Declaring Any Deceit vs. Sui Juris as Void and Nullity by the Higher Law & Facts!

[Sharing Lights]

Disclaimer:

1) An attack on character of one Sui Juris is an attack on all, unless he/she is not acting Sui Juris in its noble aspect.

2) The term "accusers" is used here vs. anyone, who has engaged in what is stated in the Violations.

3) The First Amendment is preserved and honored.

4) Acts listed in Violations
contradict the above as they infringe on the basic, human rights and the rights stated in the First Amendment for the People whose rights are violated.

5)

No right of one individual may be exercised at the expense of another.

6) Violations stated at the bottom, without a doubt, violate the rights of the People/Sui Juries, indeed.

7) No acts of violence are advocated or supported; fairness is encouraged to all.

8) All - means all People regardless of gender, religion or atheism, orientation, nationality, and any other factors in accordance with common sense.

9) Unity and benevolence toward each other are suggested.

10) It is, equally, reserved to exercise our God/Nature given right to defend our Rights, when they are infringed upon regardless of the Source as such cannot be of God/Nature by virtue of the latter, being Harmony and Fairness.

Maxims of Life and Statements:

(in support of what is stated Above and Below.)

!AS ABOVE AS BELOW!

Alike produces alike, thus, God/Nature: Harmony and Fairness can,
only, produce Harmony and Fairness.

Anything not of Harmony and Fairness is not of God/Nature
but of a human, self-imposed, mutated reflection of the above.

Mutations are not the Original and can not be relied upon as original and valid.

Only original is of merit and value - not its deviation/mutation,
and, thus a produced new, altered concept or entity.

(weakness and kindness, when abused, breed Tyranny;
strength, when not abused, breeds Peace.)

Introduction:

On few occasions, I fairly and sincerely offered the ones who used:

vs. Sui Juries

the tactics listed below in the Violations
to, openly, come out in Sui Juris Forum
and, equally, openly, engage us, me for a start, by facts and merit.


Statement of facts:

I, personally, offered that and guaranteed that would not use any of the illegal or unfair to all tactics.

The thread is wide open for all.
No editing is used unauthorized.


The Events:

a) We have received a few replies with defying logic and common sense arguments, which were, personally addressed by me, therefore, I have the right to testify to such.

b) I raised my arguments and references to common sense and logic, and basic provisions.
They are left unopposed and; thus, defaulted.
I can testify to such as I am a direct party to what wrote and read.

c) A few unsubstantiated accusations were made vs. me based on my writing as alleged by the accusers.
I, respectfully, asked to quote and post such.
None were quoted, in that relationship.
I testify to that default; therefore, the accusers admitted their lies.

d) The accusers, by silence and contradicting common sense arguments proved that they are, very much,
uncomfortable to engage a Sui Juris by fair, equal and honest means.

e) That is proved by their defaults, attempted falsifications, and inability to engage by facts and merit.

Notations:

1) Please note that an adequate time has been given to them.

2) Please note that the accusers, extensively, use our Forum and its priceless by knowledge, spirit, and totally free database.

3) No typical attorney has such;

4) No typical attorney would share such without charging a fortune.
That is self-given.

5) The same accusers who use our knowledge, thus, admitting that it is Superior to theirs, as why then even go here, if it is not so, use deceit vs. the same Sui Juris writings, which they use for their benefit.

That is an obnoxious and extraordinary in its arrogance act.

As, these accusers, take the best they can find and, then, "spit" at the face of the same people - Sui Juries - the best way they can, that is a "talent" indeed.

Why don't they post, instead, one link of one Forum of the same depth and quality as Sui Juris is, also run by the people, themselves?

(for people by the people...)

One?

It is an open challenge made, hereto.

6) The accusers' actions constitute a conduct similar to thugs going to the clean beach, swimming in a beautiful ocean, then pooping there all over, breaking bottles, scattering broken glass so that more people can get injured and leaving as much garbage as can in appreciation to what was offered to them free of charge in a gesture of true hospitality.

On top of that, they return to their swamp, and tell their, fellows inhabiting such low ground,

"the beach was dirty, ocean was polluted, water was cold and disgusting, we hate that place."

Then, they, innocently ask, "fellows, when are we going to come back there to have some, more fun?
We need fresh air and ocean, you know; we can't, just, rot here."

Yes, we know, we know....

Conclusion:

1) Therefore, it is a logical and precise conclusion that these accusers,
while have a fair opportunity to act,
do not feel comfortable to do so here.

They feel comfortable polluting and disrupting but that isn't the same,
as being accountable for the garbage they left.
They can have it.
Well-mannered folks clean after themselves, at least. Not these ones.

