history, history of violence, weapons.
Try to interview Sigmond (and if she lies, that’s another felony).
Interview other critics she has threatened to show a pattern.
If an indictment is secured, the FBI or U.S. Marshals would execute the arrest. The interstate element and the sovereign citizen rhetoric make it more appealing for federal prosecutors than a simple assault case.
The Bigger Picture
Artist rendering of Marisa Dawn Sigmond. Copyright FrankReport.com
Alanzo is not just any private citizen. He is a critic of Scientology, a controversial organization, and if the FBI sees Sigmond’s actions as an attempt to silence him through fear, it raises First Amendment concerns. Free speech is also in play here — not hers, but his.
Sigmond’s internet meltdown has now triggered questions of federal law, civil rights, and free speech retaliation.
Every False Claim Is Another Felony
What began as a grotesque outburst may now span five federal statutes. By trying to weaponize copyright and takedown systems to hide her own threats, Sigmond has only made things worse.
And let this be clear: if Sigmond attempts the same stunt with this website — filing false DMCA claims or bogus “defamation” complaints to take down accurate reporting — the consequences will be far worse for her. Why? Because every fraudulent notice is a new act of perjury under federal law. Every abuse of automated systems is new evidence of obstruction, wire fraud, and witness tampering.
In other words, the harder she pushes, the deeper she digs her own hole. What she calls “fighting” isn’t just bullying anymore — it’s building a federal case file against herself.
Her internet threats may soon bring real-world consequences — swift and severe.
Frank Report will keep you posted.
Final Note
FBI Director Kash Patel
Unlike previous FBI directors, Kahyap Patel is a man of the highest integrity. He directs the FBI based on ethics and investigating individuals based on true crimes. It is a new era and Sigmond ought not to think she can escape from prosecution by trying to silence her foes. This is the Patel Era of good law enforcement.
FBI Director Kash Patel reposts Frank Parlato’s article, garnering more than 900,000 likes.
