Thursday, November 30, 2006

attn FBI and CT State Senator Tony Guglielmo

November 30, 2006

I faxed the below to Connecticut State Senator Anthony Guglielmo at his Stafford Springs, Connecticut, insurance agency on West Main St.

I then mailed a copy to:

Federal Bureau of Investigation
J. Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20535-001

Text of Letter and Fax:

November 30, 2006
Subject: Possible Connecticut Governor Rell election fraud and other racketeering and obstruction of justice crimes going on in Connecticut

To whom it may concern at the FBI: M. Lisa Moody, Governor Rell’s Chief of Staff reportedly asked and got campaign contributions from all department heads. That and more, just smokes of impropriety. Please look into my allegations contained within this letter.

A Ms. Regaglia used to be head of the DCF. She allegedly was part of the same conspiracy to make “Kiddie Max” prisons a national franchise nightmare for children and families. DCF knowingly takes false allegations and officially kidnaps as many children as possible to defraud Federal Taxpayers. There are an overabundance of unqualified workers with quotas.

Regaglia was found out to have committed crimes similar to, and with, former Governor John G. Rowland that did time in Federal Prison for corruption. There is word on the street that Regaglia is giving sexual favors to FBI agents and/or others to avoid prosecution.

A co-conspirator of Regaglia’s buried thousands of dollars in gold in his backyard and is yet to be prosecuted in the same racketeering and obstruction of justice scheme. Another DCF figure, Jessica Gauvin, is alleged to have committed perjury and/or manufactured evidence in retaliating against whistle blower Kathleen Dickson of

A woman that wishes not to be identified has claimed to me that DCF acts to enforce drug dealer turf in Hartford and other Connecticut cities. There are allegedly ties to Mafia figures, DCF, the Judicial Branch, the Executive Branch, and within the Connecticut Police forces.

A former Connecticut Narcotics Police Officer claims he was told not to investigate certain Mafia Drug Dealer figures. He may not have listened and later his two sons were abducted by police, arrested falsely, and beaten in the middle of the night by a Connecticut State Police Officer and town officer and the Narcotics Detective then faced Felony charges for driving home for lunch, a common department practice.

If you google my name, “Steven G. Erickson”, and click on the YouTube link my videos of allegations can be found. There is a video of former Norwalk Mayor Bill Collins testifying about police going around in ski masks, beating citizens at abandoned warehouses, and vandalizing the Mayor’s home. Mary Alice Cook alleges Connecticut Police aided her husband in beating her and then arrested her. Another individual that has done a study claims there are hundreds if not thousands of complaints lodged against Connecticut police officers that go un-investigated..

Chief Justice William Sullivan has been made aware of felonies allegedly being committed by Judges and others and has done nothing. Sullivan withheld a ruling about keeping some judicial procedures super secret to get a nominee a position, where as Zarella would not have otherwise. If the judge has been disciplined, there has been some very serious breach committed. William Mulready has made me aware that all of Connecticut courts may not be in compliance with ADA laws.

Chris Kennedy has made me aware of the retaliation that goes on when you complain about a judge. He alleges that Judge Jonathan Kaplan and Prosecutor Parakilas acted improperly and/or committed perjury and in retaliation, another judge and/or prosecutor tried to get Kennedy a $500,000 bond and up to 30 years on ridiculous charges. Kennedy claims he has transcript where Judge Jonathan Kaplan of Rockville Connecticut Superior Court tells Kennedy he is Irish, there is strife, in Ireland, so therefore Kennedy can no longer have contact with his kids.

I alleged that insurance fraud was committed by a Ms. Haas to Judge Jonathan Kaplan. My claims were neither investigated or considered. I wrote a letter to Judge Jonathan Kaplan very critical of his performance with Haas vs. Erickson and wrote to the court clerk stating the docket #. I then went on a all out effort to have Kaplan removed from the bench. Keith Courier a prosecutor at Rockville Court refused to prosecute a prostitute that moved into my Stafford Springs Connecticut rental properties, with no intention of paying rent, after she went to see the prosecutor and wore a short dress, “bleep me” pumps, and prominently displayed her breasts telling me that if I bothered the prostitute I would be prosecuted.

I went to Stafford Springs Connecticut State Senator Anthony Guglielmo asking to have Judge Jonathan Kaplan removed for bias against the self-employed, contractors and landlords. I also proposed Civilian Oversight of Police with quality control questionnaires going out to those that need Police protection and service reviewed by a Civilian Review Board. I was then threatened by police with arrest and worse. I brought up my concerns to Anthony Guglielmo.

If my phone records were looked into as well as a tenant I was friendly with, it would show that I called the State Senator after each of the 7 incidents involving Brian Caldwell. I also shared the recorded threats and harassment of Lana Thompson, the alleged prostitute that moved onto my property without permission, when she would rant and threaten me on my answering machine for trying to have her arrested and removed for trespassing.

I was then attacked on my property by an alleged Connecticut State Police informant. There were 7 incidents where the individual either assaulted me, threatened my life, or tried to assault me. I contacted Senator Guglielmo after each incident. Only I was arrested by police after the first incident where Connecticut State Troopers, Amaral and Langlais refused to take a tenant’s statement regarding the beating I took after having my life threatened and then the officers committed perjury at a the rigged trial involving Judge Jonathan Kaplan. I believe there was collusion between Judge Jonathan Kaplan and former Connecticut State Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada for retaliating against me for what I had wrote about police and the courts in newspapers and for proposing laws to elected officials to force the courts and police to act ethically and in the public’s best interest.

The prosecutor I tried to have removed, Keith Courier, refused to allow me to take AR, a program for first time offenders, if I somehow was guilty of overreacting of being beaten during a robbery attempt after I was told to give up my wallet or die, having used pepper spray. I was only given a choice of pleading guilty and getting a year and a half in prison. Don Christmas also a landlord, proposed Civilian Oversight of Police and police allegedly threatened Donny with arrest and prison for doing so. Christmas was attacked on his property by a Police Officer’s underage prostitute girlfriend and only Donny faced prison, a year and a half in prison, no deals.
Ritt Goldstein, in one of my YouTube videos, proposed Civilian Oversight of Police was so terrorized by Connecticut police he fled to Sweden requesting political asylum.

Connecticut State Trooper Mulcahey and Stafford Police Officer Prochaska allegedly offered Peter Coukos help in obtaining a pistol permit in exchange for sexually harassing my daughter, threatening me, and or assaulting me, to terrorize me out of Stafford Springs and out of Connecticut. Peter Coukos told me that he would, with police help, make a false allegation regarding a firearm if I did not pay him $30,000. Coukos is known to frequent prostitutes, smoke marijuana regularly, be an alcoholic, have smoked crack cocaine, threaten and harass people, and offer parents and others of youngsters and teens cash to have sex with their children or live in teens. I can name names and know witnesses. Coukos allegedly in a racist road rage incident, ran an African American off a Massachusetts road, continually slamming her car, to get a DUI.