2) It is logical and based on evidence to state, that the same accusers feel very comfortable and united in the described below actives on their Website/Forum.

3) They feel very comfortable to copy/paste and alter the original writings or omit crucial points and tamper with the original virtually copyrighted data as any writing of an author is his/her copyrighted data and intellectual property by default, whether copyrighted officially or not.

Such cannot be used with modifications if their intent is to harass the author willfully and/or with reckless endangerment.

4) The accusers, therefore, have tampered with original record of an intellectual property altered them unauthorized, as testified by the original Authors and did so with a hostile, pre-meditated intent, under the color of aggravated harassment, which is a Federal Offense under its, appropriate, penal code.

5)

When harassment and defamation of character are next to the tampered records and even next to the original ones, as long harassment is established by facts (downloaded copies confirmed by the Web-Server authentication in case of the Cyberspace activity, that establishes the charges in their respective degree. Individuals found guilty of such conduct are liable for the physical and or emotional damages under the statue of the aggravated harassment.

Disclaimer

6) As the accusers have no means, currently, to edit, tamper the Sui Juries writings by any of the members, that

concludes the fact that the accusers:

can only engage Sui Juries when the former have the means to tamper with the original writings and/or not allowing rebuts.

7) The accusers have demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that they are unable and unwilling to engage any Sui Juries, without violating Provisions stated in the Violations.

Fair ways are refused; thus, and criminal ones are utilized by the accusers.

The accusers have engaged in the following on record
vs. Sui Juries:

Violations OF:

slander,

defamation of character,

lies,

deceit,

unauthorized copying of writings from our Website/Forum,

alterations of our writings,

posting unethical comments next to the stolen writings,
not allowing to respond/rebut,

and other despicable tactics not worthy of persons
adhering to the code of the International and US Internet Protocol,

code of ethics,

and general rules of fairness as provided by God/Nature
to all human beings under the sun, Sovereign or not.

Thus, all Sui Juries have a proof that no facts are available vs. them,
unfair tactics utilized vs. them are illegal and improper,
any negative posts vs. them in violations of their rights

Are; therefore, Declared Void and Nullity.

So entered by
our God/Nature given right
to enjoy our, Sovereign status free of lies and deceit against us.

No Monarch, Court, or person may supersede such, Ultimate Rights as they are above the former, being derived from God/Nature in the image of which we are created and governed, thus, by the same laws.

In the Name of True Justice and Liberty to All!

Amen

to be continued

[Sharing Lights]

Part II


Article II: Non-Sexual Crimes Against Persons

§ 2.02.2 Online Harassment, Threats and Non-Sexual Stalking – Prohibited Activities
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual or group of individuals through a pattern of computerized communication to engage in harassing, threatening or stalking any person or group of persons via a computer.

(1) A "Pattern of Computerized Communication" [PCC] requires the over act of a person or group of persons being on a computer and consists of the following predicate crimes, of which a violation of only one constitutes a Pattern of Computerized Communication:

(a) Harassment, §2.02.2 (B)

(b) Threats, §2.02.2 (C)

(c) Non-Sexual Stalking, §2.02.2 (D)

(d) Intimidation, §2.02.2 (E )

(e) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, §2.02.2 (F)

(B) A person or group of persons commit the crime of harassment when he/she uses electronic communications for any of the following purposes:

(1) making any comment, request, suggestion or proposal with an intent to offend, which may or may not be obscene and/or

(2) transmitting to any person, with the intent to harass and regardless of whether the communication is read in its entirety or at all, any file, do***ent, or other communication which prevents that person from using his or her telephone service or electronic communications device and/or

(3) transmitting, for no legitimate purpose, a message wich contained frightening, intimidating, abusive, or alarming content and resulted in repeated harassment of the recipient by other subsequent readers of the message.

(C) A person's or group of persons' speech constitutes a "true threat," when

(1) the following elements are met:

(a) a person makes a statement, which he/she knowingly or purposely transmits to someone and, in context, a reasonable recipient of the communications would interpret as communicating a serious expression of an intent to inflict or cause serious harm on or to the recipient and

(b) the person intended that the statement be taken as a threat that would serve to place the recipient in fear for his/her personal safety, regardless of whether the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

(2) True Threats are not protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(D) A person or group of persons commits the crime of non-sexual stalking when:

(1) without lawful authority, a person or group of persons, willfully or maliciously engages in a course of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated or harassed and

(2) with the intent to place the reasonable person to fear for his/her safety, or the safety of his/her immediate family and

(3) all of which actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated or harassed.

