CHRIS DAY - AUGUST PREFERRING OF CHARGES MEETING

Originally published 9/23/2011

Back to the August "Preferring of Charges Meeting"

There were more members than usual because the picnic meeting had preceded the business meeting. Several stayed. Jon Hunt announced the agenda and of course when he mentioned the "Preferring of Charges" portion against me heads flung around the room looking for the culprit.  Chris Day showed up late.  What I noticed about him is that he looked more disheveled than usual. He looked like he hadn't slept in days or was VERY hungover.  He sat on the floor in the back of the room against a wall.  He had something in his hand = it wasn't a set of keys.  No pen or paper.  I looked back at him a few times.  He wasn't taking notes. He seemed to be semi-conscious - taking a nap or zoned out.  Days later I saw this posted on his blog.  

WHOA!!!  Had he actually TAPE RECORDED the meeting?!!!  This Chris Day guy is all busy accusing everyone else of being dishonest and illegal but ya know what they say, 'when you're pointing a finger at someone else, ya got three of 'em pointin' right back at cha.' 

When it came time for the "Preferring of Charges" part, Jon Hunt emphatically stated the Union is AGAINST it.  That it's ILLEGAL and, as was said in the first "Preferring of Charges" meeting, "she can sue us."  SO, WHY AM I HERE AND WHY IS MY NAME ALL MUDDIED UP?!!! Chris Day REFUSES comment.  (later on that).  I get THREE MINUTES WHICH GOT STRETCHED TO FIVE.  People are turned around in their seats watching me, trying to see if I LOOK EVIL.  Probably not hearing a word I'm saying - just sitting there judging me.  Expecting me to say something in five minutes that will make it all go away somehow.  Thinking to themselves that they didn't come here for this.  NO ONE actually BLACKBALLS anymore - do they?!!!  A couple of 'em asked questions. Lavern was the BEST part. She talked about how that action can IMPLODE a Union from the inside out.  But - is anyone listening?

I came loaded with notes and over $30 worth of copies to prove "it simply ain't true.  But I can't follow the notes 'cause there just isn't enough time and the copies never made it to the audience.  

Then comes Jeff Ackerson:  

"She did it to me too..."

What did I do that upset him so much that he felt he needed to reprimand me in a Union meeting?   After talking with him later, it appears he was upset that I wrote a posting on my blog where I showed the same video as above.  He felt I should have checked with him first. The topic had to do with people who support and encourage abusers. 

Ackerson is an avid fan and supporter of Margulies and his Rantings Blog which was proven through the series of e-mail posted below. And, as such he's heard the constant stream of the negative, abusive highly public and slanderous bashings I've received over the last couple of years. He's heard the same message over and over again.  If Ackerson didn't like or agree with my post he could have contacted me either through blog comments or through e-mail or phone, etc.  But instead, he (who is also an Executive Board Officer for ATU) chose to hold off on his OUTBURST until the Preferring of Charges meeting. So, what the fuck was that all about? He used his Union position to 'get back at me' and then voted "NO" I could've respected a 'YES' vote from him.  But now, I don't know who the hell  he is or what he stands for.  It was like - why bring it up in the first place to a room packed with people who don't understand and there isn't time to explain. It felt like he was purposely adding to the negativity so the boys would film him - and THEY DID!!!  

 Because of his outburst, he put himself in a position where he can't represent or vote or even 'sit' in meetings when my name comes up, which includes accident appeals or E-Board meetings.  He has to be in a position to represent the entire membership equally but he SINGLED ME OUT, I assume because of his relationship with Margulies.  (e-mails below more than suggest it)   The guys love their AL. He puts them on a You Tube and sings some bullshit praise and they get their 15 minutes.  Woo hoo!!!  

Soooo, I immediately try to rectify my part. He says he was upset because I hadn't contacted him BEFORE I put the posting up because he had specific reasons for coming to Al's defense. Civil Rights and Freedom of Speech.  But - you know - hate speech is not free speech.  And then you don't make excuses for him by saying he's "not a threat" and his blog is "information that's useful." because it's not. Just the fact alone that Margulies supports an admitted child molester is reason for concern. Nevertheless, I left under the impression that all was understood and it was over. NOT!!!

Weeks later, I'm writing a blog about the 'Preferring of Charges' meeting I had to again go through and the subsequent SCAM I discovered when Al and Chris started posting private Union business on their blogs and blaming me for it.  I contacted Jeff - as we agreed - to let him know I'd be writing about my experience in the last meeting and will be including his OUTBURST.  As previously agreed, I stated my intentions to let him read it before posting. This is what I got in return:

Click image to zoom.