Members of the Connecticut Judiciary and Law Enforcement conspired to ruin my life, run me out of my home, to falsely arrest me, and intimidate me out of proposing legislation to elected officials, exercising my right of Free Speech, and from suing Connecticut State Police and others for violating my civil rights. I had approached Attorney Michael H. Agranoff regarding suing police BEFORE I was assaulted on my property. I informed Senator Guglielmo that I intended to sue the Stafford Police and the Connecticut State Police BEFORE I was falsely arrested leading to my false imprisonment and further abuse. My small business of two decades, gone.

Thomas Lally and insurance company agent of 169 Elm St, Enfield, Connecticut claims that in order for him to get a sign permit for a larger sign he would have to sit in on an illegal high stakes poker game held weekly in the backroom of a Route 5 liquor store. He claims the owners of a convenience store were forced to put in a $25,000 drain system that only restaurants are required to have in retaliation for them having a business and not being White in Enfield. It seems that Stafford Springs and some other Connecticut towns enforce a “White Only” policy using police, the health, building inspectors, and malicious investigations into personal lives, finances, and the covert setting up of those that are competition for “made guys” or those that have friends and family in town hall that are in competition. Is Enfield a Mafia Central?

Former Stafford Springs Connecticut selectman told me that Niggers, White Trash, and riffraff could be eliminated from town by squeezing out landlords and small businesses that cater to them. Connecticut seems to be run like a corrupt criminal organization. With Chief Justice Sullivan and others running the show to retaliate against whistle blowers, keep misconduct secret, and to enrich themselves, their friends, and their families at the expense of freedom, the US Constitution, and everyone else, the State should be shut down and be taken over by the Federal Government until Connecticut is Americanized.

Please investigate my claims and prosecute the guilty.

Thank you,
Steven G. Erickson

* * * *

The contents of this blog are for reporting crimes to the FBI, others, and in informing the public. Please do not obstruct justice or to eliminate evidence, please do not delete or alter this blog forum nor any of its posts.

Any questions or comments? Email me at:

* * * *

Joseph Paola vs. former Connecticut State Police Commissioner, pdf, click here

First Amendment retaliation and lack of equal protection and service alleged. Yes, there is a pattern of Judicial, Official, Prosecutorial, Attorney, and Police Misconduct in Connecticut

* * * *

Click Here for post on 9-11, the WTC conspiracy, and the War on Freedom. Post contains videos and links to USGS satelite photos.

* * * *

Former Norwalk Mayor William "Bill" Collins tells how police will wear ski masks to abduct and beat citizens:

It was this bad BEFORE 9-11, how bad is it now in the US, the entire US? Ritt Goldstein's [complete video including the above]

* * * *

The below added October 31, 2012:

My current address is Steven G. Erickson, PO Box Eight Seven Four, Brattleboro, VT 05302

Steven G. Erickson message to elected officials [click here] My phone number:

Look at what we have for "candidates" in America:


Text with video:

Published on Jul 12, 2012 by
More information:

William "Bill" Windsor, producer of "Lawless America" meets up with Steven G. Erickson at the Marriott Hotel in Danvers, Massachusetts, near Boston.

Going to the State of Connecticut, ground zero for police brutality, judicial misconduct, and public corruption was not an option for me. The Connecticut State Police and the Department of Administrative Services are like vandals. They allegedly order, and use tax dollars, to ruin politically active citizens' computers, spy on them, and use operatives to terrorize citizens out of contacting elected officials on issues and exercising Free Speech.

[Click Here for January 2, 2014, update to this post with video]

The throw you away in prison country, USA


7M in U.S. Jails, on Probation or Parole

1:44 AM EST, November 30, 2006
By KASIE HUNT, Associated Press Writer, The Hartford Courant
WASHINGTON -- A record 7 million people -- or one in every 32 American adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday.

More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more.

Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of all inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.

"Today's figures fail to capture incarceration's impact on the thousands of children left behind by mothers in prison," Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a statement. "Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails."

From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth.

The numbers are from the annual report from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics. The report breaks down inmate populations for state and federal prisons and local jails.

Racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1 percent of black men -- about one in 13 -- are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.1 percent of white men. And it's not much different among women. By the end of 2005, black women were more than twice as likely as Hispanics and over three times as likely as white women to be in prison.

Certain states saw more significant changes in prison population. In South Dakota, the number of inmates increased 11 percent over the past year, more than any other state. Montana and Kentucky were next in line with increases of 10.4 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively. Georgia had the biggest decrease, losing 4.6 percent, followed by Maryland with a 2.4 percent decrease and Louisiana with a 2.3 percent drop.

Francis Knize, advocate for Judicial Reform

[RadioFreeMars] Radio Free Mars - Francis Knize (March 18th)

The first new Radio Free Mars program is now available as a downloadable/streamable MP3 file. We will continue with weekly broadcasts every Tuesday from now on.

Tuesday, March 18th - Francis Knize
Francis Knize filed a "Correction of Data Request" to NASA using the Data Quality Act to attempt to get better data from the Mars Odyssey mission. Knize has been a longtime television producer and has created documentary programs on topics from ancient civilizations to paranormal & ufo phenomenon.


James Burk
& Host, Radio Free Mars

* * * *

Click Here for:

Congress and Disclosure - Knize

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Are elected officials for themselves and each other, or are they for us?

Emailed to State Senator John A. Kissel of Enfield Connecticut at

Senator, I have posted this email to you, here on the web.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee will you see that my trial transcripts are reviewed to see what laws Judge Jonathan Kaplan allegedly broke acting in collusion with the former Connecticut State Police Commissioner, Arthur L. Spada, in having me railroaded to prison to keep me from proposing Civilian Oversight of Police and Judicial Accountability to elected officials. I has spent over 2 years trying to have Judge Jonathan Kaplan removed for bias against the self-employed, contractors, and landlords in civil cases before he sat on my bogus criminal case, telling me that I would be found guilty and would go to prison before I was tried by him.

Do you think it was fair that a judge I was so active in trying to have disciplined and removed would tell me before a criminal case that I was guilty and going to jail? Should my lawyer have been able to get me a different venue? Should a judge be able to tell a defendant he or she is guilty and going to jail before a trial? The Judicial Review Committee in charge of disciplining judges is run by judges and they allegedly just shred complaints, not investigate them.

Should citizens save taxpayer’s money by shredding their own police and judicial misconduct complaints rather than submitting them?

I reported the trouble I was having with a former inmate, a violent drug dealer that was not a tenant of mine at my 2 family house, 18 School St. Somersville, Connecticut. The man continued to camp in my back yard, park his vehicles on my property and took over my property threatening me. Connecticut State Police, as always, are completely useless. The Somers Connecticut police officer told me he would lose his job if he helped me. Was he threatened by Connecticut State police if he helped me? Do you remember the time when there was a Connecticut Sheriff’s system before Connecticut State Police were out following them around, harassing and threatening them, arresting them on any charges they could in a struggle for power and money?

After contacting you about my troubles with criminals, I then was harassed, and threatened by police and some private detective or others followed me around snapping pictures of me and my properties to possible intimidate me and to gather information to further officially abuse me.

