On Sun, 4 May 2008 18:47:32 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>MR. Troll 327 This is your __3rd _______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]
>
>
>
>1. 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:mgis14dq0dp17ah0fns2s160k54qrt65vj@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 05 May 2008 00:04:05 +0100, SteveL
>> <stevelon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 4 May 2008 15:57:11 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>Snip cyberstalking from Troll 327.
>>>>>> >> >,
>
Doogie the spammer,
Just posting that **** is harassment in your state. Your stalking of
Steve and
Nigel is quite evident to any resonable judge. Continued threats of
prosecution is in and of itself is actionable in your state as a CRIMINAL
offense. You really should educate yourself on your own state's laws
before
trying to harass and threaten others with them.
|
