On Apr 19, 3:01 am, "Ray Gordon, creator of 'absolutely nothing of
any value" cybersheet.com> wrote:

"Celebrity-Stalker"? Ray, you really flatter yourself too much. I
think your comments and misconduct here have made you a public figure,
but I think celebrity is a big stretch. Even if you were, your 15
minutes were up a long time ago.

But you're right, though. Oh yeah, I'm a stalker all right. I do not
e-mail you; I have never called you; I've never sent you snail-mail or
anything by delivery service. I have never been in Philadelphia and I
haven't been in Pennsylvania in more than four years. But I guess
that despite that I have had exactly zero contact with you, I still
fit the stalker profile. I'm glad to know that I have just as much
mental deficiency as you do, or rather, appear to do. (I would not
want to libel the mentally deficient by bringing you UP to their
level.)

("Paul, this is your subconscious again. That was borderline on
picking up the flamethrower and getting involved in the war here on
A.S.F. again. This is your first warning.) Oh yes, the fact that I
pretend that my subconscious actually comes out and talks to me in
this forum probably indicates my mental instability.

Other than being obese, Ray, your entire comments about me would
generally include yourself.

I don't particularly care about getting attention except that
sometimes people say things that either allow me to learn about my
errors or I am granted enlightenment by learning new things because of
the comments I post here.

I'm just pointing out from my original message that in over 2 1/2
years you have neither (1) asked for a retraction; (2) sued me; (3)
served me with papers and then dropped them; (4) e-mailed me papers
and tried to pretend that's valid service; (4) filed a "private
criminal complaint"; (5) filed any criminal complaint at all. I'm
just showing that you are nothing but a bully who threatens people
when you don't like how they point out your misconduct, errors,
misstatements and spewing of hatred and misanthropy.

Then go ahead and press charges, goddammit! I have been waiting for
the opportunity to sue you *for years*. Once you file a criminal
complaint where you know that there has been no crime committed, you
then give me standing to sue you for damages and maybe special relief
like an order to have you barred from the Internet or Usenet. As long
as you do nothing I lack standing to sue you or do anything; once you
either sue me or in some manner institute criminal proceedings, you
grant me automatic standing as a matter of law to sue you.

Ray, after all these years, do you really think I'm going to be afraid
of you doing anything to me? You're afraid to go out of your house
because of what is probably extreme agoraphobia, so I really doubt
you're going to bother filing complaints against me.

So file the fucking papers if you believe that. You wouldn't dare;
you know I won't back down because you know you have no grounds to
file a complaint that would survive the "laugh" test. And would then
leave you vulnerable to being countersued in a civil case if you were
stupid enough to sue me, or being sued for damages for filing a
knowingly baseless criminal complaint.

If you really think you can actually get the police to do anything
except laugh in your face, I think you'll find you are sadly
mistaken. But again, I really do hope you try and file a criminal
complaint. Because if they actually were stupid enough to accept a
criminal complaint, once I get an acquittal I can sue you *and* the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for malicious prosecution. There's been
no crime committed here, and anyone with half a brain knows it. You,
on the other hand, probably lack that level of capacity to think which
is expressed by someone with half a brain.

Please be so kind as to cite which Federal Law you claim I am
violating. I would like to know exactly what you think (actually I
don't particularly care what you think but I'm just being thorough)
represents a violation of Federal law. Let me see what I can find.

Let's see. "18 USC 2261 A" defines "stalking" and prohibits traveling
in Interstate Commerce to commit injury or harass. Since I haven't
left Virginia, even if I were harassing him, that wouldn't apply.

My reading of "hate crime" laws require some form of action or
activity which would cause a person to be placed in fear or intimidate
them. Are you in fact claiming that you fear me, Mr. Parker? Because
unless I have put some sort of fear for your safety in you, there has
been no "hate crime" and your whole premise for filing a criminal
complaint goes down the drain.

