Civil case: sparrow harrowing II

inorite? Somebody really ought to do something about these Scientology guys.

She's already denied her earlier story of Sparrow loitering in the parking lot, preventing her from entering her car. She said, "I never said that." Upon which point Sparrow's lolyer asked if she were clear. Perfect memory and all that. Yes, she's clear. Nope, no perfect memory. I like Sparrow's lolyer.

It would be interesting to read the transcript. I wonder what the law is in the UN about making false accusations.
What puzzles me the most about this story is why the District Attorney agreed to bring charges against Sparrow. Didn't they interview the witnesses and saw that there is no case?

I speculated here that they were just responding to the pressure that Scientology ordinarily brings to do something, anything, to stop this awful picketing. What was especially egregious here was that the DA couldn't even bring stalking charges--they brought attempted stalking charges, which I argued elsewhere in that thread is an impossible crime to actually commit.

This is why the arrest of Jan Eastgate, CCHR Intl Pres., for perverting the course of justice warmed the bottom of my heart and leaked a little hope. While I reaslize this has only occurred because of enormous work by many for several years, and the U.S. has no Senator Xenophon, yet, Jan Eastgate is, nontheless, a U.S. citizen and resident, and CCHR Intl, as all scientology organizations and front groups, is headquartered in the United States.

The greatest crime Scientology's $$$ and sci lawyers and sci leaders have committed over the decades is the perversion of justice, inside the courtroom and outside the PI's, and OSA offices and the whole mafia like machine. It is too reminiscent of a fascist state complete with loony, evil dictator.

I didn't know until recently that the Wash, DC sci org is only 6 blocks away from the White House.
Where is the U.S. media??????

That is really interesting. Attempted stalking? What are the legal elements of that? Intent?
The DA should know better than bring idiotic charges and waste tax payer's money in court on that kind of bullshit. But that's the problem when a DA is an elected post and they need to get funds for the re-election campaign.

Nah, wwp already harbors more than its fair share of cheerleaders. Does the truth sting? Pain is information the body uses to learn. I'd rather face the reality of the situation and see what lessons can be learned.

Municipal ordinances in the U.S. are more notorious for minor Constitutional violations than Federal laws are.
Those get less review by attorneys familiar with Constitutional law. "Attempted stalking" subsumes documentation of subjective behavioral cues or telepathy. No victim exists and no clearly definable actions or instruments exist to demonstrate malice aforethought.
I wish I were an attorney in the D.C. area. I would love to shove that ordinance up the ass of the DA and DC council.

Sack up nancy.

You've only scratched the surface of the many dynamics at play. There is no perfect solution so I don't consider this a debate as much as an examination of the questions. In full disclosure, I have no non-public insight into this case and have less information than the judge. My assessment of a blind accusation is merely my own working hypothesis based on the mostly public information I've observed.

- Is the judge subject to an asymmetric risk/reward profile such that he is quick to deny AnnonSparrow his rights in preference to risking the small chance that AnonSparrow is actually a dangerous psychopath, or whatever? This question is in regard to public pressures and job security, not the judge's unique personality. Put another way, what is society's tolerance for punishing innocent people (false negatives) in preference to guarding against the failure to protect a sincere victim (false positives)?
- How much actual safety and security does Ms. Bellote receive from the preliminary injunction versus the aggregate penalty that AnonSparrow has been subjected (320 days and counting)?
- How much weight should a mere unsubstantiated accusation bear when in conflict with first amendment rights?
- What is the threshold required for one person's feelings (fear, creepiness, inconvenience) to over-ride (pre-trial) another person's constitutional rights?
- How many days of the risk of unfairly compelling AnonSparrow to give up his rights would be equal to the risk that he might unfairly harm Ms. Bellote somehow in a way that he couldn't do if not subjected to an injunction?
- Could an honest man argue that the injunction provides de minimus actual protection for Ms. Bellote while directly and substantially harming AnonSparrow's constitutional rights?
- What lessons can be learned, if any, about AnnonSparrow's protest behavior that may have opened the
door to his becoming a suspect or his being able to be portrayed as dangerous?

You make a valid point that some of the 320 days were voluntary. I'd point out that 1) the vast majority of those days were subject to a formal injunction and 2) many of the days not subject to a formal injunction, such as the past month, were in response to a direct request of the presiding judge. I'd argue that one who cooperates with a judge's explicit request may be choosing the lesser of two penalties and not truly acting voluntarily. There is certainly grey area where reasonable men could disagree and I doubt we are in much disagreement anyway, but we could break it down by days if you feel there is a larger point I'm missing.

If such criminality could be readily ascertained we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is specifically because the court system is easily manipulated that we face these conundrums.

I attempted to explain in academic legal terms here why "attempted stalking" is basically impossible. Basically, stalking requires you cause another to fear or become apprehensive; if you attempt to stalk, it's implied that you've failed to cause another to fear or become apprehensive... in which case you have no injury because the target never became aware that stalking was attempted... and no injury, no crime.