(E) A person or group of persons commits the crime of intimidation when he/she purposely sends a message or messages with materially fraudulent information in an attempt to hinder, discourage, encourage, or otherwise influence the recipient's behavior.

(F) A person or group of persons commits the crime of intentional infliction of emotional distress when a person or group of person acts either purposely, knowingly, or recklessly.

(1) Degrees of Culpability:

(a) A person or group of persons acts purposely when he/she has a conscious object to engage in a type of conduct and has knowledge that such a type of conduct will cause such a result

(b) A person or group of persons acts knowingly when he/she is aware of his/her conduct and is practically certain that his/her conduct will cause such a result.

(c) A person of group of persons acts recklessly when he/she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his/her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the cir***stances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.

(2) Elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of the crime of intentional infliction of emotional distress depends on whether a person or group of persons:

(a) sends a message or messages that threaten to cause physical injury or property damage to any person and the messages are of such an outrageous content or nature as to cause severe emotional or mental distress to the recipient; and/or

(b) sends a message or messages that threatens to cause physical injury or property damage to the recipient, the recipient's family or to the recipient's property and that the content of these messages is of such an outrageous nature as to cause severe emotional or mental distress to the recipient; and/or

(c) sends a message or messages that contain obscene, lewd, vulgar, or profane language as measured by constitutional standards, the content of which is sufficiently outrageous as to cause severe emotional or mental distress to the recipient; and/or

(d) sends a message or messages containing the frightening, intimidating, threatening, abusive, or alarming content which is sent repeatedly to the intended recipient and which causes the recipient severe emotional distress.



to be continued

[Sharing Lights]

Part III


Commentary

§2.02.2 (B) Harassment

Prior to technology, harassment could reach only a limited number of people. Word of mouth, mail, and even publication in a newspaper pale in comparison to the potential numbers of people one can reach through cyberspace. The Internet allows an individual to create an online persona with little relationship to his or her real life identity. This "facelessness of cyberspace" lends itself to extreme forms of expression and allows people to say things that they might never say face-to-face. This certain sense of removal does not absolve people who harass, threaten, or stalk others in cyberspace of legal responsibility.

A possible scenario that may be addressed by §2.02.2 (B), Harassment by electronic communications, may be the following case of Will County, Chicago. [FN1] In this case, an individual proficient with the use of a computer used the Internet to post a child's (or adult's) name and telephone number on sexual explicit Internet sites. This posting invited visitors to call and inquire about the named individual, who was a child. As a result, the named individual was subjected to consistent, harassing and possibly sexual explicit telephone calls every day of the week, at any and all hours. The repeated inquiries caused the recipient of the calls and/or messages to become fearful for his/her safety and the safety of their family. The Boehle family decided that they had to move outside of Will County in order to protect their daughter, who was the subject of the postings, telephone calls and messages, from any potential harm they feared might occur as a result of such harassment. [FN2]

The theory is that harassing someone in cyberspace is just as illegal as doing it through the mail and/or via the telephone. The purpose of this section of the statute is to open the doors of cyberspace to the legal consequences of online harassment. Without such a section, if a state is not one to have a law regulating electronic harassment, the victim must wait until the harassment takes on an off-line form. [FN3] Such a "waiting period" can be dangerous to the victim, thereby, this section of the statute allows a victim to see help before the harassment can escalate to a potentially harmful result.

§2.02.2 (C) Threats

Under the common law and many statutes, a threat was only one of the elements of the offense of extortion or blackmail, and the prosecution must also show that the purpose of the threat was to obtain money, property, or some other thing of value. [FN4] The crime of threatening another individual has evolved from the use of mail, telegraph and telephone as subscribers began to use the Internet to reach their intended victims. Online threats are perhaps the most complicated offense of this statute. The nature of the offense is serious because the law must determine which transmissions are "true threats" rather than protected speech. [FN5] While it is important to prohibit threats, it is also important not to chill free speech in cyberspace by too broadly defining what speech equals a "threat." [FN6] However, "true threats" are not protected by the first amendment and therefore they can be prohibited without violating the United States Constitution. [FN7]

The Internet functions as a vast marketplace of ideas, and as such, it is extremely important that it receive the highest level of First Amendment freedom of speech protection possible. Many people use e-mail, posting to newsgroups and bulletin boards, chat rooms and web pages, or any combination to send threats to others. [FN8] The consequences of this behavior are two-fold: 1) threats are harmful to their victims and 2) threats are harmful to the freedom of speech in cyberspace, because individuals fearing retaliation may cease to express their opinions or even enter the forum at all. The purpose behind prohibiting threats is to prevent the harm that would come of their actual execution and to prevent the harm that comes from the mere threat itself, such as the anxiety and fear that are created by a threat of harm.