I called Stafford Springs, Connecticut, State Senator Tony Guglielmo after each of the seven times I was stalked, harassed, and/or beaten by Brian Caldwell on my propery. Brian Caldwell is missing his front teeth, is a known drug using, alcoholic, violent felon, who frequently passes out on sidewalks and urinates in public.

I was attacked again in a public restaurant, The Arizona, in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, by Brian Caldwell after he jumped me on my property, 3 and 5 Church St., Stafford Springs, Connecticut, demanding money, threatening to kill me.

Why then did I go to prison for using pepper spray losing everything, and Caldwell didn’t even get arrested and HE was the one breaking the law not me.

I told Guglielmo that I intended on suing the Connecticut State Police for violating my civil rights AND the AFTER, I was arrested facing prison, no deals.

I just got fired from a good insurance job based on a bogus criminal record. Should I suffer the rest of my life because a corrupt Connecticut legislature, executive branch, court system, and law enforcement?

Will you lift a finger and do a thing? Will you help get rid of a bogus criminal record? Will you allow the legislature to review cases of citizens that come to elected officials proposing laws such as having accountability of police and the courts when they claim they are targets of police and the courts for whistle blowing and for wanting honest government?

Will you see that citizens are protected when they seek to redress grievances with elected officials? Will you see that citizen are compensated and wrongs are righted when there is official abuse?

I cannot go on with my life until the bogus criminal and prison record is erased. I will not stop until it is. I will contact all important national figures and become more and more vocal in all media outlets until justice is done.

Having me followed around and falsely arrested won’t work this time as there are too many eyes watching and the tide has turned for those out to enrich themselves, their families, and their friends, retaliating against all those that connect the dots and speak out.

Senator Kissel are you willing to do the right thing?

Are citizen safe contacting their elected officials about real life issues? Should they be?

-Steven G. Erickson
PO Box 730
Enfield, CT 06083


* * * *

Ritt Goldstein let Connecticut legislators know about the abuse of Connecticut citizens by police and within the courts. Goldstein fled Connecticut to seek political asylum after proposing Civilian Oversight of Police. Donald Christmas of Enfield Connecticut was threatened with arrest and prison for proposing Civilian Oversight of Police at a Enfield Connecticut public Town Hall meeting according to Christmas. I proposed Civilian Oversight of Police and then later went to prison. This video is a little choppy and hard to understand in the beginning, but Ritt Goldstein does a great job showing Connecticut for what it really is, and it is now even worse:

Click Here for a post with more information

* * * *

P.S. blogger administration, please email me at

Friday, November 24, 2006

Bring Back Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus has been the hallmark of all free societies since 1215. George W. Bush saw to it that it was eliminated. That makes the US Constitution null and void. Let's see the work of the Devil, George W. Bush, does not stand. Contact your elected officials to reinstate Habeas Corpus.

Feingold focusing on Senate work, won’t rule out VP role

ONALASKA, Wis. — U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold admitted Monday he’d have to seriously think about it if asked to be a presidential running mate.

U.S. senator Russ Feingold takes a question Monday during a public listening session at Onalaska City Hall. Feingold has pledged to hold listening sessions in all 72 Wisconsin counties each year of his six-year term. PETER THOMSON photo

But Feingold’s flirtation with the White House has given way to renewed enthusiasm for life in the Senate, now that there’s a Democratic majority.

At a listening session in Onalaska City Hall, Feingold talked enthusiastically about chairing the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution Subcommittee — and getting to hold hearings about the loss of habeas corpus.

About 50 people listened as Feingold answered audience questions that ranged from fixing Medicare Part D to freeing up money for a new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in La Crosse County.

And, of course, there were questions and praise for Feingold about his positions on Iraq and the Patriot Act.

“I’m not anti-war ... I think we need to be very, very tough on those who have attacked us,” Feingold said. “But this war was one of the dumbest decisions in the history of the United States of America.”

“I’m a very close friend to (U.S. Sen.) John McCain, but I couldn’t disagree more with his attitude about ‘Let’s send in 100,000 more troops.’ It is an unwinnable situation,” Feingold said. “We need to turn this thing around.”

One thing about Iraq Feingold said he’s happy about is it appears the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction will continue. Feingold created the IG’s position when he voted for the original $87 billion to fund the Iraq war, but the House of Representatives voted earlier this year to phase out the IG’s mission of watchdogging the $30 billion the U.S. plans to spend there.

One thing Feingold expressed no enthusiasm for is impeaching President Bush.

“I don’t support impeachment, and I don’t support impeachment hearings, even though I think the president has probably committed an impeachable offense,” Feingold said in response to a question from Al Schulz of La Crosse.

“We are not required to impeach the president simply because he’s committed an impeachable offense, which I think he did with the illegal wiretapping. We have to decide whether it’s in the best interest of the country to go through that process.”

A few audience members asked Feingold to sponsor or co-sponsor bills. He said he generally doesn’t co-sponsor bills unless they state where the money will come from for spending.

Feingold took questions for nearly 1½ hours before leaving for a second listening session in Prairie du Chien. He has conducted more than 1,000 listening sessions since being elected to the Senate in 1992.

Reid Magney can be reached at (608) 791-8211 or

Click Here to see where I found the above.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

One Click on the Lyme Disease Front exposing Fraud

A Pressure Group that provides opposition to the psychiatric paradigm for patients suffering
from diseases such as Lyme Disease/Borreliosis and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS).
We carry breaking news, information and archive resources on a variety of health issues today.

The One Click Website Web
This search facility is provided by Google.
The Google index may not reflect the past few day's additions.
Please see the Home page to find out about recent changes.

This page will always contain the 8 latest news items, scroll down to read them. If the item you wish to find is not here, then go to the news archives on the left.

Dildo Dillon Runs Out Of Excuses
Andrew Dillon, CEO of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE sic) has apparently vibrated off in a huff, quite possibly to service the psychiatric lobby at close quarters.

It should be remembered that Dillon is the man directly responsible for deliberately stacking the psychiatric deck in the production of these CFS/ME Draft NICE Guidelines that have been proclaimed as 'unfit for purpose' right around the country. Dillon would do well to remember that what he has sanctioned and actively participated in is known as criminal political and medical manipulation of due process.

Dillon is the man who has sanctioned the possible spending of over �180million of British taxpayer's money on the methodologically and ethically flawed views of a very small group of British psychiatrists that are not based on any credible science. Dillon is the man who, throughout the development of these appalling CFS/ME Guidelines, has been instrumental in arranging for all of the biomedical evidence on ME/CFS, spanning the last fifty years or more, to be expunged from these Guidelines. Is Dillon on kickbacks from the psychiatric lobby we ask? And if so, how much? What else could explain his extraordinary behaviour, designed to damage all 240,000 patients labelled with ME/CFS in the United Kingdom?

Dillon was so desperate to find any excuse to prevent The One Click Group Response - NICE Guidelines evidence being placed on the NICE record that he ludicrously contended that our document could not be submitted as evidence to NICE because it was not produced on their online proforma piece of paper.

Dear friends, Dillon has just run out of excuses. One Click has now arduously transferred the entire contents of this 72 page document on to this online proforma. What will Dildo's next excuse be for NICE refusing to formally accept the One Click Stakeholder evidence? That the material is in the wrong font? The wrong colour? That there is a semi-colon after Simon Wessely's name that makes it inadmissible evidence? What other excuse will he come up with tomorrow?