Thread starts at bottom.

I am BLACK

Jeff is RED

CHRIS DAY - MORE PREFERRING OF CHARGES SCAMS

Originally published 9/23/2011

August 14, 2011 at 3PM

For the second time, I am summoned to attend an ATU meeting where I had to face Union Officials and members who were introduced to a new set of complaints filed against me by: 

Originally published 9/23/2011Click image to enlarge

The charges?  That I POSTED names and badge numbers of co-workers who signed petitions to have me black balled from my Union on this blog - a public blog.  And just in case that didn't work, they also charged me with giving names of the signatories to HR for punishment.  If you've been reading previous blog postings you know that wasn't true.

Why did I publish these?   Because the signatures were deceptively obtained (by Chris Day, John Olsen and Al Margulies) from co-workers during working hours who mostly didn't read or understand what they were signing.  Who were mostly told the petition signatures were "for The Union."  Because some of the signatures appeared 'forged' but Al M later noted that,  "I was so drunk I couldn't see what I was signing".

Because hundreds of e-mails were sent out to co-workers, management, bloggers from the community in and out of Oregon, because some e-mails were sent using the TM e-mail system, because an online survey had been taken asking the public to vote on my possible demise, because I, as a result have suffered much embarrassment and humiliation within my workplace and the community in which I live.

Because the signature gathering was a scam and because I was ENRAGED that my seemingly intelligent co-workers either trusted too much or didn't bother reading that what they signed could  affect the livelihood of another.  Because NOT ONE of them approached me with questions. Because Ed Brock signed the petition because he didn't like my speaking out when he BUZZED me with his Bus while I was cycling on NE 15th Avenue, nearly smashing me to death. What type of person would go through the Union process of blackballing a co-worker from union representation and benefits simply because he got caught harassing a cyclist?!!!  And I did it because NOT ONE OF THEM appeared to have enough sense to fight their way out of a bag.  

Why did I publish these?  Because I could - because there is absolutely NOTHING in the ATU Constitution which prevents me from publishing names and badge numbers.  

From ATU 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."

Soooo, If I had to face a public flogging of sorts because I posted names and badge numbers on my site - WHY DIDN'T STEVE FUNG AND AL MARGULIES have "Preferring of Charges" filed against them for doing the EXACT SAME thing?!!! 

Chris Day - Preferring of Charges - Scam #1

Originally published 9/23/11

Regarding 4th Preferring of Charges - August, 2011

I think it's important to understand the dynamics of these men in their quest to go as far as to want a fellow member blackballed.  Margulies would never have gone this far without the, support and encouragement of Day, Olsen and their VERY anti-Union fee objector (wanna be legal advisor) Jeff Welch. Whatever happened or didn't happen between Margulies, Day, Olsen, Booker and myself certainly didn't involve the Union to this degree. In fact, Margulies didn't even show up to vote for it the first time in April. And I was told he again didn't show up for the Monday meeting in August.  No reason for him to show up they already had a plan in place.  

Final vote count - Yes-1, No-84, and Abstained-6.

The point is that Day goes from one department to the next and from one manager to the next and when he runs out of managers and departments he goes to the Union and when that doesn't work he goes to International. His reputation at this point is one who works at exclusion.  I have heard from several sources that his plight in life appears to get people 'on his side' against others. When he didn't get anywhere on the other two Preferring of Charges he started reporting Hunt to International and even went so far as to "Preferring Charges" against him, until Hunt succumbed  from the pressure by serving me and posting the "Preferr of Charges"  requiring that it become part of the agenda and posting it in Union boxes and the ATU website.  And then, the worst part is that all these people are gathered round for Union business and what they get is all this NON-UNION PERSONAL BULLSHIT.  Day takes his crap to people who really do care about and make room and time in their lives to go to Union meetings.  It's all a scam and Jon Hunt lets him do it!  

ACCORDING TO THE ATU CONSTITUTION, IT'S ILLEGAL TO REVEAL THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES  OF MEMBERS just as it's illegal to reveal secret union business. 

BUT - ACCORDING TO DAY AND MARGULIES, POSTING MEMBERS NAMES AND BADGE NUMBERS ON A PUBLIC BLOG HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH the ATU CONSTITUTION.  They believe the posting of names and badge numbers on a public blog is the same as posting someones personal home address and that constitues enough evidence to have someone (like me) blackballed from the union UNLESS, of course it's Steve Fung or Margulies himself.  

