From: Frank Gilliland on Mon, Dec 26 2005 1:34 pm

On 26 Dec 2005 12:27:44 -0800, wrote in
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 23 Dec 2005 02:28:53 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote in


Major Dud isn't going to take any legal action against anyone in the
newsgroup -- he maintains too many personal and professional lies to
risk having them exposed and publically recorded in a court of law.

"Professional lies?" :-)

Dud lied the old-fashioned way, he WORKED at it...:-)

It's too bad that he was never able to "work in" a good forgery
of his "last" DD-214. Nor was he able to "work in" a single
reference for his wondrous exploits over the last three decades
other than what he wrote about himself.


In
fact, his lies about his USMC and EMT 'careers' cast serious doubt on
any claims about his daughter, especially when his idea of 'grief' is
to plaster this sob-story all over the internet and beg for sympathy
and attention; i.e, any legal representative Dudly may have is going
to be a court-appointed attorney.

That's going to be a trick: Getting a "court-appointed attorney"
in a civil case! :-)

Dud won't get past the Hearing on a civil case, any state. Once
the judge stops his uproarious laughing, it will be tossed off
any docket.

Well, there is SOME hope...maybe Court TV (channel) is looking for
some comic-relief half-hour to fill up their cable broadcast
schedule? That could be a winner! Imagine Harvey Levin as the
"color" man interviewing "Major" Dud (wearing his CAP poopy suit)
in a pretend-format a la Geraldo Rivera? [Harvey doesn't do the
moustache thing so Dud has to wear it for him!]

an old friend wrote:
KØHB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote

stevei is the asshole that cried worf
WHARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WORF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

porr hans brain stuck again

gues you are just not up on modern lit

gues you believe that Star Trek
is a part of modern lit
It's clear that where you get your lang
that crazy, mixed up stih.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
an old friend wrote:
KØHB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote

stevei is the asshole that cried worf
WHARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WORF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

porr hans brain stuck again

gues you are just not up on modern lit

gues you believe that Star Trek
is a part of modern lit
No dave boy I know it is

Trek is taught in enas such in major universities as such and they are
the judges of such in the USA

It's clear that where you get your lang
that crazy, mixed up stih.

ah now you choose to insult Treekies

i realys should cross post your remarks somehwere and let you see the
results

Dave K8MN

"Professional lies?" :-)

Dud lied the old-fashioned way, he WORKED at it...:-)

It's too bad that he was never able to "work in" a good forgery
of his "last" DD-214. Nor was he able to "work in" a single
reference for his wondrous exploits over the last three decades
other than what he wrote about himself.


In
fact, his lies about his USMC and EMT 'careers' cast serious doubt on
any claims about his daughter, especially when his idea of 'grief' is
to plaster this sob-story all over the internet and beg for sympathy
and attention; i.e, any legal representative Dudly may have is going
to be a court-appointed attorney.

That's going to be a trick: Getting a "court-appointed attorney"
in a civil case! :-)

Dud won't get past the Hearing on a civil case, any state. Once
the judge stops his uproarious laughing, it will be tossed off
any docket.

Well, there is SOME hope...maybe Court TV (channel) is looking for
some comic-relief half-hour to fill up their cable broadcast
schedule? That could be a winner! Imagine Harvey Levin as the
"color" man interviewing "Major" Dud (wearing his CAP poopy suit)
in a pretend-format a la Geraldo Rivera? [Harvey doesn't do the
moustache thing so Dud has to wear it for him!]




There is a new digital cable channel on line in our area that is aimed
toward the elderly, most specifically the elderly suffering from macular
degeneration. All sorts of vitamins, herbs and alleged "natural" cures are
available for mail order. You should give it a look, Lennie.

Oh (guffaw!), that is not likely to hold much sway where you are concerned
Lennie. They have all kinds of pills and potions, salves and incantations,
but nary a one has a "cure" for an Old Man With His Head Implanted In His
Rectum.

At the least, Lennie, your dilemma has one outstanding plus. You will always
manage to keep your ears warm even in the coldest of climates. Your hearing
may be severely impaired, but you will never have to concern yourself with
frostbite to your ears and nose.

an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
an old friend wrote:
KØHB wrote:
"an old friend" wrote

stevei is the asshole that cried worf
WHARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WORF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHARF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
porr hans brain stuck again

gues you are just not up on modern lit
gues you believe that Star Trek
is a part of modern lit

No dave boy I know it is

Well, Mark Boy, it ranks right up there with Steinbeck and Saroyan.