But that scenario obviously didn't fit the facts here because Belotte knew and complained of Sparrow's supposed stalking--so he either stalked or he didn't stalk, and that's the charge the DA should've brought. It seems that the the court and the DA treated the charge of attempted stalking as almost stalking, which is legally erroneous. Should Sparrow have lost, this would've been a very good basis for an appeal.

In DC it is common for all non violent first time felony charges to be bumped down to misdemeanor charges. Attempted in DC is a way to get it down to a case that they don't have to prosecute as hard or defend their choice as hard if they loose the case.

also, don't protest alone, ever. both protestors to have camcorders, plus a backup camera, plus backup batteries. Ignore posters who say meh to the above, like they did with Sparrow, egging him on.
This is real life, with reality of malleable laws, court systems, judges, lawyers, and sci's billion $ funds.
It's not always fair, it's always expensive, takes a long chunk out of your life and job and resources, and sucks in so many ways.

Don't protest alone, ever, or without recording devices. done now.
back to legal advices.

You can only speak for yourself, of course

No sacking up needed, thank you. Just throwing out ideas, but thanks for chiming in. BTW, I have big ones already, but since yours aren't in use, I'd be happy to get them surgically attached so I can go four-balling. Four-balls (my 2 of steel, your 2 of playdoh). I think the ladies would like me even more.

That's fair.

Thx Tikk, so if Sparrow was indeed guilty of "attempted" stalking he would have failed at actual stalking, is it possible that Kim Bellotti is just a little pregnant?

Admittedly I'm not familiar with DC laws, and I'm just speculating here, but I'd imagine that attempted stalking is still an offense that is possible to commit.

What happens when the perpetrator had the intent to intimidate and to follow the victim around + indeed has been following the victim around for weeks or months. Let's say the victim is very ditsy person who doesn't notice that s/he is being stalked. Or the victim has a black belt in karate and again does not feel intimidated by the stalker.
I think that the victim's state of mind really doesn't change the fact that the stalker intended and did engage in prohibited behaviour. After all, following people around can't be legal.

I'm loving you being here Bozuri, so take this with that in mind. I'd suggest you go read the thread Tikk linked to as the questions and examples you cite are debated and discussed in that thread pretty thoroughly. The criminal is over, trying to maintain focus on the civil. <3 No need to rehash a 25+ page discussion here again.

Of course, and there you have it. The voice of reason and oh, I don't know, common legal sense etc etc.
And are you paying for all of Sparrow's legal and incremental expenses? Are you paying for any of the others?

Listen, I think the wealthy sci whales have already left enough in the funds, as long as miscavige wised up and let someone else manage the funds, to pay for the lawyers and private investigators and OSA keystone cop crazy for a long, long time.

Get Real. Noone goes up against the insurance industry on their own for instance, , and there is legislation passed and more coming to stop individuals from getting together for class action suits. Class action is the only hope of justice.

Now scientology gets by with more mafia like crap than the insurance industry because of their special friend, the IRS and who really knows about any of that crap. Nobody knows about any of that crap! It's like a black hole of information. So please, don't act like there's no damn reason to not protest alone. Okay, I'm feeling a little Lewis Black coming on now, so that's enough of that. tks for stopping by

The actus reus requires fear or apprehension on the part of the victim; it's a necessary element. Similar to assault statutes that don't amount to battery.

Point taken. Sorry, the lawyer in me got all argumentative.

We need new blood like you (assuming you aren't a sock of an oldfag), the energy you bring helps fuel the fire for many battle-weary veterans. I'm so glad you took my suggestion in the spirit it was given, further proof of the value you are adding to the cause.

Interestingly enough, in Australia this requirement doesn't exist:

Australian anti-stalking laws have some notable features. Unlike many US jurisdictions they do not require the victim to have felt fear or distress as a result of the behaviour, only that a reasonable person would have felt this way. In some states, the anti-stalking laws operate extra-territorially, meaning that an individual can be charged with stalking if either they or the victim are in the relevant state .

It's an ironic situation for Scientology. Their case agaisnt Sparrow would have stood more chance in Australia, but right now Australia is also the country that's the most hostlie towards them.

I have no idea what you mean by that, or even the context, but I like that phrase.
Especially after having just read "The Information" by James Gleick.
Those who don't remember history are comdemned to repeat it.
I make mistakes all day, every day, but I like to make new ones.

I also like a good woman.
But I like the bad ones too.
(A friend of mine wrote that blues song.)

I don't have balls. I lost them in a weed whacker accident.

For next time: counter-intuitively, the whacker part goes on the ground.

Yes it can.

they should give you instructions with those things

oh irony, scienwollies laying charges of attempted stalking at the door of a critic, lolza

So those marbles were yours?

that explains alot.

You're not very good at this whole wit thing. Why don't you leave it to the professionals.

Funny, coming from you.

ZZZzzzzing!

Oh btw, Sparrow. There back on topic.

Cannabis...it's not for everyone.

No U.

Sparrow would never use a weed whacker wrong end up.

Maybe he might attempt to use it wrong end up. We'd better get an injunction -- you know, just to be safe.

We should seek clarification from Tommy Davis, John Allender and the rest of the OSA crew about that.