Complaint And Requesting A D.O.J. Investigation:
To whom this may concern:
My name is James Richard Morgan II and my wife’s name is Janhett T. Windglows, we both hope this finds you doing well. We are writing you today in regards to one Mary T. Prantil who has in effect been cyber stalking us for a span of four years amongst her other activities that we consider to be both unethical and criminal.
And thus, we are officially requesting that a formal criminal investigation be conducted by the Department Of Justice, or like agency into the matters of Miss Prantil’s activities that are, and have directly caused us irreparable harm in every aspect of our lives such as, our emotional well being, physical wellness, financial solvency, and public and personal reputations both on the Internet and privately....
We have attempted to resolve these matters with Miss Prantil through direct diplomatic communications, due process of law and through law enforcement itself however, with little to no real effect in resolving anything via the local or state level.
There seems to be an unclear set of legal issues, or restrictions concerning interstate, or jurisdictional enforcement pertaining to any infractions committed by the perpetrator residing across state lines, and this is another reason in why were hoping to find resolve on the federal level if at all possible.
To yield a brief history concerning Miss Partial’s relationship with Miss Windglows, her spell casting business and myself. Miss Prantil had came into the Windglows site for a love spell four years ago, and did in fact obtain what she wanted according to a voice mail that she addressed to ourselves....
After the work was completed and the service was rendered by the Windglows site of www.bloodloveandlustspells.com, and after Miss prantil was completely happy with her work, Miss Prantil stated and moreover demanded that her funds be refunded by the Windglows site because Prantil's love interest left her as a result of Prantil's own negative and aggressive behavior.
Miss Windglows reinstated Mary Prantil’s case two or three times out of the goodness of her heart even though she apparently wasn’t obligated to do so legally, as far as I know. Miss Prantil’s disposition only grew worse as time went on and moreover became very disruptive and abusive to not only everyone around in her immediate environment, but to us as well.
I am retired from a magic site of my own, to which has been closed now for about four and a half years and thus, Miss Windglows ask me to handle Miss Prantil on my own free time, in light of the experience that I hold in communications and problem solving skills. I did in fact agree to speak with this individual to see what I could do with her case on my free time and away from anything to do with the business aspect side of things.
In short, I found Prantil to be extremely demanding, violent, disruptive and hostile in every way concerning her interactions and speech with those in her immediate environment, not to mention any advice that I had offered to her regarding resolving her situation in a positive and mutual way.
At this point, I conveyed my assessment to Miss Windglows and further stated that this person wasn’t responding on any real level to the non-intrusive and common sense advice I had rendered to her regarding her demanding, hostile and adversely negative behavior to those around her in that particular situation.
At the time of final case termination, Prantil attempted to cash in on and extort monies from un-paid invoices from Pay Pal from the Windglows site in a effort to retrieve her moneys for services rendered, when unsuccessful she turned in a complaint on myself for Pay Pal wire fraud, to which Pay Pal rejected as there was never any record of monies ever being transferred from Prantil to myself. She never grasped that I was a private Entity assisting her on my own private time and wasn’t affiliated, or associated with any active business.
This particular subject Mary Prantil was with the Windglows site for three to four months while working with myself the last month of that time span. Prantil went on to contract the services of another site to which I personally had copyright issues with at the time by the name of Mike Cahill at www.magicangelspells.com, this of course was after her last case termination from the Windglows site for violating just about every policy on that particular site. (Please See Folder Marked Eyewitness statements) for more information concerning this, or visit http://www.ashrinetoqueenlilith.net.
We didn’t hear anything more from Prantil for about two months and then noticed the first set of negative postings against the Windglows site up on the forum sites being posted by a User named “Honest Person” on Rip Off Report www.ripoffreport.com. These negative postings were painting Mr. Cahill’s sites in a good light and the Windglows site in a bad one.
Of course this came at a bad time when my now ex-wife decided to take our private business to the air ways, and I was in the midst of resolving a copyright offense against my former site Dragon Spells LLC.
