COMPARING CYBER STALKING WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Originally published 8/29/2011

My personal experience would include the highlighted sections (taken from the article posted below)

"Tactics Used to Control Victims."  

The motive for stalking is not sexual; rather, in (my experience)  anger or hostility toward the victim and a desire to control the victim. Participants in the focus group asserted that their stalkers had systematically tried to subjugate them. Stalkers employ various acts of terrorism over a period of weeks, months, years, or even decades, which has the cumulative effect of eroding victims’ self-confidence and sense of control over their lives. Some acts convey subtle messages meant to instill fear, while others brutally remind victims of their stalkers’ dominance over them. Discussion participants described a range of stalking tactics that included:

• Leaving or sending unwanted messages, such as sending letters written in blood or cut-up pictures of victims.  

• Breaking into and vandalizing proper-ty, such as homes and cars.

• Following, harassing, and defaming victims."    "Following" is intended to mean 'ONLINE'.

Some of their followers have already found me on my Bus, in stores and in the community.  They have no problem approaching me with the RECOGNITION factor and (in some cases) letting me know their disdain for me - SOMEONE OF WHOM THEY'VE NEVER MET OR TALKED WITH BEFORE.  

Some of these include co-workers - some even signed petitions to have me balckballed from my Union. 

This is exactly what happens when one practices 'CONTEMPT PRIOR TO INVESTIGATION.'

Once the victim has been defamed - they then take it to the next level.  

My experience via Internet Bloggers -  moved from (but continues) Cyber Stalking to (HR 171) Respectful Workplace violations, to (HR 202) (IT) Internet Technologies violations and Union Preferring of Charges or Blackballing scams.

Union Violations includes four attempts to BLACKBALL me from Union Representation and Benefits.  I was served on two of the four. BOTH of which were SCAMS against me, the membership and the Union in terms of the highly deceptive manner in which they evolved. 

CYBERSTALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - PART II

Originally published 8/28/2011

CYBERSTALKING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Report to Congress


U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street NW. Washington, DC 20531

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Office of Justice Programs World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Violence Against Women Office World Wide Web Home Page www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo

Report to Congress on Stalking and Domestic Violence 2

Nature and Extent of Cyberstalking

An Existing Problem

Aggravated by New Technology

Although online harassment and threats can take many forms, cyberstalking shares important characteristics with offline stalking. Many stalkers—online or offline—are motivated by a desire to exert control over their victims and will engage in similar types of behavior to accomplish this end. As with offline stalking, the available evidence (which is largely anecdotal) suggests that the majority of cyber- stalkers are men and the majority of their victims are women, although there have been reported cases of women cyberstalk- ing men and of same-sex cyberstalking. In many cases, the cyberstalker and the vic- tim had a prior relationship, and the cyber- stalking began when the victim attempted to break off the relationship. However, there also have been many instances of cyberstalking by strangers.

The fact that cyberstalking does not involve physical contact may create the misperception that it is more benign than physical stalking. This is not necessarily true. As the Internet becomes an evermore integral part of our personal and professional lives, stalkers can take advantage of the ease of communication as well as increased access to an enormous amount of personal information that is available through the Internet. Indeed, a cyberstalker can easily locate private information about a potential victim with a few mouse clicks or keystrokes. In addition, the ease of use and the nonconfrontational, impersonal, and sometimes anonymous nature of Internet communications may remove disincentives to cyberstalking. Put another way, where a potential stalker may be unwilling or unable to confront a victim in person or on the telephone, he or she may have little hesitation sending harassing or threatening electronic communications. Furthermore, as with physical stalking, online harassment and threats may

foreshadow more serious behavior, including physical violence.

Despite the many similarities between offline and online stalking, the Internet and other communications technologies provide new avenues for stalkers to pursue their victims. A cyberstalker may send repeated, threatening, or harassing messages (or through public blogs) by the simple push of a button. More sophisticated cyberstalkers use programs to send messages at regular or random intervals without being physically present at the computer terminal. California law enforcement authorities say they have encountered situations in which victims repeatedly received the message “187” on their pagers—the section of the California Penal Code for murder. In addition, a cyberstalker can dupe other Internet users into harassing or threatening a victim by, for example, posting a victim’s name, telephone number, (ways to find unpublished address)  e-mail address on a bulletin board or in a chat room with a controversial message or invitation, resulting in the victim receiving multiple e-mails in response. Each message—whether from the actual cyber- stalker or others—will have the intended effect of frightening or harassing the victim, with little effort on the part of the cyberstalker.

Evidence Suggests Cyberstalking Incidents Are Increasing

Although comprehensive nationwide data on the extent of cyberstalking in the United States do not yet exist, there is a growing body of statistics available from law enforcement agencies, as well as from some ISPs, that compile information on the number and types of complaints of harassment and threats involving ISP subscribers. There is increasing anecdotal and informal evidence on the nature and extent of cyberstalking, and research addressing offline stalking may provide insight into the scope of the problem. 

