USC TITLE 18 - PART I - CHAPTER 13 - § 241_Violation of My Constitutional Right
Doc Tavish
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or
District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having
so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises
of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of
any right or privilege so secured---
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of
this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an
attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term
of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
<end>
The RIGHT to post to the Internet anonymously is a "right or privilege secured
to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States" for a fact!
http://www6.law.com/ny-shl/displayid.cfm?state=ny&statename=NY&id=80265&table=news&flag=full
Computer Law
Discovering the Identity of Anonymous Internet Posters
By Richard Raysman and Peter Brown
New York Law Journal
September 11, 2001
....This article will discuss some of the recent cases in which courts have
sought to develop workable standards in dealing with requests for discovery of
identifying information in cases involving anonymous on-line postings. On the
one hand are individuals and companies seeking to protect their legitimate
pecuniary and proprietary interests against defamatory and otherwise harmful
speech.
On the other hand are the free speech rights of the anonymous posters and the
concerns of civil liberties groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation that subpoenas are being used to harass
and intimidate anonymous posters engaged in constitutionally protected speech.
(Doc Tavish comment: The above is what Shyster Yale F. Edeiken did to me but he
issued a forged subpoena to deny me of my civil rights. It has been confirmed
officially that the Lehigh County Court did NOT issue a subpoena on my ISP!!!
IOW what Yale F. Edeiken did was plainly a very criminal act!! All those who are
his accomplices or co-conspirators are also criminal in their posting
information obtained criminally and distributed in violation to my
Constitutional Rights.)
Free Speech, Limitations
The right to speak versus the right to redress. The Supreme Court has recognized
that the First Amendment protects speech on the Internet, see Reno v. ACLU, 521
U.S. 844, 870 (1997); the Court has also recognized a First Amendment right to
engage in anonymous speech, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S.
334 (1995) (recognizing a First Amendment right to distribute anonymous
handbills in connection with a tax referendum)...
Anti-SLAPP Statutes
Anonymous posters and anti-SLAPP statutes. At least one court has treated an
action filed against anonymous posters as a "strategic lawsuit against public
participation" (SLAPP) and applied the California anti-SLAPP statute in
disposing of the case. Some 16 states currently have similar anti-SLAPP
legislation and bills are pending in a dozen more. See
http://www.sirius.com/~casp/menstate.html (collecting statute) (visited Aug. 28,
2001). Anti-SLAPP statutes typically require a plaintiff seeking redress against
speech involving a public issue to make some preliminary showing concerning the
merits of the litigation.
<end>
http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Question: How is Internet anonymity affected by John Doe lawsuits?
Answer: Often called "CyberSLAPP" suits, these lawsuits typically involve a
person who has posted anonymous criticisms of a corporation or public figure on
the Internet. The target of the criticism then files a lawsuit so they can issue
a subpoena to the Web site or Internet Service Provider (ISP) involved and
thereby discover the identity of their anonymous critic. The concern is that
this discovery of their identity will intimidate or silence online speakers even
though they were engaging in protected expression under the First Amendment.
Question: Why is anonymous speech important?
Answer: There are a wide variety of reasons why people choose to speak
anonymously. Many use anonymity to make criticisms that are difficult to state
openly - to their boss, for example, or the principal of their children's
school. The Internet has become a place where persons who might otherwise be
stigmatized or embarrassed can gather and share information and support -
victims of violence, cancer patients, AIDS sufferers, child abuse and spouse
abuse survivors, for example. They use newsgroups, Web sites, chat rooms,
message boards, and other services to share sensitive and personal information
anonymously without fear of embarrassment or harm. Some police departments run
phone services that allow anonymous reporting of crimes; it is only a matter of
time before such services are available on the Internet. Anonymity also allows
"whistleblowers" reporting on government or company abuses to bring important
safety issues to light without fear of stigma or retaliation. And human rights
workers and citizens of repressive regimes around the world who want to share
information or just tell their stories frequently depend on staying anonymous
sometimes for their very lives.
Question: Is anonymous speech a right?
Answer: Yes. Anonymous speech is presumptively protected by the First Amendment
to the Constitution. Anonymous pamphleteering played an important role for the
Founding Fathers, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay,
whose Federalist Papers were first published anonymously.
And the Supreme Court has consistently backed up that tradition. The key U.S.
Supreme Court case is McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission.
<end>
I have much more and for a FACT there has always been two or more people in a
criminal conspiracy against my civil rights.
I.E.