Miss Prantil was well acquainted with both Mr. Cahill and my Ex-Wife at that time and apparently felt that it was her place to defend the persons in question, and in our opinion started creating fictitious or liable statements against Jan Windglows and her sites to specifically harm her on-line business, and to smear our personal names while she was at it.
During the time that Prantil’s case was being terminated by the Windglows site, Windglows had referred this person to other sites and people that she thought would have better luck with her however, and as it turned out, Prantil ended up having trouble with these folks as well. These various persons suffered charge backs, bad checks and over all abuse from Prantil after they had rendered their specific services to her.
Again, you may view these individual witness statements in the folder marked witness statements along with the statements of my ex-wife Celeste Schaub and Mr. Cahill regarding his claims of two or three acts of wire, or credit card fraud against his site by Mary Prantil.
There is another person as well that I have lost contact with by the name of Matilda Sommerfield whom this subject had charged back on for a sum of what Miss Sommerfield stated at the time was $500.00 after a Tarot Reading and spell casting service was rendered which according to the record was successful for Prantil.
Miss Prantil seems to have a consistent pattern of causing utter mayhem and charging back on businesses in general, not leaving out her abusive treatment of both on-line and land based businesses as you can explore when moving through the evidence.
Below, I have researched some United States Federal Codes that I believe apply to this situation that we’ve had concerning Prantil’s activities against us personally however, you please be the judge as you would know more about these laws then myself. All I can state is truth in our situation and what we have been made to endure at the hands of this person who believes herself to be above the law in every regard. It is my belief that justice will be served on this level and that this person will be made accountable for her actions.
According to 18 U.S.C. 875(c), Section D, Miss Prantil, or “MP” is in violation as can be supported with her voice transmissions and blog sites registered under her own name.
Her intent is to create fear in the public mind through misrepresentation and or presenting lies as truth and factual event. Case in point: Accusations coming from MP accusing us of alleged murder, tax evasion, fraud, drinking our own blood, pay pal wire fraud, alleged warrants out for our arrest, forgery and bank wire fraud etc. as can be viewed on her blog sites, and further supported through voice mail recordings left on our answering machines coming directly from her. ( Please See Folder Marked Forum Sites )
According to 652C Appropriation of Name or Likeness part B. MP appears to be in violation of this section as she is currently using Miss Windglows and my names within the construction of a domain name without our expressed or written permissions. Of course, MP is also posting our business links, emails, and phone numbers as well without our permission.
The sole purpose of these negative sites are to communicate and instill fear into the minds of the public in order to either directly or indirectly impede Miss Windglows free trade on line by scaring perspective clients away through hostile and untrue written text. The sites in question are also mass spammed and networked together for effective transmission over the air ways, as this ensures mass exposure to the negative content she posts.
Basically, MP has committed the theft of our personal and business names so that her trash sites will rank over or under our names on the search engines. I understand that this is a civil matter in that it is a copyright matter however; it does come under harassment with intent to defame and impede free trade. Her motive is to harass, defame and destroy our personal names, business name and our right to engage on the open market.
MP is in the hopes that when someone Google’s our names that they will view her hostile sites against us and thus scaring them away before they have a chance to see what my wife has to offer, moreover to impede my wife's other on-line ventures such as her music CD record album.
MP has five or six blog sites currently that clearly back these charges up and coincide with her audio threats made to others and us. Her other intent is in promoting herself and ventures by causing a stir through what she says about ourselves up on her sites. ( Please See Folder Marked Mary T. Prantil’s Updated Blog Sites ) ( Please See Folder Marked Mary Prantil's Recent Negative Advertisements & Emails Sent To Us )
According to Federal Section 245 of Title 18 and New York PENAL LAW PART FOUR. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS TITLE Y. HATE CRIMES ACT OF 2000 § 485.05. MP is seemingly in violation of this provision as can be seen throughout her web blogs and voice messages as she states over and over again that we are "Satan" and that she maintains herself to be God's avenger set fourth to destroy whomever she, or God deems to be wicked.
