On 27 Dec 2005 14:27:50 GMT, "Major Dud in drag"
wrote in
:

On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:26:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005 00:17:54 GMT, "Christy D"
wrote in
:

On 26 Dec 2005 14:28:34 -0800, an_old_friend wrote:
[a bunch of pipe dreams]

Here is the real truth: You can be charged with stalking, fined
$1,000, and sent to jail for one year. If you threatened someone's
life, you can be charged with a felony, fined $10,000, and spend five
years in jail. Mr. Robeson won't have to spend one penny.

===(begin quote from http://www.counseling.mtu.edu/Stalking.htm)===

According to Michigan Penal Code........


Irrelevant. Dudly lives in Tennessee (or so he claims). That makes it
a federal issue which precludes state jurisdiction in both civil and

Sigh.

Jurisdiction was long ago addressed,


It appears that both you and Dudly had the same lysdexic English
teacher in High School.


but not with the outcome you
claim.


The difference between state and federal jurisdiction has been argued
in the courts for over 200 years and is now very well defined. That
difference is reflected in the application of internet stalking laws
at the state and federal levels. The passage of VAWA clearly indicates
that the federal government recognizes the limitations of state
jurisdiction when it comes to interstate stalking via the internet.


The overriding consideration is that the crime was committed by a
Michigan resident while physically located in Michigan, and that
Michigan can therefore prosecute the stalker, no matter where the
victim may reside.


Wrong. If the crime was "committed" across state boundries, as would
be the case if the alleged perp was in Michigan and the alleged victim
in Tennessee, the jurisdiction is strictly federal -- the alleged
crime can be prosecuted -only- under federal law. If you need legal
precedents then I suggest you study some statutory and case law
regarding postal and telecommunications crimes. And it's very likely
that, in the future, states will be prohibited from prosecuting
internet crimes -within- state boundries for the very same reasons
that intrastate postal crimes now fall under federal jurisdiction.


One resource which discusses this fully is available freely on the
web. It is written in language simple enough for a layman like
yourself to understand.

Here, let me quote part of it. N.B. the final paragraph. Emphasis
added for clarity.

====(from Cyberage Stalking by Barbara Fullerton)====


I'll do you one better and provide the link:

http://www.llrx.com/features/cyberstalking.htm


snip to semi-relevant paragraph
Another problem is the accused may not be in the same jurisdiction as
the victim, or where the offense occurred. But in these instances,
states have broadened their jurisdiction rules to help address
cybercrimes that are not part of their harassment laws, like
jurisdiction. *In their jurisdiction laws, courts can look at where
the stalking began, various sites the messages may have passed, and
the physical location of the stalker.*


States cannot "broaden their jurisdiction rules" to include other
states. That's firmly established law.

And I can't imagine why you didn't include this little bit of prose
your quote:

"There are some ways to help stop cyberstalking: self-regulatory,
ignore the stalking, and self-protection. Self-regulatory and
self-protection practices can include turning off the computer,
changing your email address a few times a year, or dropping out of
discussion groups."

IOW, the "victim" needs to use some common sense.

And I noticed you snipped the rest of my post. Very Dudly-esque.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----