Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Journalism > News Media > Second Notice t...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 32 of 71 Topic 12534 of 15786
Post > Topic >>

Second Notice to Troll Cease and Desist anonymous cyberstalking

by "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 4, 2008 at 06:46 PM

MR. Troll 327  This is your __2nd _______notice to cease and desist 
publi****ng, posting or speaking any and all harassment and/or 
cyberstalking, and/or obloquy, and/or defamation/slander, and/or 
invasion of my privacy, and/or libel directed to me or about me in any 
manner, including assisting others to do the same, or perpetrating the 
same acts under different names, via USENET, via the Internet, via web 
sites, via newsgroups, via Email, via telephone, or by other form of 
communication or publi****ng. If you wish to receive this notice via 
personal and direct certified mail from my lawyer, please respond with 
an address in which this do***ent can be sent to you at 
legalcoach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 It has also come to my attention that you are allegedly using or have 
used other internet names to also perpetrate the overt acts against me 
as stated above. If applicable, please cease and desist using different 
fake names to facilitate and further your smear, cyberstaking and 
harassment campaign against me.

2. You have been advised several times before that I consider your 
USENET posts referencing me to be a direct communication to me for the 
purpose of harassment or cyberstalking or abuse or torment or offense 
and/or embarrassment and/or defamation and obloquy.

3. Your posting pattern on USENET about me has been carefully reviewed , 
and it demonstrates a clear and unmistakable deliberate, and obsessive, 
deliberate intent to harass and/or stalk and/or libel and/or defame me 
in almost every way imaginable.

4. In addition to your obsessive desire to continue to harass, defame, 
smear and stalk me with your USENET posts, you also are repeatedly 
violating my copyrights. Moreover, your pattern of spitefully violating 
my copyrights does not lend itself to any belief you are doing so under 
any fair use defense nor doctrine.

5. Please immediately cease and desist infringing on my copyrights. You 
are hereby expressly forbidden to reproduce any of my copyrighted 
materials without my express permission in writing.

6. Please do not consider this notice as any kind of threat. This notice 
is not meant to be a threat of any kind, only an official legal notice 
for you to immediately cease and desist the actions previously stated 
herein or I will be forced to take appropriate legal action against you 
to stop you from perpetrating said acts.

7. Please do not respond to this notice unless you wish to receive it 
directly from my lawyer. If you have retained a lawyer please have him 
contact me at the legalcoach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 email address indicated above.

8. Please consider my repeated notices to you to cease and desist the 
above as related to the following standard legal provision (4) in 
respect to harassment and cyberstalking statutes found in most states, 
and recognized by most courts:

4) "In a prosecution for a violation of this section, evidence that the 
defendant continued to engage in a course of conduct involving repeated 
unconsented contact with the victim after having been requested by the 
victim to discontinue the same or a different form of unconsented 
contact, and to refrain from any further unconsented contact with the 
victim, gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the continuation of 
the course of conduct caused the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, 
intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested."



Douglas Reiman

I have also included some information below as an attachment that you 
may or may not find interesting:

Items of possible interest provided as an attachment:



Federal crime cases

Basically, there are two scenarios leading to the filing of a criminal 
case in federal court: (1) there is an alleged violation of federal, as 
opposed to state, law; or (2) the crime alleged took place on federal 
property. Actions which violate both state and federal laws may be 
prosecuted in either (or both) jurisdictions without violating the 
constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.



Acts committed on federal property may violate either state or federal 
laws as well, although they will always be prosecuted in federal court 
by virtue of the fact that they occurred on federal property. If an act 
committed on federal property violates state law only, it will be 
prosecuted in federal court under the substantive law of the state where 
it occurred, although federal rules and procedures will apply.

(Not smart to use Federal Property to unlawfully harass, incite hatred 
against or stalk someone - instant Felony.)


"Rep. MCDERMOTT (Wa****ngton State) said he was prompted to act by the 
case of Joelle Ligon, a Seattle woman who was sent menacing e-mails, 
falsely accused of résumé-padding in messages to co-workers and 
impersonated in ***-oriented Internet chat rooms from 1998 to 2003."

Note that Internet chat rooms and falsely impersonating a person in 
emails, and being sent menacing emails were ALL mentioned and were 
clearly involved in the Congressional intent of the anonymous 
cyberstalker legislation and the new cyberstalking law. A USENET post 
repeatedly directed toward a particular person is (1) a form of 
communication to that person (2) is a communication to that person via a 
third party (3) if such publications contain a pattern of defamation and 
libel, and false accusations, then that communication represents a 
published libel, defamation published though international commerce.