In fact I looked it up, Legal Genius. Some people have posted parts
of Pennsylvania's statutes and thus some parts of them are available
on-line and this is one odf them. According to Pennsylvania law, in
order for someone to commit a "hate crime" they must ALSO commit some
form of criminal act amounting to a direct assault upon the victim's
person or property, which would include an assault, rape, arson,
robbery, burglary, possibly cross burning, or some other physical act
amounting to a crime. Hate crimes cannot include mere speech with
nothing more.

Dream on, fella. I'm not worried, I will never see a process server
or a sheriff. You wouldn't dare do either because you know you're
wrong and the last thing you want is to take on someone you know will
not back down and isn't afraid of you.

Oh yes, they are. If you were stupid enough to try and prosecute,
once I either get a dismissal or an acquittal I come after you and the
brain-dead moron at the Commonwealth's Attorney's office who was
stupid enough to believe your kookscreeds without bothering to
discover the actual facts. I think I could show that it wouldn't be
mere error if it happened, it would represent negligence effectively
equivalent to willful misconduct.

Just remember this section of federal law, 42 USC 1983, otherwise
known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Basically it says that anyone
who violates another's civil rights can be sued in federal court. And
filing a baseless criminal complaint would clearly violate my civil
rights, and a prosecutor who didn't bother to check on the validity
would certainly raise grounds to name the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
as a defendant for the obvious misconduct in listening to you. So,
while maybe I can't get damages from you, I can certainly get them
from the Commonwealth for being not just stupid, but utterly insane.

Take a look at the last sentence you made, compare it with your prior
postings such as the ones where you have posted admissions of threats
to others, to your claims ON THE DAY IT HAPPENED (or possibly the day
after, I don't remember when you posted them but I'm sure someone else
around here does) that people who died on 9/11/2001 deserved what
happened to them, and other comments you've made, and then maybe
you'll understand why you've been essentially unemployable. Your own
remarks have scorched the earth, nobody else had to pick up the
flamethrower, not even me; you did a bang-up job all by your lonesome.

Nor have you, Legal Genius. Again, you miss the most critical point:
in order for someone to commit cyberstalking, there is one critical
element that must be present. Pennsylvania, in general, is one of the
few states that does not post its statutes on line so I'll find some
other state's law on cyberstalking and use it as an example, since
generally they'll be similar in nature. If anyone can find it, I'm
told its in 18 Consolidated Statutes 2709 or 2709.1.

(It's why generally a driver's license is good in all 50 states
because the rules for driving are usually similar with each other,
while being a notary public (such as I am) requires having a
commission from each state because the rules do differ.)

I'll pick one at random, Title XLVI of the Florida statutes, Chapter
784, statute number 784.048 (d) which reads "(d) "Cyberstalk" means
to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be
communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of
electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific
person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and
serving no legitimate purpose."

You would have to argue that I am causing "substantial emotional
distress to you." You would also have to argue that my comments serve
no legitimate purpose. I think that my expression of my opinion of
you and the way you have acted in order to let people know how you act
is a legitimate purpose. Further, the same statute defines "course of
conduct" as "(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct
composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short,
evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected
activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other
organized protests."

It is clear and obvious that my statements, in effect, are intended to
advise the public that you are acting in a sick fashion and that your
threats are nothing but hot air. It could also be said that by
posting these comments, I am either picketing you or engaging in a
protest against your conduct. That makes my statements
constitutionally protected speech and not cyberbullying. You, sir,
are apparently unable to understand the difference.

Pennsylvania is one of the few states that does not post its statutes
on-line. So I'll work with statutes from other states as a guideline,
lacking the one from there.

I found Virginia's law:
§ 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any
person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate
obscene,
vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make
any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any
illegal
or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Since I never said I wanted to fuck you in the ass, fuck me in the
ass, blow me or blow you, clearly my statement was not a proposal of
an obscene nature.