According to the most recent National Violence Against Women Survey, which defines stalking as involving instances where the victim felt a high level of fear:4

• One out of every 12 women (8.2 mil- lion) in the United States and 1 out of every 45 men (2 million) have been stalked at some time in their lives.

• One percent of all women and 0.4 per- cent of all men had been stalked dur- ing the 12 months preceding the survey.

• Women are far more likely than men to be victims of stalking—nearly 80 percent of stalking victims are women. Men are far more likely to be stalkers, comprising 87 percent of the stalkers identified by victims partici- pating in the survey.

• Women are twice as likely as men to be victims of stalking by strangers and eight times as likely to be victims of stalking by intimates.

In the United States today, more than 80 million adults and 10 million children have access to the Internet. Assuming the proportion of cyberstalking victims is even a fraction of the proportion of persons who have been the victims of offline stalking, there may be potentially tens or even hundreds of thousands of victims of cyberstalking incidents each year in the United States.

Cyberstalking Resources Online CyberAngels: A nonprofit group devoted to assisting victims of online harassment and threats,

including cyberstalking: www.cyberangels.org.

GetNetWise: An online resource for families and caregivers to help kids use the Internet in a safe and educational manner. It includes a guide to online safety, a directory of online safety tools, and directions for reporting online trouble: www.getnetwise.org.

National Center for Victims of Crime: Through its toll-free national hotline, the center provides vic- tims with referrals to the nearest appropriate services in their community, including crisis counseling and support groups, advocacy services, and assistance with the criminal justice process. The center publishes bulletins on a number of topics, including domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking: www.ncvc.org.

National Cybercrime Training Partnership: This interagency Federal/State/local partnership, led by the Justice Department with extensive support from the Office of Justice Programs and the National White Collar Crime Center, is developing and delivering training to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies on how to investigate and prosecute computer crime. Information about the partnership can be found through its Web site: www.cybercrime.org.

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse: This nonprofit consumer information and advocacy program offers consumers a unique opportunity to learn how to protect their personal privacy. Its services include a consumer hotline for reporting privacy abuses and for requesting information on ways to protect pri- vacy and fact sheets on privacy issues, including one entitled Are You Being Stalked? Tips for Your Protection: www.privacyrights.org.

Search Group, Inc.: SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, provides assistance to State and local criminal justice agencies on information technology issues. SEARCH, through its National Technical Assistance and Training Program, provides comprehensive, hands-on training on computer crime investigations at its headquarters in Sacramento, California, and at regional training sites around the country: www.search.org.

Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA): Founded by women to educate the Internet community about online harassment, WHOA empowers victims of online harassment and develops voluntary poli- cies that systems administrators can adopt to create an environment free of online harassment. WHOA educates the online community by developing Web site resources, including the creation of a safe- and unsafe-site list to enable users to make informed decisions and providing information about how users can protect themselves against harassment: www.haltabuse.org.

CHRIS DAY - AN ADDRESS BY ANY OTHER ADDRESS IS STILL AN ADDRESS

Originally published 8/15/2011

Will be interesting to see how this plays out...  

From International Constitution

"21.7 Disclosure of Union Business.  No officer or member of the L.U. shall furnish to any unauthorized person a list of the names and addresses of the membership. All business of the L.U. must be kept strictly private from persons outside of the Union, unless publication be authorized by the L.U., and persons giving out any information contrary to the L.U. shall after proceeding in accordance with the provisions of Section 22, if found guilty, be fined, suspended or expelled."

Besides all of the reasons Hunt mentioned in yesterdays meeting for not allowing the Preferring of Charges to go forward,  here is the REALITY of the situation.  What this means is that when the International Constitution says ADDRESS - it MEANS ADDRESS - NOT BADGE NUMBERS.  ONE cannot simply change the wording of the constitution to suit THEIR purpose.

Did Margulies and Day publish all those private Union documents on their Rantings blog (since the blackballing scheme didn't work)  the last couple of days because they didn't understand the difference between an ADDRESS AND A BADGE NUMBER and decided while they were at it they might as well change the wording of the International Constitution to include the Freedom of Information Act -  OR... 

DID THEY JUST HANG THEMSELVES?

Al M's been known to change the context and significance of statements written by others on his blogs and through comments he shares throughout the community on other blogs. Something I've been aware he's been doing since 2009.  Day does this as well.

I write my blog for myself because as a victim of cyber abuse it's become my voice as well as a way to reach out to other victims of Internet harassment. But he and his friends come over here, take my words and put their own spin to it - to fit their purpose which is to discredit me. It's another tactic abusers use in order to de-focus you from the facts and validate themselves.  We can debate different perspectives in terms of what we understand about what an author meant, but in those specific instances where reputations and abuse are on the line - it's not debatable.  For Instance, I may write something to deflect the constant barrage of name calling and slander by simply bringing the quote to the forefront.  