Again, I believe this to be her primary motivation for everything that she has carried out against us personally and professionally concerning her harassing Internet and other media abuse. Her intent is visibly supported on just about all her web sites that can be viewed currently along with her 30 to 33 voice messages we presently possess.
This, along with her leading, suggestive and insinuating speech and constant badgering of us on air regarding our whereabouts or residential address. This in itself has caused us to fear for our imminent personal injury or even premature death, solely as a result of verbal death threats she's made to both my wife and self via the telephone.
It is our belief that this individual would like to ruin a innocent business and kill it's owner along with anyone else associated with that business simply because she believes them to be the Devil incarnate, this can be supported via certain Bible verses she's sent us in the past, statements she's made to us directly and in her postings made on her blog sites and www forums.
We deem this activity on her part as an attack on not only our personal safety, reputations, emotional well being, good business name and or good standing in the community, but our religion and faith as well.
We consider her activities to be adverse to our over all well being that is further impeding our rights to conduct our faith, private lives and business dealings in a peaceful way without hindrance or obstruction.
( Please See Folder Marked Mary T. Prantil’s Voice Tapes ) –( Please See Folder Marked Mary T. Prantil’s Updated Blog Sites )
According to 18 USC Sec. 2261 02/01/2010 -EXPCITE- TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 110A - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STALKING -HEAD- Sec. 2261A. Stalking -STATUTE
According to the U.S. code above this Subject of Mary Prantil is in violation once more. This specific Individual has been stalking us for over a four year period of time both on the Internet and via land search, moreover repeatedly has been asking, or attempting to bait us into giving her our residential address for reasons unknown to ourselves.
This Individual has stalked us both on the Internet and off in her efforts to defame our good names and sites, placing free, false and harmful advertising behind our paid for advertising's in just about any place she can find use on the Internet. ( Please See Folder Marked Forum Sites ) – ( Mary T. Prantil’s Updated Blog Pages ) and type in James Morgan, Jim Morgan, Janhett T. Windglows, Jan Windglows, Blood Love And Lust spells
This same person has also filled up our voice messaging services day after day for long durations of time running into six to seven months at a time. We've received 60 to 100 emails a day in these same cycles and further, was made to respond to forty to sixty negative postings a day to which still continue to this day in a effort to protect our good names etc. . ( Please See Folders Marked Telephone Spoofing Harassment )-( Please See Old Prantil Email Threats )- (Please See Folder Marked Mary Prantil's Recent Negative Advertisements & Emails Sent To Us).
Again, this all leads back to Prantil believing that she has been appointed by God to "destroy/trample the Dragon", or Devil incarnate to which she believes to be our sites and selves. Miss Prantil engages in these types of disruptive tactics to inhibit our business and to cause us emotional distress, that in turn has caused prolonged physical illness to both of us, and loss of good quality of life.
We have lost computers immediately after receiving blank mails from this individual on three or four different occasions and she just never seems to cease or desist with any of it despite our legal warnings to her. As soon as she gets out of jail she's back at it over and over again.
( Please See Folder Marked Mary T. Prantil Voice Message Tapes )
According to 18 USC Sec. 249 02/01/2010 -EXPCITE- TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS -HEAD- Sec. 249. Hate crime acts -STATUTE
As a result of this Subject progressively continues stalking us over the Internet, and the fear we hold in that she will show up at our door one night announced to cause harm or death, we've never stayed in one place for long in order to maintain our privacy not to mention reducing the real threat of physical attack against our family unit.
We came to Idaho in 2007 and have moved three times since as a result of MP activities. This Individual has in fact effected the length of time that we hold residence in one place and further prevents us from living our lives in peace, or in feeling comfortable in any one place for long. ( Please See Folder Marked Mary T. Prantil Voice Message Tapes )-( SPECIFIC TAPE: “Coming To Get Us” Voice )
According to 47 USC Sec. 227 01/05/2009 -EXPCITE- TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS Part I - Common Carrier Regulation -HEAD- Sec. 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment-STATUTE- (2)(E)
MP is in direct violation concerning unwanted advertisements such as: Calling or emailing defamatory links she apparently posted on E-Blogger, Face Book, Twitter, Rip Off Reports, Scam Checker, Indian Complaints Board, Consumer Complaints Board, her personal Google profile page, Correct The Record, and her personal blog sites on Google E-Blogger, Word Press, etc.