The "True Threats" standard that is encompassed in §2.02.2 (C)(1)(a-b) is one which contains both an objective and subjective standard. [FN9] The objective part of the test asks whether a reasonable person would construe the defendant's speech or statement as a threat, given the context in which it was made. To have a test only with an objective element is very restrictive on free speech because the "reasonable person" standard can be problematic. It invites a jury to consider the unique sensitivities of the particular recipient. For instance, a defendant's speech may be prohibited in one instance, where the recipient is unusually sensitive, while it would not have been prohibited if the "threat" if had been directed at a less sensitive recipient. As a result, the drafter added a subjective element to this test, which looks at the speaker's intent in making the statement. The subjective element increases the burden on the prosecution and thus makes it less likely that speech that is not truly a threat will be attacked for the sole purpose of silencing the speaker. It is the threat itself that, simply being uttered, causes the harm the statute aims to prevent: the victim's sense of fear. No further "over act" is needed. To date, the Supreme Court of the United States had not spoken directly on the issue of a "true threats" test. [FN10]

The United States v. Baker case illustrates the reluctance of the Courts to punish all but the most egregious of threats under this "true threat" standard. [FN11] While a student at the University of Michigan, Baker began to write sexually graphic and explicit stories depicting the rape and torture of women. In these stories, Baker used the name and physical description of a classmate as a main character in one of these stories. After these sexually explicit stories were posted on the Internet, several individuals read these postings and reported Baker out of concern for the named female student in these stories. [FN12] Mr. Baker was charged with five counts of violating 18 USC §875(c). The district court dismissed the charges against Baker by ruling that the threatening messages were "only a rather savage and tasteless piece of fiction" and without more evidence, was entitled to First Amendment protection. [FN13] The Court of Appeals in the Baker case held that to constitute a "true threat" under 18 USC Section 875(c), a communication must be such that a reasonable person 1) "would take the statement as a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily harm (mens rea) and 2) would perceive such expression as being communicated to effect some change or achieve some goal through intimidation (the actus reus)." The Court of Appeals held that while Baker's stories and messages were offensive, they did not constitute "true threats" because they were sent through private e-mail to a friend. In other words, threats made in a private e-mail, to an individual who is not the target of the threats, and made about an indistinct, undefined group will not likely meet the "true threat" standard.

A scenario that may be addressed by §2.02.2 (C) is that of a person sending messages directly to a specific victim. A nineteen year old St. John's University student was charged with aggravated harassment for terrorizing an Indianapolis family. [FN14] He allegedly sent the family threatening e-mail that promised "to hunt then down, rape their 12 year old daughter, and kill them." [FN15] In another case, a fourteen year old boy was charged with threats to commit murder and civil rights violations for making anti-Semitic death threats to his teacher via the Internet. [FN16] The differences in these cases to Baker is that these perpetrators threatened violence against specific individuals intending to cause fear in their victims. These victims took these threats seriously and thus these two perpetrators could be prosecuted under §2.02.2 (C).


to be continued

[Sharing Lights]

Part IV


Hate groups and extremists have found a new forum in the Internet to spread their propaganda. The Internet allows these groups to reach impressionable audiences with an ease that they have never been able to accomplish. However much people might disagree with these views, the First Amendment forbids silencing speech because of its content. The First Amendment protects the materials published in these hate sites just as it would protect the same information spoken or published in a book or a newspaper. [FN17] As a result, it is important to note that this section of this statute does not make uttering derogatory comments illegal. It is only when a person "crosses the line" by directing his/her hate-filled message at another person in the form of a threat. A prime example would be the case of Richard Machando, a former college student at the University of California at Irvine. [FN18] Mr. Machando sent racist death threats to fifty-nine Asian students at the University. Mr. Machando blamed the Asian students for lack of campus quality. His e-mails stated: "I personally will make it my life career to find and kill everyone of you personally." He signed the e-mail "Asian Hater." As a result of transmitting these messages, Mr. Machando was sentenced to one year in jail. [FN19]

§2.02.2 (D) Non-Sexual Stalking

Non-Sexual Stalking is an electronic version of the real world crime: unwanted, obsessive pursuit of an individual by another individual. "The architecture of cyberspace might make it more common because you can do it all from your chair...without going to the trouble of tracking [a victim] down, going to their house and leaving a note." [FN20] Therefore, the drafter created non-sexual stalking to contain the same elements as physical stalking: willfully, maliciously and repeatedly following or harassing another person.