We need answers from this disgraceful and disgraced man who could not legitimately find his way out of a paper bag, but who seeks by sleight of hand and manipulation to damage the best interests of all ME/CFS labelled patients.

We have now experienced two solid days of sheer grinding frustration at the hands of the man whose job it is to care for patients. Under the circumstances, it is little short of a miracle that our language is as moderate as it is. If this carries on, Dildo today, far worse tomorrow.

We need answers. And it is truly the case that the longer this goes on the worse it gets as has been so clearly shown.

If you would like to leave comment with the Chairman and Chief Executive of NICE, do please be our guest.

Michael Rawlins

Andrew Dillon

The One Click Group


From: The One Click Group
Sent: 23 November 2006 18:07
To: Andrew Dillon
Andrew Dillon
Cc: Mercia Page
Colette Marshall
Sarita Tamber
Michael Rawlins
Subject: RE: Responses to consultation
Importance: High

Dear Mr. Dillon

We require answers. NICE has put a deadline on us for tomorrow. Please would you answer these very simple questions without further prevarication or delay. You are paid by the taxpayer and with respect, it is time for you to speak up and earn your salary.

With best wishes

Jane Bryant
The One Click Group


From: The One Click Group
Sent: 23 November 2006 18:07
To: Andrew Dillon
Andrew Dillon
Cc: Mercia Page
Colette Marshall
Sarita Tamber
Michael Rawlins
Subject: RE: Responses to consultation
Importance: High

Dear Mr. Dillon

You are playing games. One Click is a Stakeholder on these Guidelines and you are contravening your own regulations at every turn.

Let's get this perfectly straight shall we?

If you force us to place the One Click document on to your online proforma and we do this, you will:

1. Acknowledge it as you must with all Stakeholder submissions.
Please answer Yes or No.

2. Formally respond to it by every point as you must with all Stakeholder submissions.
Please answer Yes or No.

3. Publish it as you must with all Stakeholder submissions.
Please answer Yes or No.

I will deal with the NICE behaviour in regard to either lying or deliberately misleading Dr Ian Gibson (MP) and the Countess of Mar when I have the answers to these very simple questions first.

Please answer immediately.

Jane Bryant


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Dillon
Sent: 23 November 2006 16:09
To: The One Click Group
Cc: Mercia Page; Colette Marshall; Sarita Tamber; Amanda Trought; Michael Rawlins
Subject: RE: Responses to consultation

Dear Ms Bryant,

Thank you for your email.

If you choose to make a submission other than through the web proforma, it will be read by the guideline developers but it will not receive a written response, for the reasons set out in my earlier email.

We have agreed to transfer that element of the 25% ME submission which is in a form suitable for use in the web proforma. We have not made a commitment to do so for any other organisation.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Dillon

Thu, November 23rd, 2006. 08:08 pm

The Last NICE 36 Hours...
What is going down with The One Click Group Response - NICE Guidelines is entirely redolent of an episode of the 24 television drama series that One Click Group Technical Director young Ben, is so fond of.

The events of the last 36 hours delineate the following in relation to The One Click Group Response - NICE Guidelines.

1. Yesterday, NICE wrote to One Click and refused to accept The One Click Group Response - NICE Guidelines because the document had not been produced via its online proforma piece of paper. This is despite the fact that a precedent had been set by the 25% ME Group whose document was to be accepted by NICE in document format.

2. This morning, One Click is given the news from both the Gibson ME/CFS Parliamentary Inquiry Office and the Countess of Mar (all in writing), that the One Click evidence will be accepted and that NICE is proposing to type up the One Click evidence line by line to insert it into their online proforma, wasting British taxpayer's money by employing this fool strategy.

3. This afternoon, One Click receives an email from the NICE Chief Executive Office, one Andrew Dillon, who states that NICE has changed its mind and will not transfer the contents of the One Click document on to the proforma. This shows that NICE either lied or deliberately misled both Dr Ian Gibson (MP) and the Countess of Mar.

Dillon's email indicates that:

3.1 The One Click Response - NICE Guidelines will not be formally acknowledged, recorded or published by NICE.

3.2 NICE will not respond to any of the points made in the document.

3.3 NICE will not accept the One Click evidence and it will not publish it on its website.

It states in the Guidelines Manual, April 2006, that NICE must "Treat Stakeholders in a collaborative and transparent manner." Really? Has any of this been collaborative and transparent and designed to help patients?

Not to put too fine a point on it, has NICE CEO Andrew Dillon completely lost his head? Is he on medication or has he overindulged on wacky baccy during office hours? What is the matter with this man who is supposed to act with due diligence and care towards the millions of the sick in the United Kingdom?

Where is NICE Chairman Michael Rawlins in all this? Has he been stuffed and gagged in the office cupboard or is he sitting on the dunce's stool with his fingers stuffed in his ears on the basis of hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil and all will be smooth and retirement peachy?

For the One Click document to so petrify NICE and the Wessely School psychiatrists as it clearly has done is quite probably the biggest compliment that we have ever been paid.

NICE is acting against its very own regulations throughout this extraordinary drama and it will be held accountable.

We will keep you all posted of developments.

The One Click Group

Thu, November 23rd, 2006. 04:50 pm

NICE CEO Refuses To Record One Click Evidence
Andrew Dillon, the CEO of NICE, has written to One Click over our One Click Response - NICE Guidelines.

What Dillon is proposing to do is as follows:

1. Accept the One Click Submission to NICE as information only and not as evidence. There is, dear friends, a vast difference between the two.

2. Because our Submission has not been produced on the online proforma, our points will not be responded to by NICE nor will it be published on its website.

3. Because we have not critiqued the CFS/ME Draft NICE Guidelines in the way that NICE wants us to, our information will not be used.

In other words, what Dillon is attempting to do once more is to make the contents of a 72 page document to all intents and purposes disappear. This is precisely what has occurred with ALL the biomedical evidence that The One Click Group has submitted to NICE, using its online proforma, for the last eighteen months.

For how long is this going to be permitted to go on?

This is a very poor attempt at sleight of hand by Dillon and has been immediately rumbled. It is absolutely DISGRACEFUL that a government body CEO is being permitted to play these games with the lives of ME/CFS labelled patients.

This behaviour from this NICE government quango is completely unacceptable and contravenes its very own regulations as set out in the Guidelines Manual, April 2006. Please see the correspondence below.

These people are trying to do anything and everything not to formally accept the One Click evidence and at all costs, trying not to have to publish it on their website. This is because the One Click Response - NICE Guidelines, provides the primary building block for Judicial Review.

We will keep you all informed of developments.

The more this goes on, the worse it gets.

Please keep those emails coming in to NICE. All the email addresses that you will need are set out below.

These games being played with the work of Stakeholders will not be tolerated.

Many thanks.

The One Click Group


From: The One Click Group
Sent: 23 November 2006 13:42
To: Andrew Dillon
Cc: Mercia Page
Colette Marshall
Sarita Tamber
Michael Rawlins
Subject: RE: Responses to consultation

Dear Mr Dillon

Thank you for your email.

