42 § 1983

[umkemesic]

Illinois Harassing and Obscene Communications Act. And no, obscene does not mean what you think it means.

Last time I looked at that act it had prohibitions for telephone calls, but not emails. (i.e. if you make more than one unwanted telephone call, it is harassment).

Not sure if that could apply to electronic messages (sending unwanted emails, if there are no threats). But I know you cannot transmit threats or obscenity.

Sending an email "I can email whenever, how many times I want to, It's called FREEDOM OF SPEECH". Is not lewd, obscene, libel, or threatning.

Maybe it causes emotional injury. But emotional injury alone cannot silence free speech.

But even if my words were protected, would a police officer reasonable know that? In Purtell v. Mason, the court stated that although vaugely threatning Halloween decorations (Tombstones w/ Neighbor's names) were protected speech, they did not fault the Police's actions, especially when there was pushing and shouting.

Regardless, no. 720 ILCS 135/1‑2 does not prohibit emails sent to you, even if they are annoying - as long as the emails are not threatning or obscene.

 

[tranquility]

You violated a court order. You think the court order is illegal. Your remedy is/WAS to fight the order in court.

You cannot sue for false arrest until the case has ended in your favor under Supreme Court decision. This may or may not have occurred already. It is harder to determine than you might think if the case is not dismissed on it's merits.

Arguendo, you have the right to sue for false arrest. The police, at the time of the arrest, HAD probable cause to arrest. I assume the conditions were such a reasonable person would believe you were in violation of the court order. If the court order is later found to be in error or illegal, the police still had the right to rely on the order. Lots of case law on this. That is just for probable cause let alone the lesser standard in 1983 lawsuits of arguable probable cause. I don't think you have a case.

As to if the order is illegal, I have my doubts. If an order is overbroad, the remedy is to object in court and appeal. It is NOT to violate the order and say it is illegal. I don't know if the order is overbroad. But, remember, there are many legal restrictions on free speech. The government can clearly regulate the time, place and manner of the speech if there is a compelling reason.

The judge found a compelling reason. Until you get that (and the order) overturned in court, I'd stop dreaming of some payday for civil rights violations.

 

[umkemesic]

You do not have the "right" to violate a court order. Your "right" of free speech cannot infringe upon the rights of another.

You really do sound like a crazy nutbag to me.

You did not pay attention - the alleged acts violating the order occured before the order was entered.

I created the website and blog before the OP. You cannot violate an order with actions taken before the order was issued.

Lay-off the medical marijuana.

 

[LillianX]

Read it again.

Sec. 1‑2. Harassment through electronic communications.
(a) Harassment through electronic communications is the use of electronic communication for any of the following purposes:
(1) Making any comment, request, suggestion or
proposal which is obscene with an intent to offend;
(2) Interrupting, with the intent to harass, the
telephone service or the electronic communication service of any person;
(3) Transmitting to any person, with the intent to
harass and regardless of whether the communication is read in its entirety or at all, any file, document, or other communication which prevents that person from using his or her telephone service or electronic communications device;
(3.1) Transmitting an electronic communication or
knowingly inducing a person to transmit an electronic communication for the purpose of harassing another person who is under 13 years of age, regardless of whether the person under 13 years of age consents to the harassment, if the defendant is at least 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense;
(4) Threatening injury to the person or to the
property of the person to whom an electronic communication is directed or to any of his or her family or household members; or
(5) Knowingly permitting any electronic
communications device to be used for any of the purposes mentioned in this subsection (a).
(b) As used in this Act:
(1) "Electronic communication" means any transfer of
signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric or photo‑optical system. "Electronic communication" includes transmissions by a computer through the Internet to another computer.

In your post earlier today, which was deleted, you indicated that you sent numerous e-mails, and she asked you to stop.

 

[umkemesic]

You violated a court order. You think the court order is illegal. Your remedy is/WAS to fight the order in court.

You cannot sue for false arrest until the case has ended in your favor under Supreme Court decision. This may or may not have occurred already. It is harder to determine than you might think if the case is not dismissed on it's merits.

Arguendo, you have the right to sue for false arrest. The police, at the time of the arrest, HAD probable cause to arrest. I assume the conditions were such a reasonable person would believe you were in violation of the court order. If the court order is later found to be in error or illegal, the police still had the right to rely on the order. Lots of case law on this. That is just for probable cause let alone the lesser standard in 1983 lawsuits of arguable probable cause. I don't think you have a case.

As to if the order is illegal, I have my doubts. If an order is overbroad, the remedy is to object in court and appeal. It is NOT to violate the order and say it is illegal. I don't know if the order is overbroad. But, remember, there are many legal restrictions on free speech. The government can clearly regulate the time, place and manner of the speech if there is a compelling reason.

The judge found a compelling reason. Until you get that (and the order) overturned in court, I'd stop dreaming of some payday for civil rights violations.

Thanks, I understand also in Illinois that an SOL is not considered a termination in favor of a Defendant.

Second, as noted above, the OP was entered after the website was created. The website blog was blank at the time of arrest, but I did copy her photos which were placed in a folder.

