[r8533292]

that's what her lawyer says, the appeals court disagrees with what her lawyer says, they upheld the original decision and explain in detail why in the opinion https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-spone. "The above cited evidence directly contradicts Spone's suggestion that she was a concerned parent who had a legitimate purpose in sending the series of anonymous text messages."

[CRConrad]

> "The above cited evidence directly contradicts Spone's suggestion that she was a concerned parent who had a legitimate purpose in sending the series of anonymous text messages."

OK, I read it, and I can't see that it does. Explain how. (And no, her doing it anonymously doesn't contradict her being genuinely concerned. Why would it?)