"A scholar who specializes in cyber law says the law could be difficult 
to overturn. Susan B"renner, a University of Dayton law professor and a 
consultant to the Secret Service on cyber laws, says courts likely would 
read "annoy" together with the words that follow it - "abuse, threaten 
or harass" - and conclude that the law refers to specific behavior."

In 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit used that 
reasoning to uphold the conviction of Erik Bowker, an Ohio man who had 
stalked a Youngstown television re****ter via telephone."



http://tinyurl.com/ypqgbw

Criminal and Civil copyright violations: U.S.C. Title 17.





Oregon Cyberstalking and Harassment Statues: http://tinyurl.com/65nlbe

Michigan Cyberstalking and Harassment stautes:



http://tinyurl.com/5nvo9k
"(4) In a prosecution for a violation of this 
section, evidence that the defendant continued to engage in a course of 
conduct involving repeated unconsented contact with the victim after 
having been requested by the victim to discontinue the same or a 
different form of unconsented contact, and to refrain from any further 
unconsented contact with the victim, gives rise to a rebuttable 
presumption that the continuation of the course of conduct caused the 
victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, 
harassed, or molested.

(5) A criminal penalty provided for under this section may be imposed in 
addition to any penalty that may be imposed for any other criminal 
offense arising from the same conduct or for any contempt of court 
arising from the same conduct."

Hawaii Cyberstalking and Harassment Stautes:



http://tinyurl.com/6o6lz5
"Rpeatedly makes communications, after being 
advised by the person to whom the communication is directed that further 
communication is unwelcome;"

Texas Cyberstalking and Harassment Statutes:

PENAL CODE

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

Sec.A42.07.AAHARASSMENT.A (a)AAA person commits an offense

if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass 
another, he:.

"(7)AAsends repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably 
likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend 
another.

(b)AAIn this section:

(1)AA"Electronic communication" means a transfer of signs, signals, 
writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of

any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, 
electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system."

"In a prosecution for a violation of this section, evidence that the 
defendant continued to engage in a course of conduct involving repeated 
unconsented contact with the victim after having been requested by the 
victim to discontinue the same or a different form of unconsented 
contact, and to refrain from any further unconsented contact with the 
victim, gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the continuation of 
the course of conduct caused the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, 
intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested."



http://tinyurl.com/5pwl4p
§ 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF 
ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed 
by the conduct of another if: (1) acting with the kind of culpability 
required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or 
nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition 
of the offense; (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the 
commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or 
attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or (3) having a 
legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent 
to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable 
effort to prevent commission of the offense. (b) If, in the attempt to 
carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed 
by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony 
actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense 
was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that 
should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the 
conspiracy.



California Stalking:



http://tinyurl.com/5tlf28


Wa****ngton State: Cyberstalking:



http://tinyurl.com/2mvyo2
"1) A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he 
or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any 
other person, and under cir***stances not constituting telephone 
harassment, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a 
third party:

(a) Using any lewd, lascivious, indecent, or obscene words, images, or 
language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act;

(b) Anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation occurs; or

(c) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the 
person called or any member of his or her family or household."

Wa****ngton State: Unlawful Harassment: http://tinyurl.com/6q53hn


1) A person is guilty of harassment if:

(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:

(i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person 
threatened or to any other person; or

(ii) To cause physical damage to the property of a person other than the 
actor; or

(iii) To subject the person threatened or any other person to physical 
confinement or restraint; or

(iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially 
harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her 
physical or mental health or safety; and

(b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in 
reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or conduct" 
includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the 
sending of an electronic communication.

(2)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who 
har***** another is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.


Wa****ngton State: Stalking: http://tinyurl.com/388nzj

      RCW 9A.46.110

      Stalking.

(1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority 
and under cir***stances not amounting to a felony attempt of another 
crime:
(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly har***** or repeatedly 
follows another person; and

(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the 
stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the 
person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a 
reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the 
cir***stances; and

(c) The stalker either:

(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or

(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, 
intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the 
person in fear or intimidate or harass the person.

(2)(a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection 
(1)(c)(i) of this section that the stalker was not given actual notice 
that the person did not want the stalker to contact or follow the 
person; and

(b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection 
(1)(c)(ii) of this section that the stalker did not intend to frighten, 
intimidate, or harass the person.





