Letters from NYC

Supreme challenge!

If you agree with the title then just imagine this: You've just worked a 12hr shift for the 3rd straight day in a row as a registered nurse for the local hospital. It's the day before Thanksgiving and as you drive home late that evening your looking forward to a quiet family holiday dinner the following day. Upon arriving at your home you find stapled to your door a 30 day eviction notice certified by Marshall's at the request of Your City Gov't.

In this case it was the City of New London Connecticut. What was going to be built on her property and that of her neighbors that required her eviction from her long time home? A nice big INDUSTRIAL park!

So, yes Virginia, they can take that away from you and the Supreme Court Justices said so. I wonder what they were smoking or what drugs they were on when they rendered THAT decision? Still don't care or don't think that Bush's nominee is at all important to you. Then go read Stephen Bainbridge's article at Tech Central Station on the significance of this vote and how the 5-4 vote played out. This article explains the situation quite well and succintly all in nice English and not legalese.

Essentially, the Majority of the Justices felt that "local officials know how to best help their own cities" Yes folk your elected politicians can vote today to have your home taken away and tomorrow, when they're out of office and work for the very developers, and live in the very development, over the land that was once your property. Don't think that can happen? That's exactly what did happen in Passaic New Jersey and the Supreme Court now says it's all perfectly legal!

Feel strongly about this, then go to Hold the Mayo and read the petition which Stephen Macklin and others have forged. It's now available for online signing and endorsement, through the link below. Update: the petition has been relocated to a new site. The link below will get you there.

Texas Passes Eminent Domain Protection Bill

Cartoon and posting courtesy of Queens County Court Clerk and fellow blogger Nathan.

On Tuesday, the Texas legislature passed a bill to restrict government's power of eminent domain. The bill has now been sent to Gov. Rick Perry, which he is expected to sign shortly.

Much Ado About Nothing!

Update: it seems that one of the comments I left in favor of HR 3402 was linked to by a number of blogs and they generated quite a bit of email in my inbox. I originally had thought it was the readers of Say Uncle as that was where I had left a comment, however I later learned that that comment had been picked up and quoted elsewhere. I was unaware of this until I went through my deleted emails and found a few trackbacks. HR 3402 is a piece of legislation that was just approved by both Houses and signed by the President and extends an original law to include online or cyber stalking. Some bloggers believe it is an infringement on their rights, I feel if they read the legislation and case studies for this amendment they would see things differently.

I was going to post this info at other sights including says uncle, but I was afraid they might try to make me the first test case of their pseudo "annoyance" legislation. I'm posting it here because as a legislative analyst and blogger, I want to be on the record that the stuff being spouted off by some bloggers is outright and patently false. Ready for the quick truths!
- NO - you cannot have your blog taken down or be thrown in jail for 2 years for posting an annoying comment on a blog.
- NO - you cannot be thrown in jail for using the interet to make unwanted calls on an unsuspecting individual... AND
- NO - you cannot be jailed for sending an annoying email.
- Yes - there were committee hearings over the past 2 years to discuss the updated changes from the original enacted (1994) version of the legislation (hence over 6 drafts in the last 2 years). These drafts did not edit themselves.
- Finally, this is a Cyber Stalking Law, that expands the teeth of spousal/partner stalking laws, not a law for protecting individuals from annoyances.

You know what the scariest thing of this whole kerfuffle has been? 2 highly visited bloggers used "News Organizations" as their ONLY source of information and took the news agency's slant as the Gospel Truth. Not only were the news organizaitons using the incorrect version of the legislation (they used a 2yr old draft), they were quoting wording that is NOT in the final/enacted version.

So what do you think happened when this itty bitty blogger tried to correct the record and point out the erroneous information? Well, lets just say I got some less than civil guests that wound up in my inbox, and I've spent close to an hour getting rid of them. Thank God for delete buttons. Unfortunately, contrary to their misguided belief, there's not a darned thing I can do about that. Nope, according to the legislation their has to be at minimum, "substantial harassment", at the maximum there has to be a level of consistent threat "to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person in another State".

So in the interest of public service... I'd like to point out simply 1 thing: the wording these guys keep quoting - ANNOY, ETC. is NOT (I repeat) NOT IN THE FINAL RESOLUTION. There, I feel better. If you wish to use/quote those words, proceed at your own ignorance.

How do I know they are not in the final version? Very simple, unlike these bloggers, I READ THE WHOLE DARNED THING! All 242 pages! Why? 'cause that's just the kinda gal I am. I don't let anyone else do my thinking for me. I don't read snippets of a 2yr old draft that was posted by a "news organization" and then picked up by a nice but unsuspecting blogger, who gets frustrated with readers when they point out inaccurate and erroneous facts in their posts. Nope, "I" don't do that... you see "I" read the source material because I want to find out the truth for myself, and not from some re-interpreted version from a news organization, especially knowing how unrealiable "news agencies" are.