Here is Ken McVay admitting that he had my unlisted telephone number and
unlisted address at his website known as Nizkor and notice some of his
self incriminating remarks!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/a07715ed5da6f0bc
(Archived locally as: McVayWieldedWeapon_1)
From: kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org (Kenneth McVay OBC)
Subject: Re: Andrew spams again
Date: 1999/12/16
^^^^^^^^^^
<<Tavish comment: Notice that date!? It proves Yale had my info from my ISP on
that date!>>
Message-ID: <83bbpm$2jk4$1...@news.tht.net>
References: <38570B78...@btinternet.com>
X-Trace: news.tht.net 945369718 85636 216.126.72.25 (16 Dec 1999 18:41:58 GMT)
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.revisionism
X-Complaints-To: scr...@hub.org
[...]
To be fair, one should also ask how nazihunter got the name and
address in the first place, shouldn't one?
Yale Edeiken distributed it to a holocaust-history.org mailing list,
and to a few, including me, outside the list. If you are going to
condemn nazihunter, as you properly are, then should you not also ask
what Yale hoped to achieve by distributing the address in the first
place?
I posted it on Nizkor for about 90 minutes, until I realized, on
reflection, that it was the wrong thing to do, and deleted it... so,
in the end, it could have come from anywhere... but it originated with
someone who should have known better, as he himself had been the
target of a similar attack.
[...]
If that is what you feel Mr. Edeiken meant to achieve, that is your
opinion, one I am not prepared to share.
However, I think it would have been hypocritical of me to remain silent,
all the while knowing where the information came from, while others were
being justifiably pilloried for making improper use of it.
Who is to be blamed more? The person wielding the weapon, or the one
who provided it? You tell me.
[Posted and emailed]
--
The Nizkor Project An Electronic Holocaust Education Resource
Ken McVay, Director http://www.nizkor.org/~kmcvay
NetMeeting: Ken McVay ICQ: 7015822
~~~End of DejaCom Archival Excerpt~~~
Remember Ken- you did say: "Who is to be blamed more? The person wielding
the weapon, or the one who provided it?" and your organization has
provided the weapon numerous times!
Xref:
http://groups.google.com/groups/unlock?msg=39bae037b7859b80&fwc=1
Subject: Canadian Based Nizkor.Org Has INCITED Criminal Acts aka Re: McVay
continues to threaten William Grosvenor V2.0 U_0122
Message-ID: <oc38t155r4s0nlb0d...@4ax.com>
Date: 22 Jan 2006 22:55:50 GMT
Here are some others of which I have proof as being involved in conspiracy
against my civil rights:
Arthur J. Tandy
Sara D. Salzman
Patrick Lee Humphrey
Ken Lewis
Chris Larson
Ken McVay (dual citizenship)
In summation: "§ 241. Conspiracy against rights -- If two or more persons
conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or
enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution --
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section
or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for
any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."
They didn't provide a provision for all of the vandalism against my property as
a result of my civil rights being violated BUT I would imagine it would push the
criminal acts against me to Hate Crimes status.
Posting anonymously to the internet is a Constitutional Right and also for a
FACT- Yale F. Edeiken criminally obtained my confidential info from my ISP which
he then passed along to his fellow criminal conspirators. The subpoena was a
forgery fabricated by Yale F. Edeiken.
Need I say more other than I know a group of people who are going to regret ever
screwing with me.
Doc Tavish
The Chief Instigator
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_13.html
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html
> TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241
> § 241. Conspiracy against rights
still doesn't exist in your sorry case, no matter how much you're obsessed
with proving it. After all, you haven't been denied your right to make a
complete moron of yourself over the last decade.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 7 vs. Grand Rapids, 7:35
Harry
The Chief Instigator wrote:
>After all, you haven't been denied your right to make a
> complete moron of yourself over the last decade.
>
> --
>
>
Hello, Jew, meet Christian,
He has been denied his Constitutional right to do it anonymously . . .
Joe Bruno
The Chief Instigator wrote:
> Doc Tavish <Tav...@tavish-central.net> writes:
>
> >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_13.html
> >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html
> > TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241
> > § 241. Conspiracy against rights
>
> still doesn't exist in your sorry case, no matter how much you're obsessed
> with proving it. After all, you haven't been denied your right to make a
> complete moron of yourself over the last decade.
>
>
Fatboy still doesn't understand that strong emotion cannot replace the
truth.
Ben C'ramer
"Joe Bruno" <br...@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1159058805.2...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Physician, heal thyself.