Wa****ngton State Definitions: http://tinyurl.com/5wvn7e




      RCW 10.14.020

      Definitions.

Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this 
section apply throughout this chapter.

(1) "Unlawful harassment" means a knowing and willful course of conduct 
directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, har*****, 
or is detrimental to such person, and which serves no legitimate or 
lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a 
reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and shall 
actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner, or, 
when the course of conduct would cause a reasonable parent to fear for 
the well-being of their child.

(2) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series 
of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of 
purpose. "Course of conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of 
communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic 
communication. Constitutionally protected activity is not included 
within the meaning of "course of conduct."

End items of possible interest.

"Troll #327" <leonard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:nais1493ctiuqtea0v26e7ph0fq21qc193@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 15:42:47 -0700, tankfixer <paul.carrier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> wrote:
>
>>In article <cras14pt9s6ncoi5m1fm4ds8caiuttai78@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>leonard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>>> On Sun, 4 May 2008 14:27:08 -0700, tankfixer 
>>> <paul.carrier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <bMudnVayZsHygIPVnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> >stevelon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...
>>> >> On Sun, 4 May 2008 12:46:47 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" 
>>> >> <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> snip cyberstalking, fraud and defamation from Troll 327.
 




 71 Posts in Topic:
NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 12:46:47 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-04 21:32:41 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 14:27:08 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 14:42:37 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:32:55 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 15:42:47 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:57:11 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:04:05 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:08:21 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 16:44:05 
Third Notice to Troll 327 to cease and desist anonymous cybersta
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:47:32 
Re: Third Notice to Troll 327 to cease and desist anonymous cybe
Troll #352 <Lucius@[EM  2008-05-04 19:19:47 
Third Notice to Douglas G. Reiman ALIAS Douglas Grant to cease a
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 19:37:08 
Doug Reiman, cyberstalker or Spammer ?
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 17:02:26 
Re: Doug Reiman, cyberstalker or Spammer ?
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 19:00:27 
Re: Doug Reiman, cyberstalker or Spammer ?
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-05 17:34:12 
Is Mr Reiman trying to hide something from, who ?
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:34:05 
Re: Is Mr Reiman trying to hide something from, who ?
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:36:05 
Re: Is Mr Reiman trying to hide something from, who ?
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-05 17:34:12 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 16:43:00 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 17:05:24 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 17:12:43 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"Nigel Brooks"   2008-05-04 19:28:24 
PING Nigel Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 18:24:25 
Nigel's Legal Adivice (was
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 19:25:21 
Re: Nigel's Legal Adivice (was
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 07:38:31 
Re: Nigel's Legal Adivice (was
Mac <NoSpamToday@[EMAI  2008-05-05 08:56:55 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 17:31:14 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 17:56:28 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 19:26:47 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 19:22:05 
Second Notice to Troll Cease and Desist anonymous cyberstalking
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:46:10 
Re: Second Notice to Troll Cease and Desist anonymous cyberstalk
Troll #352 <Lucius@[EM  2008-05-04 19:20:43 
Second Notice to Douglas G. Reiman ALIAS Douglas Grant Cease and
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 19:35:42 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:27:27 
Mr Reiman's crimes reposted for eternity
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:22:44 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:18:47 
Vote Doogie Drama Queen kOO kOO Awards Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 13:45:33 
NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:19:51 
Mr Reiman admits to breaking the law
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 14:25:57 
NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO BS - FIRST REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:26:28 
Mr Reiman may be a felon.
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:06:33 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Eat the rich <goofindo  2008-05-04 14:43:24 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 14:44:38 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:34:58 
Mr Reimans admission reposted.
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:15:48 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 14:46:05 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:35:40 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:34:03 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"Pepperoni" <  2008-05-04 18:40:30 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:54:40 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:02:43 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:07:19 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-04 23:58:25 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:01:35 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:06:12 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:09:31 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:10:32 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:13:05 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:16:07 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:20:38 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:23:21 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:31:31 
Mr Reiman needs help
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:30:01 
Re: Mr Reiman needs help
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:34:23 
Re: Mr Reiman needs help
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-05 17:34:11 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"Jack G." <j  2008-05-04 15:18:34 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"Nigel Brooks"   2008-05-04 18:57:29 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:58:20 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Mac <NoSpamToday@[EMAI  2008-05-05 02:40:05 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
!Jones <piss@[EMAIL PR  2008-05-05 08:51:55 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Thu Nov 20 19:44:37 CST 2008.