A possible scenario that may be addressed by §2.02.2 (D), non-sexual stalking, is the Dellapenta case. [FN21] The alleged stalking began when the victim rejected Mr. Dellapenta's romantic advances. The victim and Mr. Dellapenta were both members of the same church, a place where they first met each other. [FN22] Mr. Dellapenta unrelentlessly pursued the victim, to the point where she asked church members to intervene, which they did. Mr Dellapenta told men the victim's name, address, phone number, a her physical description and how to bypass her home security system. Mr. Dellapenta's later posted an ad on the Internet which contained the following message, in addition to the victim's personal information: "I am into rape fantasy and gang-bang fantasy." [FN23] The victim, who didn't even own a computer at the time, began receiving phone calls and had men showing up at her apartment saying that they were responding to her online personal ads. The non- sexual stalking section of this statute is partly modeled after California's Stalking law, of which Mr. Dellapenta had been charged with violating.



§2.02.2 (E) Intimidation

Intimidation can be considered a lesser included offense of online threats, §2.02.2 (C). However, there are situations where a person might not necessarily intent to threaten a victim, but rather intimidate the victim to do something he/she might not otherwise do before the intimidation. This is why the drafter felt that a section on intimidation still be part of the Online Harassment, Threats and Non-Sexual Stalking statute.

A possible scenario that may be addressed by §2.02.2 (E), intimidation, is witness intimidation. A fifteen year old girl claims that her uncle sexually abused her. As a result, she brings criminal charges against him. In an effort to keep the abuse victim from testifying, the accused posts messages on the Internet claiming that the fifteen year old abuse victim is interested in sexual encounters. [FN24]

Another possible scenario that may be addressed by §2.02.2 (E) is political intimidation. Tara Newell, an undergraduate student at McGill received several threatening and obscene messages at the beginning of the election period for President of the Student Society of McGill Undergraduates. [FN25] By reading Newell's saved messages, the perpetrator learned personal details about his/her victim. The perpetrator threatened to continue harassing her until Newell dropped out of the election.

§2.02.2 (F) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is often referred to as the Tort of Outrage in the civil realm. [FN26] This section is meant to address behavior that is caused by "ill will or wickedness of the heart." [FN27] This section's degrees of culpability are modeled after the general requirements of culpability in the Model Penal Code, §2.02.2 (2)(a-c). The drafter decided to created degrees of culpability to better define the behavior of the perpetrator and to allow for more precise prosecution. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress can be categorized as a lesser included offense of harassment and threats. As a result, a Prosecutor has lesser standards or elements to prove in these types of cases. For example, a prosecutor may not be able to meet the elements for threats, however, he/she might be more able to prove the elements of emotional distress. This allows the victim a sense of justice, without letting the perpetrator escape criminal liability.

A possible scenario that may be addressed by §2.02.2 (F)(1)(a), purposely inflicting emotional distress, is that of virtual rape. "The heretofore unknown crime of "virtual rape" has emerged as an issue with the rise of cyberspace and the Internet, because it is now possible to simulate a sexual attack and thereby cause psychological and emotional, though not physical, injury to the victim(s)." [FN28] The drafter recognizes that the harm in a case of virtual rape is not the physical harm, because there exists no physical contact that is part of the crime of "rape." [FN29] An act that would be considered a virtual rape would include the following scenario. A perpetrator videotapes a female neighbor without her consent. He takes the video image that he obtained and uses computer equipment to "metamorphize" the image of his female neighbor on to another individual's body who is being physically assaulted and raped. The perpetrator then takes the images he created and disseminates them on the Internet. He also sends his victim a copy of what he created. The perpetrator informs the victim as to where she may find these metamorphized images on the Internet. [FN30] Such actions clearly have the intent to purposely inflict emotional distress on the victim. These actions can also be argued that they constitute "true threats" under §2.02.2 (C) because the perpetrator sent the video tape to the victim, with sites that she should also view to see "herself" on the Internet. Such actions go beyond the Baker test of being pure fantasy stories between two email correspondents. The perpetrator actually contacted the victim with material she would view as threatening and the perpetrator intended her to view the material and thus fear for her safety.

to be continued

[Sharing Lights]

Part V


Under §2.02.2 (F)(1)(c), reckless infliction of emotional distress, a potential perpetrator must be aware of the high risk of emotional harm that his/her actions may cause, but still grossly deviate from behavior that the society or community considers reasonable. The case of Jake Baker could be prosecuted under this section. One can argue that Mr. Baker (real last name is Alkhabaz) acted recklessly in writing a story that included the name of an actual student at the university he was attending at the time, who just happened to have the same physical features of the woman in his story.