Wording in legal documents or contracts such as the ATU Constitution are NOT ambiguous.  An address is an address - not a badge number.  MARGULIES AND DAY HAVE EVEN GONE SO FAR AS TO ACTUALLY START POSTING SECRET UNION DOCUMENTS ON THEIR PUBLIC SITES - wich is clearly a VIOLATION.  

For those of you who believe Margulies is pro-Union - check these out:  (Jeff Welch is an EXTREME ANTI-UNION HATER who gives freely of his anti-union bashing advice to Margulies and Day. )  I believe this is what one would call a "WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING", if you know what I mean. Forgive me for tooting my own horn but I've been saying all along Margulies is responsible for posting sensitive Union information regarding our benefits on his blog that ended up being seen by the Conservative anti-union Common Cause and Cascade Policy Group (John Charles) and wonTrimet the Golden Fleece award.

I  PROVED THE FIRST 'PREFERRING OF CHARGES' WAS A SCAM BUT HUNT DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.  HE WOULDN'T EVEN RESPOND BACK.  THE SAME PROCESS USED TO NOTIFY MEMBERS OF THE PREFERRING OF CHARGES AGAINST ME THE FIRST TWO TIMES SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED TO NOTIFY THE MEMBERSHIP EXONERATING ME. 

THE SCAM AND NEW PREFERRING OF CHARGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN IT. EVERY MEETING, EVERY PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED. 

REGARDING THE FIRST PREFERRING OF CHARGES COMPLAINT:

SCAM #1

Had they gone about it professionally and in good faith I could have respected that process.  Who is there among us that has been accused of something that wouldn't welcome the opportunity to prove their innocence?  But, when my accusers (Day, Margulies and Olsen) went on their witch hunt and in order to get the required signatures they had to devise a mission that wasn't only deceptive in nature but included the participation of co-workers WITHOUT telling the co-workers what they were getting themselves in to.  Chris, John and Al deceived the Union, members from all properties, their signatories and co-workers.  The e-mails and online drama - it was all a scam - at MY expense.  

The vote was 108 NO to 3 YES.  (18 abstain)  They needed 60%.

I OBJECTED TO THE FACT that the charges he presented to potential signatories of his petition  were:

1.) 18 pages of single typed, single spaced unsubstantiated rhetoric.  He went so far as to include a paragraph which stated how many coworkers were 'in fear' of signing something against me." Like I was violent.  Now I hear from Jeff Ackerson that coworkers are in fear of me because I've been labeled 'obsessive'.  "Angry Ellen is obsessive"  Run for your lives....

2.)  presented to co-workers during work hours inside the bullpen area when I was present.

3.)  presented, according to some of the signatories in a rush, asking them to sign something       WITHOUT reading it, "for the Union".

4.)  In one case when informed by the signatory that he had "no time to read it", Mr. Day replied, "You know me, you know you can trust me."  And, a very embarrassed signatory later told me, "That is the last time I will ever sign something without reading it."

5.)  told me, "I didn't know I was signing something to have someone blackballed!"

6.) "I signed it because everyone else at the table did."

7.) "paperwork?  I didn't see any paperwork."

8.)  Signatures of the various petitions didn't match. One was missing making that petition void. One signature from the same person (Al Margulies) was completely different making that petition void.  Margulies even responded to the 'comments' section of my blog explaining he was 'so drunk he couldn't see what he was signing.', making that petition not just void but illegal.

9.)  He sent out, (I am told) hundreds of e-mail to managers, co-workers, media, the Black Caucus e-mail list, bloggers in Portland and Washington, etc including his 18 pages of unsubstantiated, unjustified Preferring of Charges against me.

A petition was even found on Chris Day's Blog asking members of the general public to involve themselves with our workplace and our Union.  There were 16 results.  One of the results, I am told came from the 14 YO child who is the alleged victim of Chris Parker.

Again, had they gone about it professionally and in good faith I could have respected that process.  Had it been done outside of my work environment - like in the parking area. Not one signatory approached me asking for my side. The negativity was viral.  I had followers of Al and Day's blogs on my bus, recognizing and approaching me on the streets, in stores I frequent.  It was all NEGATIVE. Not like anyone was asking for my autograph.

I filed Respectful Workplace and IT violations to HR ONLY against Al Margulies and Chris Day  Other than the two of 'em, I did NOT ask that anyone else be investigated for signing. One signatory was contacted but only because they wanted verification of the process used in order to obtain his signature.  In fact, we were all victims of the scam.  HR talked with Chris in person and Al over the phone.  My complaint wasn't even worthy enough for HR to require Al's presence.  Chris Day's actions were found in violation of Respectful Workplace and Internet Technology.  But he didn't get admonished for it until he had enough time to get me again and again - literally months later. Al got off scott free.