1. The One Click Group has not yet sent its Stakeholder Response in to NICE so I find it a little odd that you are writing to me to thank me for sending it.

2. The One Click Group requires a written response from NICE to our Stakeholder Submission and NICE publication of same on the website. This is particularly vital since all the Submissions that we have provided to NICE for the past eighteen months using your online proforma have gone unacknowledged, unrecorded and unpublished.

3. I have been informed by both the Gibson Inquiry and by the Countess of Mar that submissions such as ours will be typed up by NICE and placed on the proforma. I have this in writing from both. Please email by return to confirm that this is correct. I intend to publish this fact shortly.

We require acknowledgement of our Submission and publication of our Submission by NICE on the website.

I look forward to hearing from you with confirmation of the above points with immediate effect.

With best wishes

Jane Bryant
The One Click Group


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Dillon []
Sent: 23 November 2006 13:09
Cc: Mercia Page; Colette Marshall; Sarita Tamber; Amanda Trought
Subject: Responses to consultation

Dear Ms Bryant,

Thank you for contacting my office yesterday.

The arrangements we have in place for receiving comments from stakeholders are explained in our published guide and stakeholders have been advised of them. The reason we operate a structured approach is to ensure that each comment made by stakeholders can receive an individual response, which will be published on our web site. We receive many responses resulting, in some cases, to thousands of individual comments. It would simply not be possible to handle written consultation comments within the guideline development timeline in any other way.

Comments submitted in a form other than through the web proforma (including, in this instance, your document and those from the 25% ME Group and the Gibson enquiry) will be seen and taken into account by the guideline developers, but will not receive a written response.

The 25% ME Group document contains a response in the form required by the web proforma. We have agreed to transfer this element of their document to the web site on their behalf. We are doing this because they were advised, in an earlier communication that we would and because they have presented their comments in a form which enables us to do so.

Your response is a valuable contribution to the development of this guideline and we are grateful to you for sending it to us.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Dillon
Chief Executive
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

Thu, November 23rd, 2006. 02:24 pm

Incompetent NICE...The Saga Continues
One Click has now been provided with information that states National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE sic) is being so precious about its online proforma for Stakeholder Submissions that it is proposing to itself manually type up line by line each Stakeholder Submission to fit into the online proforma!

Are these people living in the real world? They have been given PERFECTLY good documents that they currently will not accept. Instead, they are proposing to spend British taxpayer's money on a completely POINTLESS exercise.

If this truly comes to pass, One Click will be publishing financial calculations of how much British taxpayer�s money is being spent by NICE on secretarial services per hour to turn perfectly good documents into this online proforma. Has NICE not got better things to do with its time and our money?

The NICE incompetence level rises hourly. You really couldn't make it up if you tried.

The One Click Group

Thu, November 23rd, 2006. 11:40 am

NICE Set To Bar One Click Evidence
The CFS/ME Draft NICE Guidelines
Please help us to help you.


The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has written to us today refusing point blank to allow The One Click Group Response - NICE Guidelines to be sent to them in document format, but is insisting that this must be done using the online proforma. One cannot copy and paste a 72 page document into a table which is what the online proforma is and have it come out intact. NICE has stated that unless we do this, our evidence will be excluded.

NICE has already set two precedents by permitting the Stakeholder evidence from the 25% ME Group and the Gibson Parliamentary Inquiry to be delivered to them in report format, just such as ours, but Stakeholder One Click is to be denied this facility.

NICE is attempting to bar The One Click Group evidence on a spurious technicality. This is presumably because The One Click Group Response - NICE Guidelines is a primary building block upon which any Judicial Review will be based.

The latest NICE antics are truly disgraceful. If you would like to see The One Click Group Response - NICE Guidelines submitted as evidence to this government quango, please send your worldwide comments to the following:

Professor Sir Michael Rawlins - NICE Chairman

Andrew Dillon - NICE Chief Executive

Please help us to help you.

Many thanks.

The One Click Group

Wed, November 22nd, 2006. 05:38 pm

We Will Do It Our Way...
For the last eighteen months, all the work and biomedical evidence submitted by One Click as a Stakeholder on the CFS/ME NICE Guidelines has gone unacknowledged, unrecorded and unpublished, totally against the regulations imposed by NICE itself. We have used their online proformas to submit our evidence and we have absolutely played by their rules throughout due process.

If NICE uses the excuse that our One Click Response - NICE Guidelines will be inadmissible because we did not produce it on their piece of online paper, we promise you that all hell will shortly break loose. <> This would be the ultimate icing on the incompetent, not to say fraudulent, NICE cake.

See the correspondence in relation to this issue with NICE below.

We will keep all our readers (and solicitors) duly informed.

The One Click Group


From: The One Click Group
Sent: 21 November 2006 15:03
To: Colette Marshall
Cc: Andrew Dillon
Mercia Page
Subject: CFS/ME NICE Guidelines

Dear Colette

I have just received an email from Shannon Leonard saying that the Stakeholder response to these Guidelines must be done on the online proforma.

The One Click Group will *not* be submitting our comments on the online proforma, but in a PDF document. We understand that the 25% ME Group for the Severely Affected charity have also had difficulties with NICE and they too have prepared their response in a proper document and that this procedure has been agreed by you.

Our document will be with you by email on the 23 November. We will also be sending a paper copy to Michael Rawlins et al.

If NICE is going to use the online proforma excuse to exclude the One Click Response to these Guidelines, do please speak up now and we will contact our solicitors, as ever.

Best wishes

Jane Bryant
The One Click Group

Cc. Saunders Solicitors LLP


From: Guidelines Temp []
Sent: 21 November 2006 14:23
To: Guidelines Temp
Subject: Consultation - Chronic fatigue syndrome / myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) guideline
Importance: High

Dear Stakeholder

I am writing as an additional reminder that consultation on chronic fatigue syndrome / myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) guideline will be closing on 24th November 2006.

Please note that the Institute is unable to accept, and will not respond to, comments that are not on the correct proforma as highlighted in the letter to stakeholders on 29th September 2006. Copies of the consultation documents are available on the NICE website:

Many thanks,
Shannon Leonard
Guidelines Coordinator (Temp)
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
MidCity Place
71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6NA
Direct line: 020 7067 5864
Direct fax: 020 7061 9764
Main switchboard : 020 7067 5800
NICE is the independent organisation responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health.

Tue, November 21st, 2006. 03:50 pm

Thanks....And Vested Interests
I am writing to sincerely thank all of those who have sent such kind emails to One Click for our One Click Response - NICE Guidelines.