Footnotes

1. See Stanley Ziembhca, Joilet Man faces Cyber-Harassment Suit, Former Neighbor Seek 3 Million for Alleged Posting of Home Number, Chicago Tribune, March 25, 1998.

2. Id.

3. Maryland, Michigan, Alaska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Illinois are among the several states that have adopted electronic harassment statutory provisions.

4. See American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Extortion, Blackmail, and Threats, Volume 31A, §3 Threat.

5. See Sally Greenberg, Threats, Harassment, and Hate On-Line: Recent Developments, Boston Public Interest Law Journal, Spring 1997.

6. Id.

7. See Watts v. U.S. 4 U.S. 705 (1969).

8. See Anne Bevilacqua, Electronic Harassment, May 2, 1997 on the Computers & Law Homepage, http://wings.buffalo.edu/Complaw/Com...s/bevilacq.htm

9. The "true threats" utilized in §2.02.1 (C)(1)(a-b) is Justice Jones' definition of what a "true threat" is. This test is located as a footnote in the Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists (also known as the "Nuremberg Files case") See 23 F.Supp 2d 1182 (D.Or. 1998).

10. For a history of the different "true threats" standards, See Watt v. U.S., 394 U.S. 705 (1969), Rogers v. U.S., 422 U.S. 35 (1975), U.S. v. Kelner, 534 F.3d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1976), and Roy v. U.S., 416 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1969).

11. See the Jake Baker case, U.S. v. Alkhabaz, 104 F.3d 1492 (6th Cir. 1997)

12. See Heather Brooks-Szacha, U.S. v. Jake Baker: The Role of Unique Features of Electronic Mail in a "True Threat" Analysis at http://www.libraries.wayne.edu/~jlitman/pbrooks.html

13. United States v. Baker, 890 F.Supp 1375 (E.D. Mich. 1995).

14. See Sally Greenberg, Threats, Harassment and Hate On-Line: Recent Developments, Boston Public Interest Law Journal, Spring 1997.

15. Id.

16. Id.

17. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

18. See Courtney Macavinta, Prison Time for Email Threats, CNETnews.com, May 4, 1998, http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200...ml?tag=st.cn.1.

19. Id.

20. See Brooke A. Masters, Cracking Down on E-Mail Harassment, Washington Post, November 1, 1998 (Quote from Jonathan Zittrain, Executive Director of Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society).

21. See California Presses Cyberstalking Case: Man Accused of Impersonating Woman Online, APBnews.com, January 22, 1999, http://www.apbnews.com/newscenter/br...lk0122_01.html

22. Id.

23. Id.

24. See Stanley Zienbhca, Will County Focusing on Internet Criminals, Chicago Tribune, May 26, 1998.

25. See Darcy Doran, McGill Student a Victim of High-Tech Harassment.

26. See John L. Diamond, Lawrence C. Levine, and M. Stuart Madden, Understanding Torts, Matthew Bender & Co, Inc. (1996).

27. Blacks Law Dictionary (West 1996).

28. Quote from Professor Susan Brenner, via e-mail to drafter, Noel Ann DeSantis

29. See MSCCC §3.04.1

30. See Brenner, Susan Professor (visited December 4, 1998)

[Sharing Lights]

In reference to the “smear campaign,” one cannot help but notice a considerable reduction of it, at least on this Website/Forum.

“I'm done with your thread,”

written after an opposition which used only fair ways of:

1) quoting.

2) questioning,

3) providing pure logic,

4) relying on existing evidence,

5) raising opinions

is an indication that fair and honest means are so uncomfortable to such individuals that such produced

“I'm done with your thread.”

I believe that few more factors are uncomfortable to any bully:

6) When one person stands up for another, that is intolerable to the accusers

7) When more people unite, that becomes a fortress against these accusers.

8) When people who are separated by considerable distance and cultural differences extend benevolence toward each other and unite in spirit, that is terrifying to the accusers

The key is people extending hands and hearts to other people, as when one stands alone and for him/herself, the energy is not as potent.

Stand up for each other and others would stand up for you.

As for all the low tactics utilized against some Sui Juries, you came up winners – not the “editors” of truth, as whatever they did or may do, they revealed both, of their tactics and how cowardly they act, when confronted not on their turf, where they alter and delete as pleases their agenda.

Their leader refused to engage me - period.
Why?

Because, she knows that she cannot edit anything here unlike on her Forum behind the Sui Juries' backs.