WHY DID THE BOYS DO THIS?  THIS IS WHERE THE SCAM STARTED:  

Clicking the image will make it larger.  

Through the first preferring of charges they discovered a few things:  

First, only the 3 of 'em (Day, Olsen and Booker) were interested in using their Union membership to vote YES. 

Second, not many members showed up to meetings.

Third, if they changed the wording around they could use it as a devise to make their effort appear as though they had actually won.

So, they changed the 108 against, 3 yes and 8 abstain vote around to mean:

If 60% of you all had voted FOR the Preferring of Charges - it would have meant (based on their logic)  that ANYONE could slander you and WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION you could actually have them thrown out of the Union. - which means you could force them to work without Union protection and benefits but they still have to pay dues.  

BUT, if only 3 of you voted FOR the Preferring of Charges and the measure clearly failed it meant that ANYONE could slander you and WITHOUT CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION you could still accuse them of still being guilty of slander.

Their motive - either way was designed to slander me.  I was still the one who had been publicly scrutinized by people who've never met or talked with me.  Yes or No vote - my head was still under the guillotine. 

CHRIS DAY - FROM GOSSIP, TO CYBER STALKING, TO BLACKBALLING... Part 1

Originally published 9/8/2011

BLACKBALL

"One of the earliest ballot boxes using ballottas. This ballot box was used by members of the Association of the Oldest Inhabitants of the District of Columbia, a social club." *1

"Since the 17th century, Blackballing is a rejection in a traditional form of secret ballot, where a white ball or a ballot constitutes a vote in support and a black ball signifies opposition. A large supply of black and white balls is provided for voters. Each voter audibly casts a single ball into the ballot box under cover of the box, or a combination of a cloth and the box itself, so that observers can see who votes but not how he/she is voting.

A blackballing is a disappointment, and should be a rare event in a congenial club where advance notice of the candidates is given to members.  If a candidate is blackballed, their proper and seconder are often expected to resign from the club, as a failed election implied that they are not knowledgeable of the clubs ethos since they were expected to realize that their candidate is undesirable and quietly convince him to remove himself from the candidacy before the lengthy application process reached the voting stage."

PREFERRING OF CHARGES

When co-workers, each of whom assumably, have personal bias' against another co-worker which doesn't involve each other individually or collectively or the Union which represents them, continues filing (what appears to be a never-ending stream of)  Preferring of Charges complaints against this individual for the purpose of blackballing or stopping their Union representation and benefits you can actually end up with far more problems than ever anticipated.  It's libelous behavior gone wild.  You can't just go through life beating someone up without eventually suffering repercussions.

Typically, Unions don't involve themselves with personality conflicts between members/co-workers however they do try to discourage members from reporting each other to HR by suggesting a more viable solution which is to contact their property's Executive Board Officer for assistance.  Start the day with Solidarity and end it that way. Blackballing not only breaks down the premise of Unions from the inside out but forces members to take sides.  UNLESS a member gets caught with their hands in the cookie jar or their behavior is treasonous like Union busting from within or an officer reporting members to management, etc.

"The preamble to the ATU Constitution states that the union was established “to promote the general cause of humanity and brotherly *2  love, and secure the blessings of friendship, equality and truth.” 

Obviously, the preamble wasn't a consideration BEFORE any of the Preferring of Charges were filed.  The DRAMA they were seeking wouldn't have played out as well had any of them attempted to resolve their issues with me first.  Two of the filings were thrown out by the Union.  I was served on the remaining two.  One in April and one in August. BOTH were SCAMS. I presented proof to the Union BOTH times.  Jon Hunt asked me to hold off on further action until he or Ron followed up but that was August 25th.  No word yet and my working environment has become more and more hostile with each passing day.  The attempts at blackballing me should NOT have been entertained by the Union. WHY COULDN'T HE HAVE JUST SAID "NO"?!! In BOTH cases, the Union President stated that to go forward was illegal and if the Union proceeded I could sue them.  But going as far as they did by actually posting my name on ATU web sites and Union properties was libelous and irresponsible. The top three, Chris Day, John Olsen and Al Margulies who put the effort together expected and received something for their endeavor which I'll dive into during the next posting.  Neither blackballing effort passed.  The April attempt brought 3 votes for and 108 against. I was at the first meeting and saw the three who voted to have me blackballed. (Day, Olsen and Booker) It wasn't a secret ballot. Margulies wasn't there and according to the final vote he not only didn't show up at a meeting at another property but didn't vote. The final tally for August isn't in as of this posting. After the August meeting, Margulies commented on his blogs that "Of course everyone that was watching the Union knew that it had absolutely  zero chance of going through"

  Plus this:  

SO WHY DO IT?