I would also particularly like to thank Catherine Broughton, Craig Coady, Jane Colley, Nigel Hall, Dorian McClain and others for their comments on this paper and their invaluable assistance with proof reading - something that I'm just not good at! :(

The latest version of the One Click Response - NICE Guidelines, has now been uploaded to the website incorporating all corrections. The One Click Group Technical Director, young Ben, tells me that some may need to Clear Private Data before the latest version is available for view on their computers. Since I'm not sure what that means, I pass this on in good Mum Technie Git faith. :o)

Unfortunately, not all is good cheer. As is ever the case when The One Click Group publishes evidenced information to benefit patients, we have the usual garbage that arises from those carrying the heavy burden of vested interests - in this case a person named 'Ann T' at on the EuroLyme internet group. This is now the third time that NHS employee Ann T has attempted to publicly destabilise crucial health advocacy initiatives and promulgate deliberate misinformation. Such destructive and purposeful game playing on evidenced issues that matter so much to so many will simply not be tolerated. People should realise that quite often, those like Ann T who pretend to be 'helping', have a very different, vested interests agenda in mind. Be careful of these people - they can do deliberate harm.

I would like to thank all the readers and participants in the One Click campaign from all over the world who have given me the strength and resolve needed to carry on for the time being with what is a most difficult endeavour. Your emails of support have truly touched me and thank you very much indeed.

There is so much more work to be done...

All the best to everyone.

Jane Bryant
The One Click Group

Mon, November 20th, 2006. 02:40 pm

As a Stakeholder on the CFS/ME NICE Guidelines, The One Click Group Response to the CFS/ME draft NICE guidelines is a coherent, thoroughly researched and well put together document.

We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to The One Click Group and
all those who participated in the production of this document. We
know that One Click has been totally committed to producing a document
which has the sole purpose of safeguarding the wellbeing of those who
have been diagnosed with ME/CFS and the ever growing number of those
who are now being treated for Borreliosis having previously been
misdiagnosed with ME/CFS.

Jane Colley

Mon, November 20th, 2006. 09:20 am

You are welcome to redistribute or reprint documents from this website without
seeking our permission provided: 1) you do not abbreviate, add to, or change the
text in any way; 2) the authorship information is retained; and 3) is credited as the source.

Construction, maintenance and development of this site is by young Borreliosis sufferer Ben Bryant.
His health and strength determine the site�s activity.

Launched on the 22nd May 2004.


The One Click Group
Health Advocacy



About Us

One Click Response
NICE Guidelines

BADA-UK Statement
Lyme Disease/Borreliosis

One Click Presentation
Gibson ME/CFS Inquiry

The Gibson
ME/CFS Inquiry

The Underbelly Of ME/CFS Politics Revealed

The One Click Story
Legal Evidence

One Click Announcement

The Consensus Report
Family Law Reform

MSBP Parlimentary Survey

Zero Risk
by Martin J. Walker

Realpolitik and ME
by Martin J. Walker

The Psychiatric Paradigm

The PACE Report

A Summary of the Inherent Flaws - PACE Trial

One Click Submission to NICE (UK)

The AfME Dossier

Canadian Definition of ME-CFS

The Complexities of Diagnosis
By Byron Hyde, MD

PRIME Submission Royal College of Nursing

The PRIME Questions

Child Abuse Specialist Runs Centre

Hooper DVD Now Available Online

The Weird World of Wikipedia
by Martin J. Walker

Chucky Defending The Indefensible

The UK ME-CFS Charities - Whom Do They Represent?

The Future Charity - For Your Consideration

What is ME - What is CFS

Click here to email us your opinions.

Connecticut, The Police State

Connecticut police are about armed revenue collection, they are armed revenue collectors, not to be confused with actual law enforcement.

The Connecticut State Police should be abolished.

The Connecticut State Police are about retaliation, abuse, and in violation citizens US Constitutional and Human Rights.

An example, found here on the web:

MATRIX FOIA Request to the Connecticut Department of Public Safety (10/30/2003)

Commissioner Arthur L. Spada
Department of Public Safety
1111 Country Club Road
Middletown, CT 06457-9294

Re: Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX)

Dear Commissioner Spada,

We are writing, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, to inquire whether the Department of Public Safety, on behalf of the State of Connecticut, is planning to participate in the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (MATRIX).

If the Department is not participating, we would appreciate written confirmation, or copies of documents indicating the Department's decision not to participate.

If the Department is participating in the MATRIX program, we are requesting the opportunity to inspect and copy the following public documents held by or received by the Department of Public Safety:

1. Documents including the specifications for the MATRIX program, including, but not limited to documents regarding storage capacities, throughput (e.g. number of identity files processed per hour), types of computers used, and user manuals;

2. Documents indicating what personal data is accessed and/or used by the MATRIX, including documents regarding the types of personal data accessed or used by the MATRIX (including, but not limited to drivers' records, financial records, medical information, marriage records, divorce records, Internet usage information, phone records, travel records, voting records, biometric data, educational records, information regarding race, ethnicity, immigration records, criminal justice records and/or gun owners' records), the contents of any personal information databases related to the MATRIX, and the number of individuals whose personal data has been obtained;

3. Documents indicating the source(s) of Matrix data, any agreement and/or contracts to obtain personal data with other government agencies, other states, private companies, and/or the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), or any other agency, entity, or person(s);

4. Documents regarding the retention of any such data, including, but not limited to retained records or results, the record retention policies pertaining to these systems, any documentation of the approval of the retention policies by any state government agencies and/or their contractors;

5. Documents containing any procedures for analyzing the data, including, but not limited to the criteria used by the MATRIX to determine whether someone is a terrorist, including the use of information regarding race, ethnicity, religious background, internet usage, travel patterns, political views, political activities and/or consumer purchasing habits in any way, shape or form;

6. Documents indicating the results of any tests, including, but not limited to any logs or other written descriptions of how any such systems is and/or has been used, the accuracy rates of any such systems while in operation and assessments of the individuals whose data was collected and used;

7. Documents identifying who has access to the MATRIX, including, but not limited to a complete list of all recipients of data from the MATRIX; any procedures for individuals to find out what information the MATRIX has about them, any procedures for individuals to correct information that the MATRIX has about them, and any procedures for individuals to find out what the MATRIX has determined about them;

8. Documents describing any procedures in place to protect the privacy of the individuals whose data was accessed and/or used by the MATRIX, including, but not limited to documents regarding oversight boards, login restrictions, pop-up screens at sign-on, data security measures, encryption, reduced use of certain criteria (e.g. race and/or ethnicity) and/or data checking to ensure accuracy of the information, how any of the personal data accessed and/or used by the MATRIX will be destroyed, and documentation of any policies permitting such destruction;

9. Documents regarding usage of the MATRIX, including, but not limited to the number of times the MATRIX has been used, the cases or circumstances in which the MATRIX has been used (including, but not limited to instances where the MATRIX was used for non-terrorism investigation purposes and/or for non-criminal investigation purposes), the number of requests to use the MATRIX that have been received so far, the entities and/or individuals who have made requests to use the MATRIX, and the number of such requests that have been rejected;

10. Any legal analyses regarding the MATRIX, including, but not limited to documents regarding whether the MATRIX violates international, federal, state and/or local privacy laws, including constitutional protections;

11. Documents including organizational details on the development and use of the MATRIX, including, but not limited to documents regarding sources of technical and/or financial support for the MATRIX, which federal, state and/or local government agencies are involved and/or cooperating in the MATRIX project, what companies, consultants, and or universities are involved and/or cooperating in the MATRIX project, the amount of money spent on developing the MATRIX system so far, the sources for this money, and budgetary outlays for future development and/or maintenance of the MATRIX;

12. Records regarding training of staff and consultants to use the MATRIX, including, but not limited to textbooks, video presentations, contracts and/or agreements to be signed by MATRIX trainees, and the number of people who have been trained to use the MATRIX so far; and

13. Notes and agendas of meetings regarding the MATRIX.

Please be advised that this FOIA request is intended to be as broad and inclusive as permitted by law and is intended to apply to all officers, officials, employees, departments, divisions, bureaus, commissions, councils, and any other private agency, person, partnership, corporation or business entity acting on behalf of, or with the knowledge of, the Department of Public Safety.

