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.
|sci.med.diseases.lyme > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_frm/thread/87640d534c586115/c5e50e5b067b2565?#c5e50e5b067b2565 - View Parsed|
From: writer0...@aol.com (Writer0608)
Date: 08 Feb 2001 17:58:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Subject: Re: n...@cotse.com archive: Re: Submitted to FDA with supporting
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
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
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)
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?
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, 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. However, in 1990 after a series of tragic deaths, 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. Since California passed its anti-stalking statute, all other states have either passed similar statutes or revised other statutes to include stalking activities.
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. 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 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." The statute does not define following, but rather assumes that its meaning is clear. The second requirement is that the conduct results in a credible threat. A credible threat 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. 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 or violation of a court order for aggravated stalking. The statutedefines stalking as willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassment. 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. 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.
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. The Connecticut law is much narrower than the California or Florida statute in that it only includes literal stalking behavior. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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…"
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.
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. 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.
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.
The First case to use 18 USC 875(c) to prosecute a cyberstalking crime was United States v. Baker. 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.
In addition to 18 USC 875(c), Congress has also passed the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention act of 1996. 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
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: http://www.ncvc.org/law/issues/Stalking/stalking_frames.htm
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.