WAS IT A SCAM?!!!

HOW DID IT ALL COME ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE? 

WHY HAS IT GONE ON FOR SO LONG AND WHAT ARE THE TIES THAT bond DAY/OLSEN AND MARGULIES TO EACH OTHER AND THEM TO ME?

'Gossip' by Norman Rockwell

Years ago when I first started at Trimet,  I had a friendship with a guy named Pat Patterson.  At one point I decided I needed to start distancing myself from him. He kept pursuing the friendship, asking what was wrong.  I tried but couldn't get him to understand it was because of where I was moving in my life. One day I had had enough of the constant calls etc and told him. Being the Sagittarius that I am it all just came out.  He was a very sensitive person and what I said didn't sit well.  It festered.  In retrospect I could have understood his situation better and been more sensitive to it. He was known as the company gossip which was one of the problems I had with the friendship in the first place. He would literally go around from table to table telling everyone and anyone who'd listen, who was doing who and who was the bigger bitch, etc.  Nevertheless, after that point, anyone gay, lesbian and new to Trimet who walked through the door got a mouthful about me. Several people over the years told me that he'd point me out and say things such as, "See that one over there, stay away from her. She's the biggest c*unt in town, doesn't like gay men, no one likes her ...  yada, yada, yada." And so it went...

When Dan Booker arrived I noticed he sat with Pat at the Center Street round table.  Co-workers were telling me that in his position as a Union Steward Dan would encourage them and others to write me up to Human Resources. Pat told him about my lawsuit against Trimet management and HR. He knew they were still retaliating against me. I imagine he figured that 'reporting me to HR' would be a way to 'get back' at me. And so Dan followed Pat's lead with that and among other things like calling me "the biggest c*nt in town".  He tells co-workers that I don't like gay men. He just told someone else the same thing a week or two ago and it got right back to me.  His rhetoric came from Pat, almost verbatim. Dan and I used to frequent the same place several years ago but I've never had a conversation with him except about Jay one time.  He doesn't in fact know anything about me. He has NO personal experience with me. It was all derived from GOSSIP.  I eventually contacted Jon Hunt. Phone and e-mail. Multiple, multiple times. He wouldn't respond. I told him he had a Union Steward who was encouraging members to write me and others up to HR. Jon Hunt knows the history of this. When it got worse I finally contacted the e-board but by then so much damage was done it felt irreparable.  Hunt called after that but I wasn't willing to talk with him at that point.  It's like - if someone calls - pick up the phone and either answer it or call back. It only takes a minute.  Just acknowledge the person. If you're too busy, call 'em back later.  But ya gotta return EVERY call because they're from the members. 

Then John Olsen came on the scene.  

Write up #1)  November 4, 2005 he boarded my bus at SE 60th and Belmont. DRUNK. He was in street clothes. Never saw him before. He flashed something at me which prompted me to ask him if he would come back up and show his fare. He came back up, visibly angry and yelling, "I'm a Trimet Bus Driver, I don't have to show you shit." I then asked him to quiet down as he could be refused service. He sat in the creep seat and called dispatch telling them I was "throwing him off the bus".  Dispatch then called me and asked who he was and what his problem was.  Mr. Olsen then called Pat.  He got his ride downtown. He was extremely abusive to me during the trip. When he de-boarded he said, "I'll see to it that the Union fires you."  Apparently he believes that - even to this day.  

Write up #2) May 7, 2007.  Mr. Olsen was in uniform at Center Street inbound bus stop. He was at the curb and lifted his hand to signal bus service. I was running late. Sunday, last bus of the night and I wanted to make sure my customers didn't miss their connections downtown. I opened the door and he just stood there talking on his phone. I waited as long as I was going to under the circumstances and then asked him, "Sir, do you want THIS bus?"  He responded, "Can you wait a couple of minutes so I can finish my call?" At that point I closed the door, waved him off and floored it.

The following morning I received a call from Jon Hunt informing me that I had been written up to HR:

Me, "By whom?" 

Jon, "The guy waiting at the 17 stop last night." 

Me, "What for?" 

Jon, "He says you refused him service because of his Sexual Orientation."  

And so the nightmare began...

*1 Taken from Wikipedia

*2  The word 'sisterly' needs to be included.

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...