In addition, as she reads our Posts, and claimed ties to Esoteirica, she does not wish to humiliate herself publicly in front of those who can engage her on such grounds.

These people may act indecently but they are not enemies to their health.

[pocatello]

“I'm done with your thread.”

What a load of nonsense. I finished with the thread when Heidi whined about people abusing her while calling me a "dumbass" and accusing me of being someone else. I don't stoop to her level.

[Sharing Lights]

Originally Posted by pocatello

What a load of nonsense. I finished with the thread when Heidi whined about people abusing her while calling me a "dumbass" and accusing me of being someone else. I don't stoop to her level.

Good day or night or in-between, whenever your would read the post.

What a load of nonsense.

Are you sure?
You keep failing rules of logic here, which is your choice of course.
You present your opinion as a fact or verity or even a Maxim.

"Nonsense" to you is not nonsense to others, at least to the decent ones re: violations vs. Sui Juries.

This is a fact and not an opinion.

I finished with the thread when Heidi whined about people abusing her while calling me a "dumbass" and accusing me of being someone else.

Again and again, you attempt to falsify facts and events on record.
A reader who assumes your statements to be true, would believe the above.
Yet, you use deceit again as facts prove that not, only, Heidi but, also, I responded to you and in details.

I state so and the Posts prove so, as none of you can edit them here.

In my opinion, based on record, visible to all, you could not respond to that intelligently or even non-intelligently overall and, basically, defaulted.

Another word, you manipulated facts and substituted them with your version of events in this reply of yours.

Truth is whole, nevertheless.
How consistent of you.

As for for anyone calling you derogatory names, I must agree with you that you, finally, raised a valid argument.

As fairness means being extended to all sides equally, what I advocate consistently, the same rules should apply to all.

SL: No one should call any one rude names.

I adhered to that rule and would continue doing so, as, only, address the issues by substance, even though may use metaphors and symbolism.

I don't stoop to her level

Please re-read your, previous posts in that regard and re-evaluate, if care.

The main issue remains that numbers of members from Sui Juries were treated criminally by the parties in discussion who have been stealing their, intellectual property (their writings), altering it without their approval in a hostile and detrimental to them format and, then posed that as it fitted the agenda of the "accusers."

Since you referred to that as people

"whined",

many of us would like to see how would you respond were you treated that, despicable way?

Note

that you are allowed to post here freely and no editing is done behind your back.

Sui Juries act Sui Juries and not quatloos.

Some Sui Juries were robed of that intrinsic right (to post free of unauthorized editing) at that Website.

Now, imagine your posts were edited without your permission.
How non-whining you would have been, then, is a state of fiction in my strong opinion.

Proof:

No one altered your writings here, and, yet, you can't relax your nervous-muscular system even though defaulting on the arguments I raised previously.


We can imagine if.......

[Sharing Lights]

http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...asc&s tart=84


A proof of coward-like conduct is at the link above,
as it is cowardly locked so that no one can reply.

That's all they can manage.

Not much, then, not much.

I came across the comments bellows, which I would
address by substance and facts as I only use fair ways.


Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica

Oh good lord. Now the freaks are writing bad poetry.

Demosthenes!

You have refused to engage me fairly.
You refused to reply to me personally.
You chose to decline an equal debate.
Yet, you called me a freak.

Since, you cannot, possibly, make any discernment
on my freakishness, claimed by you without
finding through first-hand experience,
the logic dictates that you are a
coward and a bully, who can, only, attempt
insulting people ( you did vs. Heidi and David who are
descent people, act fairly, and mean, truly, well!) and
refuse to face them and me on equal terms.

An ability to utilize Grey matter is highly questioned,
then, in your case as you defy logic.

I cannot call you a freak back, as; I have not
experienced such quality in you.

Therefore, I have to be honest.

I can call you what I have experienced

a) read personally
and put next to

b) logic and

c) facts

- a, truly, fair triple test.

Basic a,b,c.

Reasonable people who witness your acts, can call you,
though, (allegation) a bullying liar and a
coward that is true in the light of the
above but not more than that,
unless we gain more evidence.

I have proof to the above allegation,
but what I do not have proof against,
I have no right to state.

We can prove you lie, we can prove you act as a
coward based on your writings vs. Sui Juries members,

I never altered a word you wrote and never will.

Next,

what you call bad poetry
is something that caught your attention, obviously, and
caused some discomfort.

And, yes, obviously, you linger at our Forum, as why
would you post a part of my poetry on your website?

How can you obtain it, otherwise?

You are so uncomfortable
facing those who use precise logic and Principles
because they are destroyers of lies and deceit.

