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.*

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 =----

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

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.

Sounds like Steve should tuck tail.

On 27 Dec 2005 19:26:19 -0800, wrote in
.com:


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

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.

Sounds like Steve should tuck tail.


He won't. He can't. His bruised ego won't let him concede because, in
his warped little mind, that would be the same as admitting his many
lies. He is so locked into defending his Walter Mitty complex that he
would rather stay in the newsgroup and fight a losing battle in hopes
that everyone else goes away or dies off before him so he can have the
last word. No, he's not stupid; just mentally ill.








----== 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 =----

Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005 19:26:19 -0800, wrote in
.com:


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

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.

Sounds like Steve should tuck tail.


He won't. He can't. His bruised ego won't let him concede because, in
his warped little mind, that would be the same as admitting his many
lies. He is so locked into defending his Walter Mitty complex that he
would rather stay in the newsgroup and fight a losing battle in hopes
that everyone else goes away or dies off before him so he can have the
last word. No, he's not stupid; just mentally ill.

And that is the Robeson profile.

LMFAO at Mark. he and you will **** your pants when he get letter this
week. ah ahahahahaha!

Mark Freak wrote:
LMFAO at Mark. he and you will **** your pants when he get letter this
week. ah ahahahahaha!

Why? If a letter should actually come it will be fairly easy for Mark
to show that Steve has been harassing Mark in this newsgroup for years.

From: Frank Gilliland on Tues, Dec 27 2005 11:46 pm

On 27 Dec 2005 19:26:19 -0800, wrote in
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005 14:27:50 GMT, "Major Dud in drag"


Sounds like Steve should tuck tail.

He won't. He can't. His bruised ego won't let him concede because, in
his warped little mind, that would be the same as admitting his many
lies. He is so locked into defending his Walter Mitty complex that he
would rather stay in the newsgroup and fight a losing battle in hopes
that everyone else goes away or dies off before him so he can have the
last word. No, he's not stupid; just mentally ill.

That's what I've been saying in here for years... :-(

Tell-tale signs of that psychosis showed up years ago after
I explained the "Big Lie" technique of propaganda used by
others, giving the historical reference of NAZI Germany and
their successful use of that technique. As part of Dudly's
"mirror syndrome," he ignored that and started to call my
postings as "Goebbels-esque" just for disagreeing with Dud. :-)
[reference being the NAZI propaganda minister in the 30s and
early 40s Germany for all the young sprouts in here]

Suddenly Dud was "outraged" by any references to Nazism even
though he was born a decade after the NAZIs were defeated, had
never had any relative in a concentration camp, nor had he been
a victim of any NAZI atrocity. Yet Dud ACTED just like the
SA did in the very best "Krystalnacht" manner in here...and then
in the SS manner (after the SA "brown shirts" had been tossed).

It's all a part of the mirror syndrome. The sufferer realizes
what he is doing but can only see all the OTHERS as behaving as
he does. He sees a reflection only of himself as the LIAR but
tries to call everyone else a LIAR. Extreme rationalisation
founded on basic survival needs. Calling everyone else what Dud
shows himself to be is a classic mirror syndrome. Sick.

wrote:
From: Frank Gilliland on Tues, Dec 27 2005 11:46 pm

On 27 Dec 2005 19:26:19 -0800, wrote in
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 27 Dec 2005 14:27:50 GMT, "Major Dud in drag"


Sounds like Steve should tuck tail.

He won't. He can't. His bruised ego won't let him concede because, in
his warped little mind, that would be the same as admitting his many
lies. He is so locked into defending his Walter Mitty complex that he
would rather stay in the newsgroup and fight a losing battle in hopes
that everyone else goes away or dies off before him so he can have the
last word. No, he's not stupid; just mentally ill.

That's what I've been saying in here for years... :-(

sadly it seems so true

Tell-tale signs of that psychosis showed up years ago after
I explained the "Big Lie" technique of propaganda used by
others, giving the historical reference of NAZI Germany and
their successful use of that technique. As part of Dudly's
"mirror syndrome," he ignored that and started to call my
postings as "Goebbels-esque" just for disagreeing with Dud. :-)
[reference being the NAZI propaganda minister in the 30s and
early 40s Germany for all the young sprouts in here]

I know of his work well

Suddenly Dud was "outraged" by any references to Nazism even
though he was born a decade after the NAZIs were defeated, had
never had any relative in a concentration camp, nor had he been
a victim of any NAZI atrocity. Yet Dud ACTED just like the
SA did in the very best "Krystalnacht" manner in here...and then
in the SS manner (after the SA "brown shirts" had been tossed).

It's all a part of the mirror syndrome. The sufferer realizes
what he is doing but can only see all the OTHERS as behaving as
he does. He sees a reflection only of himself as the LIAR but
tries to call everyone else a LIAR. Extreme rationalisation
founded on basic survival needs. Calling everyone else what Dud
shows himself to be is a classic mirror syndrome. Sick.

indeed I suspect he may have told some lawyer a distorted tale of woe
making nothing his fault . I have alwasy sasid he may be able to cost a
me a retaier althought if he files this time from this threat, I will
first try to have it dismissed working pro se, but if I have to spend
the retainer I will counter sue him for his years of libel

I dod hope I can reconize what ever charges stevie makes if he tries to
make them

the hard part is establishing damgages that is what lawyers have been
telling me for years

be afrraid. be very afraid. ass. grass. lawnmower.