State of Washington, Laws, Stalking

in article
cGhhdHBoaWw=.b326c4e14088c897e06f902743ebc3e5@1065 792027.cotse.net,
CurtisLemay at wrote on 10/10/03 6:20 AM:

spongebob dirty pants wrote:

snip

Gawd, you are so full of ****!

God, you are insane.

bob, now you are calling yourself a healthcare professional? Did this
come between the seal, cop or psychologist.

It came from twenty years in the business.


Why don't you tell us all
what Hipaa stands for (I'm surprised that you can even spell it.

Can you spell "BMDF"?

For
your information, Diabetes Mellitus II is acquired over time and
reflects the fact that even though you are producing adequate levels of
insulin, it is ineffective in getting gluscose across the cell
membrane. Obesity and Substance Abuse are among the primary
contributors to the development of this condition.

Heridity is the prime cause.


If you had Diabetes
I, we wouldn't be talking now. Now on to the other thing, Cocaine is
an extreme central nervous system stimulant that puts tremendous stress
on just about everything and causes traumatic premature aging
everywhere and it isn't reversible.

Never did much cocaine. Probably would have met Bob Thompson if I did.
Clue time, dumb****. I lecture about the effects of cocaine and get paid to
do so. Getting lectured by you is hilarious.

Word of warning, if you start
suffering from headaches, blurry vision, temporary loss of equilibrium
you had better see a physician fast. By the way, you do know that the
central nervous system is incapable of regenerating itself, right? The
cells cannot perform mitosis. It's a physiological fact. If you aren't
terrified, you ought to be.


I am terrified. You are crazy. You might do something even more crazy than
stalk me on the net.

in article cGyhb.16367$La.8466@fed1read02, Richard Henry at
wrote on 10/10/03 6:41 AM:


"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

Andy Horvath mis-states the law, of course. What else would we expect?

It doesn't say "(effective July 1,2004)". It's the *current* law, except
for
a technical revision breaking Sec. 5 into an (a) and (b). See
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...74/5758_sl.pdf

Washington law also specifies:
"It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that electronic
communications are included in the types of conduct and actions that can
constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent of
the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to restrict in
any
way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or
stalking."
Intent -- 1999 c 27: , cit. supra

People who satisfy those criteria include Andy Horvath, Richard Henry,
Alex
Heney, Bev Ashley, Eric Leonard, Vern(Dave), and others.

In what way?

This is false and defamatory. Retract and apologize.


You are a stalking criminal. Period. You have broken the law on scores of
occasions.
Get ****ed and blow me.

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:cGyhb.16367$La.8466@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

Andy Horvath mis-states the law, of course. What else would we expect?

It doesn't say "(effective July 1,2004)". It's the *current* law, except
for
a technical revision breaking Sec. 5 into an (a) and (b). See
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...74/5758_sl.pdf

Washington law also specifies:
"It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that electronic
communications are included in the types of conduct and actions that can
constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent
of
the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to restrict in
any
way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or
stalking."
Intent -- 1999 c 27: , cit. supra

People who satisfy those criteria include Andy Horvath, Richard Henry,
Alex
Heney, Bev Ashley, Eric Leonard, Vern(Dave), and others.

In what way?

This is false and defamatory. Retract and apologize.


You keep showing up at my place of cyber-business, harassing me by
continuing to post to stir things up and continuing to post when banned..

"((1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful
authority and
under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another
crime:

(a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly
follows another person; and

(b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that
the
stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of
the
person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a
reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the
circumstances; and

(c) The stalker either:

(i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or

(ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid,
intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place
the
person in fear or intimidate or harass the person.

(2)(a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under
subsection
(1)(c)(i) of this section that the stalker was not given actual notice
that
the person did not want the stalker to contact or follow the person;
and

(b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection
(1)(c)(ii) of this section that the stalker did not intend to
frighten,
intimidate, or harass the person.."

Bert

In article ,
"Bert Hoff" wrote:

This is false and defamatory. Retract and apologize.


You keep showing up at my place of cyber-business, harassing me by
continuing to post to stir things up and continuing to post when banned..

Is Mensbbs a commercial venture? Never mind, I think we've quite enough
about mensbbs from you and Scott.

As for "banning" you need to read your own policy on that. You haven't
followed it, but that's you and your communities concern, not mine.

Please take your menbbs troubles, complaints, policies, dirty laundry
(and, if possible, Scott too) back mensbbs where you can discuss them to
your hearts content. I see RSA is "on topic" there.

Take it back home boys:

news://news.annexcafe.com/annexcafe.men.mensbbs

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:cGyhb.16367$La.8466@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

Andy Horvath mis-states the law, of course. What else would we expect?

It doesn't say "(effective July 1,2004)". It's the *current* law,
except
for
a technical revision breaking Sec. 5 into an (a) and (b). See

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...74/5758_sl.pdf

Washington law also specifies:
"It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that
electronic
communications are included in the types of conduct and actions that
can
constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the intent
of
the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to restrict
in
any
way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment or
stalking."
Intent -- 1999 c 27: , cit. supra

People who satisfy those criteria include Andy Horvath, Richard Henry,
Alex
Heney, Bev Ashley, Eric Leonard, Vern(Dave), and others.

In what way?

This is false and defamatory. Retract and apologize.


You keep showing up at my place of cyber-business, harassing me by
continuing to post to stir things up and continuing to post when banned..

That is neither a retraction nor an apology.

And another falsehood as well. Your "cyber-business" is a public forum open
to anyone with an Internet connection. My postings there are on topic for
the group, or are an on-thread response to an established thread, or are
posted in defense to false and defamatory statements made about me there.