These solicitations MP insist on sending us are uninvited and unwanted advertisement geared to instill panic, alarm and fear, MP has been asked numerous times to cease and desist from this activity. We have current communications from MP via email carrying out this false and unwanted advertisement for the record. MP has also communicated these advertisements she allegedly posted on the World Wide Web to invoke some kind of a response from us regarding its content.
Since she's been asked several times to stop communicating with us directly via land line, cell phone, postings and email over the last four years however, we are still currently being sent and viewing these defaming advertisements. We also view this as a form of on going harassment and intrusion of our privacy to which apparently violates this ordinance above, even though this provision and safeguards within were constructed as a set standard for Business Company conduct.
MP had a brief business dealing with the Miss Windglows site four years ago and moreover no official business with me at anytime, further no contract or exchange of currency with myself. Other then this, MP hasn't had any official business with the Blood Love And Lust Spells sites for four years and thus, any contact via her perceived business, or otherwise personally has ended between all concerned in a lawful capacity.
Sense MP has taken it upon herself to transmit these harassing advertisements on the open air ways to harm and invoke a response, or to take part in the mass spamming advertising of defamatory or false information that leads the public astray; I believe this activity ties her to the violation sited above as she's using commercial means such as search, blogger sites and networking for purposes of advertising fictitious and disingenuous textual content that is further nothing more then a on-line attempt at character assassination. ( Please See Folder Marked Mary T. Prantil Voice Message Tapes )-( ( Please See Folders Marked ( MARY PRANTIL'S UPDATED BLOG PAGES )-( Telephone Spoofing Harassment )- ( FORUM SITES )- (Mary Prantil's Recent Negative Advertisements & Emails Sent To Us )-( OLD PRANTIL Email Threats To Us )
According to Publicity Given to Private Life 3, 652D, Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, 652 652B Intrusion Upon Seclusion
MP seems to be in violation of this provision as well for the sole reason that she presenting our good names and business in a negative light through deceptive and untruthful speech and written text or both.
According to this provision, MP isn't providing something factual that might concern the public however, she is causing the public alarm through deceptive speech and written textual content that is unsupported and that we consider being wholly liable statements made against us by her.
MP statements and or charges, are not a matter of private or public record, they are not factual events or occurrences rather then a baneful attempt to destroy an Entity whom she considers to be evil in every way that she must stop at all costs.
MP speech, writings, calls, emails and posted material is highly defamatory and offensive to us as a result of its fictitious nature and intent. It doesn't serve the over all public interest or welfare, in our opinion.
Concerning the rights of MP right to privacy: Again, we have constructed a web site dedicated to debunking Prantil's attacks that moreover consist of background checks, public records, Eye-Witness accounts,
statements coming from several others concerning Prantil's interactions with them, sound recordings that Prantil left on not only our telephone messaging machine, but the answering services of two others, transcripts of her communications with us communicating threats of defaming, likewise transcripts with others, communications that state she will and has been turning us in to the authorities and so fourth.
This particular site consist of background reports on Prantil along with articles regarding her immediate family members to show MOS or pattern, that were moreover derived from public records, background checks, news articles, news interviews and the opinions and statements of peers and legal sites who interacted with the persons in question.
Apart from our own obtained credible information, evidence and statements that we know to be factual and truthful on every count, we have a good faith belief in that the opinions of others listed on our site are factual as well however, we don't agree or disagree with any statement made as fact outside of our own personal knowledge and further just offer this information for public awareness.
We, have created the Lilith web site for the purposes of exercising our first amendment rights to free speech, defending our personal names, defending our on-line business and to inform, or warn the general public regarding the activities of MP.