If the Department claims that any requested document is exempt from inspection, please state the name and description of the document, and an explanation of the basis for the exemption, including the statutory citation to an exemption created or afforded by statute.

Please note that we are initially requesting to inspect these documents, prior to identifying specific records for copying. If specific documents are later identified for copying, we agree to compensate the Department up to the per page copy fee permitted by law.

Your immediate attention to these matters is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance.


Teresa Younger
Executive Director

Philip Tegeler
Legal Director

* * * *

Click Here for post on Racist Connecticut Courts

Click Here for post on Liars in the Court
the above post contains YouTube Videos

Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials Notice:

Click Here for Notice

I do not make a profit on what I post. I aim to teach, inform, and have a political agenda in preserving the US Constitution, the rights of Small Business Owners, Property Investors, and those wanting to exercise their Free Speech rights.

It matter not where in the world you live, We the People have to keep the Official Pirates, Corporate Bastards, and others, honest and out of our bedrooms, out of our personal and family lives, and out of out wallets and purses.

Stand tough, be vigilant, and don't be silent.

-Steven G. Erickson a.k.a. Blogger Vikingas

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Official Internet Stalkers?:

There are those that watch the Internet for large corporations, government officials, and other powerful people. They look to preserve their assets, make money, keep from getting nailed for criminal wrongdoing, and are in the business of retaliating against whistleblowers.

The below is Karen Forschner copying in a Lyme Google Group regarding Ed McSweegan possibly wiretapping and possibly regarding very disturbing criminal behavior, racketeering, obstruction of justice, and Felony Internet Stalking.

This is still going on now. Click on Google, click on more, click groups, put in “Lyme” without quotes, do a search, and check it out.

Go to Google Groups Home > - View Parsed

Lines: 83
From: (Writer0608)
Date: 08 Feb 2001 17:58:31 GMT
References: <>
Organization: AOL
Subject: Re: archive: Re: Submitted to FDA with supporting
Message-ID: <>


Sorry you have so much confused and incorrect. Why would you keep attributing
statements to me, that you know I did not say? You need to be accurate.

My concern is that you are fixated on me, and that fixation is increasing.
Including increasing over the internet.

Ed did say "Buzz-off Karen." Not very mature. And, I did not go up to him. I
noticed him after I was talking with Phil Baker. And, he was there with Phil.

I wonder how his lawsuit against NIH is going. Is he claiming conspiracy again?

And, the document was missing when it was FOI'd. Ed even sent an email to the
reporter, asking why she was interested in the document(s). But, I guess you
know this.

You state "I heard both conversations went badly." What do you think you
"heard"? Now, be careful, because you need to cite first hand information, not
gossip. Who told you the information, Phil or Ed?

Lastly, I admit that I did cry during the deposition. Yup. It was during a
reading of material Ed admitted writing, that mocked our dead son and pets.
And, a number of such writings were done WHILE he was a public official
working at NIH as LD Project Officer.

I was also surprised that Ed, (while a Public Official and LD Program Officer)
was tracking my parents address and phone numbers; my home address and phone
numbers; my travel agent's information; employee names, home addresses, home
phone numbers; my movements while working for the LDF; and had been at the
LDF's office.

He even had tracked down and talked with a person working with Dr. Joe
Burrascano. Keeping their informtion in his files. I was also surprised to see
his point system, giving himself a score when he was able to harm/interfere
with an LDF/Karen initiative. This was happening while he was the LD project

When was he working? And, who else did he track that he wasn't caught tracking?

Anon, if you plan to cite depositions I suggest this format.

These are regarding various charges Ed made about the LDF. Ed's deposition. Q's
are by lawyers to Ed. A's are Eds answers.

p229 lines 11-13.
"Q. But you have no factual basis to rely on?
A. Not at the moment."

p 288 lines 1-8
"Q. And what was your basis for saying this may invite investigation and
(ed -accusing the LDF of a wide range of things while NIH LD Program Office)
A. Clairvoyance.
Q. Anything else?
A. Wishful thinking. I don't know.
Q. Clairvoyance and wishful thinking, okay. Anything else's?
A. No, I didn't have any knowledge of anything related to investigations at the

p 147 lines 15-22 p 148 lines 1-6
"Q. Are the things you've said about them, the Forschners or the Foundation,
that you believe to be true but that you didn't necessarily follow up on and
check yourself before you made those statements?
A. For example?
Q Anything
A. I don't think so.
Q In other words, if you made a statement about the Forschners or the Lyme
Disease Foundation that you didn't have personal knowledge about, did you make
an inquiry about it before you would make that statement in writing or orally
to make sure it was accurate?
A. Yes, but, in fact, I have no personal knowledge of anything."

The LDF received a lot of material from Ed during the time he was suing the
LDF. Much of this crossed lines from NIH to CDC and to the FDA. Ed appeared
to be very concerned with the activities of various people and we were not the
only ones to receive threats, retaliation, or reporting to federal authorities.
His own colleagues and a grantee was included as targets to be turned in to
federal, state, and local officials accused of serious wrongdoing.

It wasn't just the LDF.