I quote: "I have a perfect right to confront criminals about their
stalking, lies, defamations, threats, and the like."

Do you agree?

"Terd Fartingmor" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 03:07:38 -0700, "Bert Hoff"
wrote this crap:



People who satisfy those criteria include Horvath, Richard Henry, Alex
Heney, Bev Ashley, Eric Leonard, Vern(Dave), and others.

Bert


You back again, Bert? I hoped you were dead. How's your wife's
genital warts? Do you still sodomize your stepson with mayonaise?
When you were disbarred, they they give you a certificate of
disbarment?
Hero@Horvath



Andy, Andy, Andy ...

Up to your usual stalking, harassing and defamation, I see.

Making your usual false and defamatory claims.

Bert

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:2uDhb.17417$La.12896@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:cGyhb.16367$La.8466@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

Andy Horvath mis-states the law, of course. What else would we
expect?

It doesn't say "(effective July 1,2004)". It's the *current* law,
except
for
a technical revision breaking Sec. 5 into an (a) and (b). See

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...74/5758_sl.pdf

Washington law also specifies:
"It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that
electronic
communications are included in the types of conduct and actions that
can
constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the
intent
of
the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to
restrict
in
any
way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment
or
stalking."
Intent -- 1999 c 27: , cit. supra

People who satisfy those criteria include Andy Horvath, Richard
Henry,
Alex
Heney, Bev Ashley, Eric Leonard, Vern(Dave), and others.

In what way?

This is false and defamatory. Retract and apologize.


You keep showing up at my place of cyber-business, harassing me by
continuing to post to stir things up and continuing to post when
banned..

That is neither a retraction nor an apology.

And another falsehood as well. Your "cyber-business" is a public forum
open
to anyone with an Internet connection. My postings there are on topic for
the group, or are an on-thread response to an established thread, or are
posted in defense to false and defamatory statements made about me there.


Of *course* it's neither a retraction nor an apology!

Because you have stalked and harassed too many times, and have been banned
from Men's for that.

Bert

"Suzie" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:15:29 -0700, "Bert Hoff"
,
wrote :

The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same
situation
^^^^^^^^^^
would experience under all the circumstances

You missed this ScottBert.

The ScottBert defence falls when you think about it from the point of view
of a
reasonable person ie., anyone other than you two half-witted conspiracy
theorists with your distinct lack of maleness.


Nice to know that insulting ad-hom attacks are your thing ... makes you feel
real good inside, eh?

People have stalked into AnnexCafe to get information, to use later in In
Real Life attacks ...including false and defamatory letters to employers,
sending law-enforcement officers to Scott's house on trumped-up charges of
animal abuse, and other In Real Life acts of harassment.

This evidence of actual In Real Life attacks in the past is more than enough
to instill fear in a reasonable person.

Bert

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:2uDhb.17417$La.12896@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:cGyhb.16367$La.8466@fed1read02...

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...

Andy Horvath mis-states the law, of course. What else would we
expect?

It doesn't say "(effective July 1,2004)". It's the *current* law,
except
for
a technical revision breaking Sec. 5 into an (a) and (b). See

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2...74/5758_sl.pdf

Washington law also specifies:
"It is the intent of chapter 27, Laws of 1999 to clarify that
electronic
communications are included in the types of conduct and actions
that
can
constitute the crimes of harassment and stalking. It is not the
intent
of
the legislature, by adoption of chapter 27, Laws of 1999, to
restrict
in
any
way the types of conduct or actions that can constitute harassment
or
stalking."
Intent -- 1999 c 27: , cit. supra

People who satisfy those criteria include Andy Horvath, Richard
Henry,
Alex
Heney, Bev Ashley, Eric Leonard, Vern(Dave), and others.

In what way?

This is false and defamatory. Retract and apologize.


You keep showing up at my place of cyber-business, harassing me by
continuing to post to stir things up and continuing to post when
banned..

That is neither a retraction nor an apology.

And another falsehood as well. Your "cyber-business" is a public forum
open
to anyone with an Internet connection. My postings there are on topic
for
the group, or are an on-thread response to an established thread, or are
posted in defense to false and defamatory statements made about me
there.


Of *course* it's neither a retraction nor an apology!

Because you have stalked and harassed too many times, and have been banned
from Men's for that.

None of my posts to your public forum have ever been harrassment. They were
as stated above: on topic, on-thread, or in defense of myself. Csan you
quote any of my posts that are not?

BTW, interesting snippage. You left out, and did not respond to, the
following:

....
I quote: "I have a perfect right to confront criminals about their
stalking, lies, defamations, threats, and the like."

Do you agree?
....

So do you support your co-moderator's statement or not?

"Bert Hoff" wrote in message
...


People have stalked into AnnexCafe to get information, to use later in In
Real Life attacks ...including false and defamatory letters to employers,
sending law-enforcement officers to Scott's house on trumped-up charges of
animal abuse, and other In Real Life acts of harassment.

If you see a posting on the Internet, Usenet, private forum, or whatever,
that you suspect might indicate a crime has been committed, and you are
thousands of miles from the location of the poster of the apparent crime,
wouldn't you call the authorities in the poster's locale? It's what any
manly man who loves his dogly dog _should_ do. And how do you know who
called the dog cops anyway? Are you sure it wasn't someone from men's?

This evidence of actual In Real Life attacks in the past is more than
enough
to instill fear in a reasonable person.

Other than you and Scott, who would be at risk of RL atacks? They all seem
like such perfect gentlemen to me, the kind that would go out of their way
to protect a poor innocent dog. You know, the more I think about it, the
more I am convinced that the call to the dog cops came from one of your
regulars.