In closing, I'm not going to attempt to come off like I know what I'm talking about here legally however, It is my hope that you can take something I've pointed out above and elaborate on it for the good of all. Hopefully this can become a case for someone that can assist us in obtaining justice in our specific instance.
( Please See Folder Marked Eyewitness Acounts & Interactions With Mary T. Prantil )-( Background For Mary Prantil & Others- Voice Messages & Explanations )- (Mary Prantil's Current Criminal Charges & DA Contact Information NYC )
=====================================================
18 U.S.C, Section 875(c)
(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
=====================================================
652C Appropriation of Name or Likeness
One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy. Comments: a. The interest protected by the rule stated in this Section is the interest of the individual in the exclusive use of his own identity, in so far as it is represented by his name or likeness, and in so far as the use may be of benefit to him or to others.
Although the protection of his personal feelings against mental distress is an important factor leading to a recognition of the rule, the right created by it is in the nature of a property right, for the exercise of which an exclusive license may be given to a third person, which will entitle the licensee to maintain an action to protect it.
b. How invaded. The common form of invasion of privacy under the rule here stated is the appropriation and use of the plaintiff's name or likeness to advertise the defendant's business or product, or for some similar commercial purpose. Apart from statute, however, the rule stated is not limited to commercial appropriation.
It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff's name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one. Statutes in some states have, however, limited the liability to commercial uses of the name or likeness.
=====================================================
New York
PENAL LAW
PART FOUR. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
TITLE Y. HATE CRIMES ACT OF 2000
§ 485.05. Hate crimes
1. A person commits a hate crime when he or she commits a specified offense and either:
(a) intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, or
(b) intentionally commits the act or acts constituting the offense in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct.
=====================================================Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, � 652
652B Intrusion Upon Seclusion
The Supreme Court has rendered several decisions on invasion of the right of privacy involving this Section and � 652E. The case of Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn (1975) 420 U.S. 469, holds that under the First Amendment there can be no recovery for disclosure of and publicity to facts that are a matter of public record. The case leaves open the question of whether liability can constitutionally be imposed for other private facts that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that are not of legitimate concern. Pending further elucidation by the Supreme Court, this Section has been drafted in accordance with the current state of the common law of privacy and the constitutional restrictions on that law that have been recognized as applying.
=====================================================
652C Appropriation of Name or Likeness
One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy. Comments: a. The interest protected by the rule stated in this Section is the interest of the individual in the exclusive use of his own identity, in so far as it is represented by his name or likeness, and in so far as the use may be of benefit to him or to others.
Although the protection of his personal feelings against mental distress is an important factor leading to a recognition of the rule,the right created by it is in the nature of a property right, for the exercise of which an exclusive license may be given to a third person, which will entitle the licensee to maintain an action to protect it.
b. How invaded. The common form of invasion of privacy under the rule here stated is the appropriation and use of the plaintiff's name or likeness to advertise the defendant's business or product, or for some similar commercial purpose. Apart from statute, however, the rule stated is not limited to commercial appropriation.
It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff's name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one. Statutes in some states have, however, limited the liability to commercial uses of the name or likeness.
=====================================================
Publicity Given to Private Life 3� 652D
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that
(a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.
Special Note on Relation of � 652D to the First Amendment to the Constitution. This Section provides for tort liability involving a judgment for damages for publicity given to true statements of fact. It has not been established with certainty that liability of this nature is consistent with the free-speech and free-press provisions of the First Amendment to the Constitution, as applied to state law through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Since 1964, with the decision of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment has placed a number of substantial restrictions on tort actions involving false and defamatory publications. These restrictions are treated in Division Five of this Restatement. See especially �� 580A, 580B and 621.
The Supreme Court has rendered several decisions on invasion of the right of privacy involving this Section and � 652E. The case of Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn (1975) 420 U.S. 469, holds that under the First Amendment there can be no recovery for disclosure of and publicity to facts that are a matter of public record. The case leaves open the question of whether liability can constitutionally be imposed for other private facts that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that are not of legitimate concern.