* * * *

* * * *
State Anti-Stalking Statutes
While it is argued that stalking has been a problem for hundreds of years[3], it has only been in the last decade that state laws have been passed to deal with the issue. Prior to enacting specific anti-stalking statutes, stalking was often prosecuted under harassment, assault, or domestic violence statutes[4]. However, in 1990 after a series of tragic deaths[5], California passed the first anti-stalking statute. This law made it a crime to willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harass or follow another person. Additionally, a "credible threat" with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family is required[6]. Since California passed its anti-stalking statute, all other states have either passed similar statutes or revised other statutes to include stalking activities[7].
Anti-stalking statutes can be grouped in to three general categories, the credible threat model, the two-tiered, non-credible threat model, and the literal stalking, non-credible threat model[8]. While each state law may differ slightly, these three categories are representative of the anti-stalking laws as a whole.
The California anti-stalking law[9] is an example of the credible threat model. California criminalized intentional obsessive harassment by someone who makes a credible threat. The statute has two actus reus elements that have separate means rea requirements. First, the statute requires willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassment. The statute further defines "harass" as a "knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person."[10] The statute does not define following, but rather assumes that its meaning is clear[11]. The second requirement is that the conduct results in a credible threat. A credible threat[12] requires the victim to reasonably fear for his or her safety and the perpetrator must have intent and ability to complete the threat.
The Florida statute is much broader than the California credible threat model because of its two-tier approach[13]. The Florida statute is a two tiered model that does not require a credible threat for a stalking conviction, but does required a credible threat[14] or violation of a court order for aggravated stalking. The statute[15]defines stalking as willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassment[16]. Under the Florida statute, there is no reasonable person standard for the victim’s fear. Thus, merely following or harassing may constitute criminal stalking even if the victim is unharmed.
The statute further defines aggravated stalking as willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassment of another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury[17]. Under the Florida statute, stalking is a misdemeanor in the first degree and aggravated stalking is a felony of the third degree. This statute differs from the California statute in two major ways. First, it does not require that the perpetrator have the apparent ability to carry out the threat. Secondly, it provides an exception to the credible threat if the person commits stalking (lesser offense) in violation of a court order. Although, the Florida and California statutes are similar, the Florida statute reaches further than the California Statute because it creates immediate criminal liability without physical attack or threat of attack[18].
Finally, the Connecticut anti-stalking law defines stalking in literal terms rather than harassing behavior. Under the statute, stalking is defined as intentional and willful following or lying in wait for such other person and causes such other person to reasonably fear for his physical safety[19]. The Connecticut law is much narrower than the California or Florida statute in that it only includes literal stalking behavior[20]. However, where there are situations of literal stalking, it reaches further than the California or Florida statutes because it does not require a credible threat.
While these three statutes serve as general models for anti-stalking statutes as a whole, other state laws do have noticeable differences. For example, West Virginia’s state law defines stalking as a crime only if it occurs between persons who have had intimate relations[21]. Illinois law requires that a credible threat be demonstrated before the actual harassing and following of a person, thus excluding harassment that scares a person before a threat is made[22].
All 50 states and the District of Columbia have passed anti-stalking statutes. However, presently only 4 have statutes that directly deal with stalking by computer[23]. Michigan, Oklahoma, and Alaska have statutes that define stalking to include nonconsensual contact or unconsented contact by sending mail or electronic communications to the victim[24]. The Wyoming statute provides that a person has committed the offense of stalking if, with the intent to harass another person, the person engages in a course of conduct reasonably likely to harass that person, included but not limited to any combination of the following: (i) Communicating, anonymously or otherwise, or causing a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses…"[25]
Under the Michigan anti-stalking law, a test case may soon decide the issue as to whether unwanted E-mail will be sufficient to satisfy the state stalking law. There a man sent E-mails over five days to a woman whom he had met through a dating service. The last of the messages threatened the woman of physical harm.[26]
There are another 21 state statutes that have language that could be interpreted to include Internet communication. This is because they include communication by written means or communication by telephone.[27] This could apply in an Internet context because E-mail requires typed communication and Internet activity generally requires the use of telephone lines for connectivity. The other state statutes are written similarly to the Connecticut statute, which requires that there be physical stalking or lying in wait. Thus, they are much more difficult to apply to cyberstalking activity.[28]
Whether or not current state stalking statutes can be used to prosecute persons who commit cyberstalking will generally depend on the individual state statute that is being considered. While a few statutes do specifically deal with computer contact, and a number more are broad enough to allow an argument that cyberstalking should apply, many of the statutes simply were not written with cyberstalking in mind and thus cannot easily be applied in a cyberstalking situation.
(back to top)
Federal Statutes that Cover Stalking
Under federal legislation, there are several alternatives that can be applied in a cyberstalking situation. The first alternative is 18 USC 875(c) which makes it illegal to transmit a threat to injure or kidnap another person. The statute was originally enacted in 1932 after the Lindbergh kidnapping case where threatening letters were sent to the Lindbergh’s demanding ransom money for the return of their kidnapped son. The statute was expanded in 1934 to include threats conveyed by any means whatsoever.[29]
The First case to use 18 USC 875(c) to prosecute a cyberstalking crime was United States v. Baker[30]. The case surrounded a college student that posted a sexually explicit story that named another student as the victim. The story gave the physical description of the student and told a graphic tale of the torture, rape, and murder of the student. In the investigation that surrounded the case, an e-mail relationship was discovered where Baker and another male spoke of the need to torture and rape young college women. The most important issue in the case centered on whether the e-mail messages constituted a true threat as required under the statute. The district court held that the E-mail sent did not constitute a true threat as required under the statute. The court reasoned that the email messages were private and did not express an absolute intent to commit the crime. This holding was upheld by the 6th circuit which reasoned, as did the district court, that the prosecution did not prove the true threat element required by the statute.[31]
In addition to 18 USC 875(c), Congress has also passed the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention act of 1996[32]. Under this Act, it is illegal to travel across a state line with the intent to injure or harass another person or as a result of such travel to cause that person to reasonably fear for their safety.
Although, these statutes do assist in combating the stalking problem, they are very much limited in their ability to combat cyberstalking. The Interstate Stalking Act is limited because it requires that the perpetrator cross state lines. However, one could make the argument that Internet communication does cross state lines. Furthermore, 18 USC 875(c) requires an actual threat be made against the victim. As demonstrated by the Baker case, anything less that a direct threat made against the victim may fall short of the requirements needed to prosecute cyberstalking.

The above found here on the web

* * * *

Connecticut Stalking Law

Sec. 53a-182b. Harassment in the first degree: Class D felony.

(a) A person is guilty of harassment in the first degree when, with the intent to harass, annoy, alarm or terrorize another person, he threatens to kill or physically injure that person or any other person, and communicates such threat by telephone, or by telegraph, mail, computer network, as defined in section 53a-250, or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm and has been convicted of a capital felony, a class A felony, a class B felony, except a conviction under section 53a-86 or 53a-122, a class C felony, except a conviction under section 53a-87, 53a-152 or 53a-153, or a class D felony under sections 53a-60 to 53a-60c, inclusive, 53a-72a, 53a-72b, 53a-95, 53a-103, 53a-103a, 53a-114, 53a-136 or 53a-216. For the purposes of this section, "convicted" means having a judgment of conviction entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) For purposes of this section, such offense may be deemed to have been committed either at the place where the telephone call was made or where it was received.

(c) The court may order any person convicted under this section to be examined by one or more psychiatrists.

(d) Harassment in the first degree is a class D felony.

The above is found here on the web

* * * *

The below found here on the web

Federal law

Currently, there are few federal laws that deal directly with stalking.

  • The Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996 punishes persons with a fine and/or imprisonment for crossing state lines "with the intent to injure or harass another person...or place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury..." (18 USC § 2261A, 2261, 2262).
  • Two laws authorize grants for law enforcement agencies to develop programs addressing stalking and for states to improve the process for entering stalking-related data into local, state and national crime information databases such as the National Crime Information Center. (42 USC §§ 3796gg, 14031)
  • Another law requires a training program for judges to ensure that when they issue orders in stalking cases, they have all the available criminal history and other information from state and federal sources. (42 USC § 14036)
  • As of September 1996, the Attorney General must compile and report data regarding stalking as part of the National Incident-Based Reporting System. (42 USC § 14038)
  • The National Center for Victims of Crime has additional information on federal and state laws at its web site:

If you have a problem with me posting the above or having any questions or comments, please email me at:

Note: Blogger Support, please email me.

View My Stats