Trek is taught in enas such in major universities as such and they are
the judges of such in the USA

There's all sorts of nonsense "taught" in universities. I'm sure that
any student who is considered learned in Star Trek, is well-equipped to
step into the job market. There's your "enas such".

It's clear that where you get your lang
that crazy, mixed up stih.

ah now you choose to insult Treekies

Sure I do. "Treekies" are freakies. Actually, I was insulting you.
You didn't even recognize, before breaking it up with your comments,
that I'd composed a little poem, Walt Whitman.

i realys should cross post your remarks somehwere and let you see the
results

Sure, Mark, give me more ammunition to use in terminating your accounts.

Dave K8MN

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, but not with the outcome you
claim.

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.

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)====
Most stalker cases are prosecuted at the state and local level, so it
is up to each state to provide language that will protect potential
victims. Most often, first time offenders are given lenient fines or
punishments. Some state laws need to be changed to offer more severe
punishments. All 50 states have stalking laws, and about 42 states
now have laws that include electronic communications as a harassment
tool or in some way relate to cyberstalking. States that do not have
laws yet a Utah, New Jersey, New Mexico, Idaho, Nebraska, and DC.
In 1993, *Michigan was the first state to pass a stalking law that
included the words electronic harassment.* It has been a challenge for
the states to find a balance between a law that involves expressive
conduct and speech which is protected under the First Amendment, and
laws that protect victims and forbid harassment and provide privacy.

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.*

Frankie of Silliland wrote:
On 23 Dec 2005 02:28:53 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote in
.com:


"taelor_robeson"

This was the one that crossed the line, Mark, and the one that will
be second in line (behind your death threats) to Houghton County
Sheriff's Office.

I've retained a lawyer in Michigan. It's expensive, but worth it.


Bull####

An opinion from the twice disgraced ex-Marine coward.

Thanks, Frankie. I'll print your comments and keep them in reach
in the bathroom where they belong.

Steve, K4YZ

an_old_friend wrote:
Christy D wrote:
On 26 Dec 2005 14:28:34 -0800, an_old_friend wrote:

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.


all you are doing is showing why I should conitue with my course of
action stevie has been stalking me for years and I am not stalking him

Uh huh...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight .

indeed nothing in that list is being done to Stevie

Sure they are.

he OTH has threatened to kill me, stalks me in email

Nope. Haven't sent you an e-mailed copy of an RRAP re-post in 6
years, Markie.

On the otherhand I not only have copies of letters you have
RECENTLY sent me, but the aforementioned RRAP posts.

The clock's ticking, Markie. Stop the use of my daughter's name
in your RRAP stalkings and stop misrepresenting yourself as my wife and
father.

It's your choice...And YOUR consequences.

Steve, K4YZ

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 =----

On 27 Dec 2005 07:58:21 -0800, "K4YZ" wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
Christy D wrote:
On 26 Dec 2005 14:28:34 -0800, an_old_friend wrote:

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.


all you are doing is showing why I should conitue with my course of
action stevie has been stalking me for years and I am not stalking him

Uh huh...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight .

right

indeed nothing in that list is being done to Stevie

Sure they are.

such as?

he OTH has threatened to kill me, stalks me in email

Nope. Haven't sent you an e-mailed copy of an RRAP re-post in 6
years, Markie.

never said you had that lately

you have just been sending death threats to me for year that is all


On the otherhand I not only have copies of letters you have
RECENTLY sent me, but the aforementioned RRAP posts.

The clock's ticking, Markie. Stop the use of my daughter's name
in your RRAP stalkings and stop misrepresenting yourself as my wife and
father.

blsuter away

I am not misrepresting myself my posts are clearly marked as coming
from me

and none of those acts is stalking asshole

It's your choice...And YOUR consequences.

Steve, K4YZ

everyone should be advised that The following person
has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name

he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes
he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable

STEVEN J ROBESON
151 12TH AVE NW
WINCHESTER TN 37398
931-967-6282

BTW with the exalant response steve you can look forward to seeing this email addy on RRAP a while

Mark Morgan


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account