You still refused to face me so you hide behind the
words that comfort you - “bad poetry.”

Well, keep clinging to your comfort zone, then.

Quote:
To Demosthenes!

The Grand, the Keeper,
I don't know where is your beeper
or phone or pen,
I simply, ask you - "when, precious, when?"

I offered you - "reveal who you are,"
I know you are close, as you are not far.
Engage me at our - Forum/Website.
I guaranteed you to preserve you the Right.
No editing, altering - nothing you did.
"One on one," again I repeat.

Demosthenes: Is Sharing Lights a moderator?
Can he/she/it make such a promise?
Someone should tell her/him/it that
I've been banned from the forum.

What a cheap shot.

Even, if you were banned under your, current nickname,
who stopped you from registering under another one?

You just do not feel comfortable facing those
who can face you.

That’s all to it.

You could use another nickname
and let me know who you are.

You should have enough Grey matter to figure that out
if figured out how to insult Sui Juries.

Therefore, you simply acted as a coward you may be.

Demosthenes: I didn't give myself the Esoterica title,
dumb dumb, one of the other moderators
(probably Joey) did.
The titles are humor, oh humorless one.

Another cheap shot.

Are you saying that
“Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica”

could not be edited by you and you are stuck with that?

Common,
what kind of logic is that?

You are not very logical by all standards.

Note, I do not call you names, I only use pure logic.

Joey Smith
Infidel Enslaver


Joined: 13 Jan 2003
Posts: 4125 Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject:

Congratulations, Joey!

How many did you enslave?

Were you sleeping or that was in your, usual awoken state?

Any one who chooses a nickname with the word
"enslaver" is....

well...
may all people discern for themselves
on moral qualities of such

Infidel
or
Enslaver
or
whoever...


So you chose "Infidel Enslaver" -

... how impressive....


So you may envision "enslaving..."

I bet a jackal twitches his paws in a sleep, as well,
dreaming or envisioning that lions obey jackal's commands.

I can imagine how quickly the same jackal runs
on all four when a lion is close, only to bark-"command" "bravely"
from a safe distance.

Infidel Enslaver, I did not call you a jackal
if some barking may come out of you.


It is enough that you may have made a fool of yourself with your noble nickname, "Infidel Enslaver."

Congratulations, by the way,
on your dreams of enslavement.

Joey Smith: "Sharing Lights" is on one llllllooooonnnnnggggg LSD trip.

Another artist woke up.
What did you paint today?


Bright and vivid colors of imaginary enslavement?
Keep on dreaming, keep on painting.


Joey Smith, Infidel Enslaver, you are welcomed and encouraged to come
to SuiJuris and state what evidence you have that I am
on LSD trip.

As I have never been on it, you are a liar.


I used only facts and logic once again, mr. Liar.

Before you pass your, wise comments,

Infidel Enslaver,

debate a person
first if have any guts, then, arrive to conclusions.

If you do not have guts, it is, definitely, not easy to arrive to logical conclusions.

I guess you could not master much if LSD
was your only argument?

Not much at all!

Skeptic
Knight Commander of the Twelfth Elu


Joined: 01 Jan 2003
Posts: 2231 Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:35 pm Post subject:

Quote:
I know you are close, as you are not far.

Skeptic:Amazingly, a Sui Juris poster managed
to write a logically valid claim.

Another sign of wisdom unveiled.

This one imagines commanding Knights as if he acts as
one or could ever face them?

If it is amazing to you, Skeptic
Knight Commander of the Twelfth Elu,
that Sui Juris Forum, which is, NO 1
Forum, regarding the free,
law related matters and some othersis illogical to you,

reasonable persons may, safely, conclude that
something is wrong with your "logic."

My statement is logical.

Try to read it impartially, then you would realize that.


What and how is not fair of me to state but the above
seems to be true and accurate, nevertheless.

I have not, yet, seen one valid and logical debate vs. any
Sui Juries, except cheap shots.
Not one!

You guys are failing in 100% percent ratio.

That is more than embarrassing.

That is, even, pathetic if you ever wish
to have some credibility.

Decency and principles are not the terms
that may be applied to you, indeed.

Keep on swimming in your, own lies if that
is comfortable to you.
Why not?


If ever gain some hint of guts, prove your logical abilities
here, as I have challenged all of you - unprincipled ones.

You can manage, only, locking your thread instead on your site and
write cheap nonsense vs. Heidi and David.


I believe you are bunch of bullies and cowards based on
your acts on record.


PS. I am sure you would read this and out threads are not locked,
"LSD commanders and chiefs."