Now, even if the previous sentence were to be considered "obscene,
vulgar, profane or lewd," it is obvious I haven't said this for the
purpose of harassing you but to instruct you on what the law requires,
it's not in violation either. Also, because of the both the U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that homosexual acts can't
be made illegal, and the Virgina State Supreme Court in Martin v.
Ziherl that fornication cannot be a crime either, the previous
sentence does not threaten an illegal or immoral act. And since I am
simply pointing out that I never made such a suggestion or proposal,
it's not violating that provision either.

Since my statement was not intended to coerce or intimidate you -
again, you would have to admit you are in fear of me to claim in some
fashion that my words were of a coercive or intimidating nature -
that's out. So the only thing you have left to pin a criminal
complaint is a weak argument that my statement of my opinion of you is
harassing you. Unless you can sustain that last final reed, you have
nothing, as you have always had nothing.

Virginia's statutes do not define "harassment," so the court would go
by the dictionary definition:
harassment (plural harassments)
1. Persistent attacks and criticism causing worry and distress
2. To deliberately pester or annoy
- http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=harassment (Accessed
4/26/2008)

Generally, mere annoyance is not enough to constitute harassment. So,
let me look at a typical definition, such as the anti-stalking law for
Wyoming (6-2-506 Wyoming revised statutes), available at
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/statutes.aspx?file=titles/Title6/T6CH2AR5.h...

Subsection (ii) of 6-2-506 Wyoming revised statutes reads: "(ii)
"Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct, including but not
limited to verbal threats, written threats, lewd or obscene statements
or images, vandalism or nonconsensual physical contact, directed at a
specific person or the family of a specific person, which the
defendant knew or should have known would cause a reasonable person to
suffer substantial emotional distress, and which does in fact
seriously alarm the person toward whom it is directed."

We can exclude vandalism and physical conduct, I've not done either of
those to you.

Again, in order to argue harassment you've got to argue "emotional
distress" and "serious alarm." In short, you would have to swear
under oath that you are afraid of me. Your comments in response
clearly indicate that you do not fear me - which is correct since it
is clearly obvious that nothing I said was intended to evoke fear or
emotional distress - and thus the last thin reed you have to argue
that a crime has occurred, breaks, and your whole case collapses into
the dung heap from which you spawned it. As is the usual and
customary place where all of your legal claims arise therefrom.

After I wrote the above, I found Pennsylvania's law:

§ 2709. Harassment and stalking
(a) Harassment. - A person commits the crime of harassment when,
with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
(1) He strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects him to
physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
(2) He follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
(3) He engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
legitimate purpose.

Since I haven't been near you, (1) and (2) are out. And again, "alarm
or seriously annoy" and "serve no legitimate purpose" are also
present. So I'm still covered. But I would like to refer you to
another part of 18 Consolidated Statutes §2709:
(d) False reports. - A person who knowingly gives false
information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to
implicate another under this section commits an offense under section
4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement authorities).

So if you file a report knowing that I have not been harassing you,
you can be prosecuted for filing a false police report. And don't
bother pulling bullshit on me that I'm threatening you again, it's not
a threat for me to say that if you break the law and file a false
complaint against me I'd have you prosecuted, it's a promise!

Actually, Ray, I have to thank you. As with Mitch Deer in "The
Practice," you actually made me go back and learn what the law is. I
had generally believed that what I was doing was in correspondence to
what the law requires, and I discover that in fact it is in exact
correspondence to what is permissible. I actually had to learn
something new. I really appreciate it, and I'm not being sarcastic.
It lets me know that I could have been much worse to you and gotten
away with it. All I have to have is a legitimate purpose and I can
say anything about you that I want. Since your own words are so bad I
never have to lie, I can just use your own words or speak the truth
and let the chips fall where they may.

No, there won't, because you're never going to file a criminal
complaint. That means I won't be able to raise any issues and I won't
have standing to sue you. I shall merely have to picket you on line
and protest your conduct, which is all I can do until you do become
stupid enough to either swear out a complaint or sue me.