For the record: if you do research on HR 3402 at the Library of Congress you'll find more than 6 draft versions before scrolling down to find the version that was voted on or enrolled. HR 3402 ENR is the Enrolled version. Enrolled means the version that was approved by the House and is entered/enrolled in the Congressional record. If the bill has anything other than ENR after it, it is NOT the final version, but merely one of a myriad of versions introduced by any number of committees or branches of the government.

Anyone can find it for themselves... by visiting the above link, then inputting HR3402.ENR and activating the search. You will be brought to the summary and linked sections of the bill immediately after that. To read the complete 242 page document, hit the printer friendly version link at the top right and read to your hearts content.

For all who wish to keep spouting off inaccuracies and quoting non-existing wording, go right ahead... just don't do it here as this is an IGNORANCE Free Zone.

Profile of a Pursuit

Gerald met Cathy at church, and after a cordial conversation he invited Cathy out for coffee. She thanked him politely and explained she had just come out of a long engagement and was not ready to date. In the months that followed Gerald's continued to make romantic overtures towards and Cathy and she continued to politely and quietly reject his advances as she was still reeling from the pain of a broken relationship. He didn't want to give up because he felt she was the woman of his dreams.

Gerald was a fifty-year-old security guard at a local office building and retaliated her rejections by posting all her personal details which he obtained by surfing the Internet. These details not only included her physical description, but her address, and telephone number. Gerald also included details about how anyone could bypass her home security system based on information he had hacked online. He also posted false rape and “gang-bang” fantasies to on-line forums either anonymously or pretending he was her. On approximately half a dozen occasions, men arrived at Cathy's home in the hope of “cashing in” on these supposed fantasies.

Although Cathy posted messages to her door stating the postings were false, the perpetrator countered by posting messages on-line stating that these were simply tests to determine who was in fact ‘worthy’ of her fantasies. Cathy's mother noted how men were coming to her door at all hours of the night, and they “got dozens of calls by men who would leave filthy and disgusting messages”.

Cathy was eventually forced to move out of state, as she lost her job due to visits by strange men to her workplace, one of which ended in the rape of a co-worker. Unfortunately, unbeknown to Cathy, Gerald had already infected the family's computer and was able to continue harassing her as she moved to Texas and later Tennessee. You see in 1999 there were no online stalking laws in the California Penal Code. And as Cathy would later discover, there was even less protection for her across state lines. The harassment continued for over 3 years until he moved on to a new victim who was a law enforcement officer.

The increase in stalking complaints in NY and California are staggering. The biggest increase (321% in NYC) has been in the age group of children ages 12 to 15. And please don't assume that it's the children who give out their addresses to predators all the time, becauses it isn't. Case in point was a challenge I was recently issued by another blogger who posted an entry asking people to find him. I took up the challenge, sent him an email and indicated that I would do so without paying the $15.00 to find "everything" about him. I limited myself to only free tools available on the internet.

Not only did I find his home address, I was also able to get his telephone number and date of birth. With those I can get his social security number on a different database and impersonate him if I wanted to. All the information was free and easily accessible online. The total amount of time spent on the internet to get that information... 2 hrs and 15 min.

Lucky for him I'm not an unstable woman fixated on him. The chances of me being stalker are statistically low as men comprise only 12% of online or cyber stalking victims. Women and children (boys and girls under the age of 16) comprise the other 78%.

So while bloggers complained last week whether or not HR 3402 infringed on their rights as bloggers. I was in court providing moral support to a 13 year old who's parents were murdered by an online predator who had tried to abduct her. This case is similar to 2 in Pennsylvania, 1 in Texas, 2 in Arizona and 1 in NJ. In each of these cases the online stalker had the advantage having breached their victim's computer and email security system without their knowledge, allowing them to know their routines and daily schedules.

Yes, the law might be used as Uncle says, however, I'm sure that if he placed himself or his wife in Cathy's shoes he just might feel differently. I'm truly glad he's never had to experience harassment or stalking, and I pray that he and his family never do. But I can't help think of the Conservative Texas blogger who was harassed and eventually his family physically threatened because of his views. He too lost his home and eventually his job in his efforts to protect his family from a cyber stalker who published his home and work address and other personal details simply for supporting Bush and the war on terror.

As for online stalking and victimization, I speak from experience for I've been stalked and know the high price one pays afterwards to feel and remain safe and out of a predator's reach, even when they're in jail. In my view, the amendment passage of HR 3402 was a good thing as now thousands of online predators can be arrested and prosecuted when they cross the line and invade your safety and privacy. You see cyber-harassers eventually become serial stalkers until they're stopped. With this law we can catch them at harassment so we can prevent the deaths resulting from online stalking .