Then... Margulies, Chris Day and Jeff Welch through their shared Ellen Fox Slander Blog Watch write: 

"Ellen Fox says Chris Day is "coming after 'you'"   They even apply quote marks which makes the statement appear legit.

But, what I ACTUALLY wrote on that post is:

"WHO'S NEXT ON HIS LIST, YOU?!!!

The context and meaning of my words have been changed because they are trying to control what you think, feel and interpret.  They are changing your mind-set. Every caption to every entry listed on the Blog Watch has purposely been changed for your benefit.  It's another strategy abusers use. Abusers, once exposed will go to any extreme necessary to make sure you don't see the truth. 

While I was talking in the meeting yesterday about abuse I was going through, a woman sitting a few rows up turned and acknowledged me for what I was going through.  At one point she started repeating my words with me. She understood. If you've been there  - you know. She validated my experience.

Another example:

The Watch Blog says: 
"Does Bruce Hansen support Ellen Fox's Slander Blog and her campaign of hate?"

What I wrote was, 
"Time to get your Bruce Hansen for President buttons and t's on."

My Freedom of Speech is that I can make those comments. The difference is Margulies, Day and Welch changed the spin on my statement to make Bruce look bad. They even went so far as to use ATU logo. They did this to control what you comprehend before you read it. It's the same thing Chris Day did as he was gathering signatures for his Preferring of Charges - Blackball petitions against me. He went up to people during rush hour bullpen madness knowing time was a factor with 18 pages of single spaced print, asked co-workers to sign something "for the Union" then interpreted it in one or two sentences that fit his motives.

The words they used in those conversations as well as blog postings and headings are slander - which is hate speech and because it's used to describe and define me to you all - almost 3,000 of ya, I can sue 'em. 

Third paragraph down, "She has been claiming for years now that blogger AL M is and has been 'stalking her' going to such extremes as saying she is 'afraid for her life'.

What I have ACTUALLY been saying is that in Cyber language a 'Cyber Bully' is one who harasses children over the internet and a 'Cyber Stalker' is the terminology used for an adult who harasses over the internet.  Since Al M, Chris Day and Jeff Welch have plastered my picture on their various blogs, people on my bus, on the streets and in stores I frequent are recognizing me - in a NEGATIVE way.  I have concerns about the mentality of someone who isn't capable of developing their own world experiences but rather live though the negativity and words of others.

Last paragraph of this posting is also interesting because THEY accuse ME of Preferring Charges against Khris Alexander.  lol

The truth is that I signed a petition for his RECALL specifically because he misappropriated a Union donation (a fairly new 27" television) which I handed him for Gresham TC. He took it home for his family's private use.  No one Preferred Charges against him to get him blackballed. The signatories simply wanted to rescind his Executive Board position. Each of us had our reasons - many were similar. He didn't deserve to be blackballed and it was never brought up.  But, Margulies went to that Union meeting and took all of the documents provided and published them on his blog in spite of the fact that President Hunt asked that everything be kept private. He went as far as making comments in his various video rants where he acknowledged President Hunt asking that no one secretly record the meeting or take documents from it.  Margulies could have been blackballed for doing it.  But, even then with all his improprieties and outrageous behaviors - AT HIS CO-WORKERS EXPENSE - he wasn't.  He published all the documents that night - but the subject of blackballing him for doing it never came up.

There were a few private correspondences from me that Hunt included with the packet that night. We discussed them after I discovered they became public.  He said to me, "Oh".  lol  My private e-mail address was even published.  No reason to ask that either Hunt or Margulies be blackballed for exposing those documents publicly against me.  No one ever thought or expected Margulies should work without Union benefits or representation.    

BUT THAT WAS THEN AND THIS IS NOW.

Margulies and Day's behavior is treasonous. There's no question the postings from yesterday and today alone should get them all the negative attention they've apparently been seeking.  Years ago I suggested to Hunt and talked about it in several of my postings that Margulies was giving information to people who couldn't be happier than to see all Unions vanished from this Country.  I wasn't implying he was a spy for them I was simply suggesting  he was behaving irresponsibly with sensitive information regarding our benefits and contract on his rants.  Video after video showed him and others at Beaverton TC talking about it. I believe he was responsible for TM receiving the Golden Fleece Award because the very conservative, anti Union anti rail movement was following his blog.  He knew they were and enjoyed the attention. In fact, Hunt asked him several times to stop talking about these things on his blog.  

MARGULIES AND DAY ACT IRRESPONSIBLY WITH THE POWER OF THEIR BLOGS. 

To my knowledge, the only member who's ever been blackballed in the history of ATU was Tom Wallace for stealing nearly half a million dollars.  

I have NEVER met or talked with Welch or 'J'.

 In fact, I've never even had a conversation with Chris Day.

just sayin...