Pending further elucidation by the Supreme Court, this Section has been drafted in accordance with the current state of the common law of privacy and the constitutional restrictions on that law that have been recognized as applying.
continual and prolonged verbal
=====================================================
he portion of Section 245 of Title 18 which is primarily enforced by the Criminal Section makes it unlawful to willfully injure, intimidate or interfere with any person, or to attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, because of that other person's race, color, religion or national origin and because of his/her activity as one of the following:
A student at or applicant for admission to a public school or public college
A participant in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by a state or local government
An applicant for private or state employment; a private or state employee; a member or applicant for membership in a labor organization or hiring hall; or an applicant for employment through an employment agency, labor organization or hiring hall
A juror or prospective juror in state court
A traveler or user of a facility of interstate commerce or common carrier
A patron of a public accommodation or place of exhibition or entertainment, including hotels, motels, restaurants, lunchrooms, bars, gas stations, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas or stadiums.
This statute also prohibits wilful interference, by force or threat of force, with a person because he/she is or was participating in, or aiding or encouraging other persons to participate in any of the benefits or activities listed above without discrimination as to race, color, religion, or national origin.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
18 USC Sec. 2261A02/01/2010 -EXPCITE- TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 110A - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STALKING -HEAD- Sec. 2261A. Stalking -STATUTE-
Whoever - (1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or (2) with the intent - (A) 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 or
tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to -(i) that person; (ii) a member of the immediate family
(as defined in section 115 (!1) of that person; or (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any acility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); (!2)
shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.
=====================================================
18 USC Sec. 249 02/01/2010 -EXPCITE- TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I - CRIMES CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS -HEAD- Sec. 249. Hate crime acts -STATUTE-
"(A) The movement of members of targeted groups is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence.
=====================================================
§ 2261A. Stalking
How Current is This?
Whoever—
(1) travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or enters or leaves Indian country, with the intent to kill, injure, harass, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, and in the course of, or as a result of, such travel places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or the spouse or intimate partner of that person; or
(2) with the intent—
(A) 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 or tribal jurisdiction or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or
(B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to—
(i) that person;
(ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 [1] of that person; or
(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;
uses the mail, any interactive computer service, or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B); [2]
=====================================================
47 USC Sec. 227 01/05/2009 -EXPCITE- TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS Part I - Common Carrier Regulation -HEAD- Sec. 227. Restrictions on use of telephone equipment-STATUTE- (2)(E)
B) to initiate any telephone call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express consent of the called party, unless
the call is initiated for emergency purposes or is exempted by rule or order by the Commission under paragraph (2)(B); (C) to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement, unless -
(i) the unsolicited advertisement is from a sender with an established business relationship with the recipient; (ii) the sender obtained the number of the telephone facsimile machine through -
(I) the voluntary communication of such number, within the context of such established business relationship, from the recipient of the unsolicited advertisement, or (II) a directory, advertisement, or site on the Internet to which the recipient voluntarily agreed to make available its facsimile number for public distribution,except that this clause shall not apply in the case of
an unsolicited advertisement that is sent based on an established business relationship with the recipient that was in existence before July 9, 2005, if the sender possessed the facsimile machine number of the recipient before July 9, (iii) the unsolicited advertisement contains a notice meeting the requirements under paragraph (2)(D), except that the exception under clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply with respect to an unsolicited advertisement sent to a telephone facsimile machine by a sender to whom a request has been made not to send future unsolicited advertisements to such telephone facsimile machine that complies with the requirements
under paragraph (2)(E); or (B) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe - (i) calls that are not made for a commercial purpose; and (ii) such classes or categories of calls made for commercial purposes as the Commission determines - (I) will not adversely affect the privacy rights that this section is intended to protect; and (II) do not include the transmission of any unsolicited advertisement;
(C) may, by rule or order, exempt from the requirements of paragraph (1)(A)(iii) of this subsection calls to a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service that are not charged to the called party, subject to such conditions as the Commission may prescribe as necessary in the interest of the privacy rights this section is intended to protect;(D) shall provide that a notice contained in an unsolicited advertisement complies with the requirements under this
|