It is impossible to violate an order with acts before the order was entered.

Since my arrest I have posted articles about feminism, but not against the CW per se. Although I am starting to thing I should delete those, or edit them so they cannot have any possible reference to the CW.

I'm not looking for a payday, this has to do with my rights to run a website with my opinions, even if it is directed to a private person.

 

[LillianX]

The post that is on the website now, regardless of when it was created, by the fact that you know it intimidates her, and you control it, can, and probably will, be construed as a violation of the order of protection.

By your logic, if you were standing in front of her house when you were arrested, you have the right to go back and stand there more because you were doing it before you were arrested, so it's all good!

 

[umkemesic]

Read it again.
In your post earlier today, which was deleted, you indicated that you sent numerous e-mails, and she asked you to stop.

Yes, that was in 2008, but the number of emails, 75 over eight months, (about two a week as was the testimony - hardly numerous) does not matter.

If I sent you two emails a week, even if you told me to stop, and these emails were annoying, but not threatning or obscene, what law would I be violating?

Thank you for your time in this matter.

I will concentrate on getting the case dismissed first and the OP reversed. I recognize that even if this happens, the police may have had Probable Cause anyway.

The government can regulate speech - it needs to fall under the narrow exceptions to speech.

Have a good day.

 

[umkemesic]

The post that is on the website now, regardless of when it was created, by the fact that you know it intimidates her, and you control it, can, and probably will, be construed as a violation of the order of protection.

By your logic, if you were standing in front of her house when you were arrested, you have the right to go back and stand there more because you were doing it before you were arrested, so it's all good!

The State would need to enlarge the time frame to after the arrest - but I see your point, I should delete the posts that even have a hint of concerning the case. No need to give them a valid excuse.

 

[LillianX]

Yes, that was in 2008, but the number of emails, 75 over eight months, (about two a week as was the testimony - hardly numerous) does not matter.

If I sent you two emails a week, even if you told me to stop, and these emails were annoying, but not threatning or obscene, what law would I be violating?

Thank you for your time in this matter.

I will concentrate on getting the case dismissed first and the OP reversed. I recognize that even if this happens, the police may have had Probable Cause anyway.

The government can regulate speech - it needs to fall under the narrow exceptions to speech.

Have a good day.

Yeah, I'm done. You keep interpreting laws incorrectly, and then arguing with people who are actually qualified, at least to some extent, to offer a correct interpretation, and you don't understand why you are wrong.

You're not right. You are violating your court order. If you don't want to accept that, then by all means, keep doing what you're doing, and end up in jail, with a record.

Best of luck to you.

 

[LillianX]

The State would need to enlarge the time frame to after the arrest - but I see your point, I should delete the posts that even have a hint of concerning the case. No need to give them a valid excuse.

They already have a copy of it. Deleting it NOW only has it gone in the future. The state has a copy of it, and even if you delete it, it'll be available in Google cache for awhile as evidence of your violation.

 

[tranquility]

Thanks, I understand also in Illinois that an SOL is not considered a termination in favor of a Defendant.

So all the government has to do to get out of liability is to not prosecute? Do you have a citation for that?

It is impossible to violate an order with acts before the order was entered.

Knowledge is required, not entry. If you were in court when you got the order, it covered you. Even though it would probably not be entered for some time.

Second, as noted above, the OP was entered after the website was created. The website blog was blank at the time of arrest, but I did copy her photos which were placed in a folder.

Orders can be mandatory and/or prohibitory. Depending on the exact facts, the order could find something set in motion prior to the order is in violation if not stopped.

this has to do with my rights to run a website with my opinions, even if it is directed to a private person.

A judge can order you not to touch a computer. How will that affect your "right" to run a website?

I don't see this as a first amendment issue at all. As I said, the government can limit speech to a particular time, place and manner if they have a compelling reason. Even protected speech.

 

[umkemesic]

So all the government has to do to get out of liability is to not prosecute? Do you have a citation for that?

Yes I do, Mitchel v. Keenan (7th Circuit);

The prosecutor had the charge against Lloyd Mitchell "stricken with leave to reinstate," otherwise known as an SOL. The SOL is an odd and much misunderstood creature of Illinois procedure. It is purely a common-law creation (the Illinois Code makes no mention of the SOL) and is used almost exclusively in criminal matters. People ex rel. DeVos v. Laurin, 391 N.E.2d 164, 166 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979). Its effect is to remove the case from the trial court's docket while the prosecution technically remains pending. Id. The prosecution, however, may not proceed until the case has been placed again on the court's docket. People v. Kidd, 191 N.E. 244, 246 (Ill. 1934). The prose- cutor must move for such a reinstatement, but the trial court retains its discretion such that the charge may only be reinstated for good cause. Laurin, 391 N.E.2d at 166- 67 (citing Tibbs v. Allen, 29 Ill. 535 (1863)). What is re- quired to demonstrate good cause, however, has not been directly addressed by the Illinois courts. We believe that the requisite good cause can be shown by a lack of bad faith on the part of prosecutor (i.e. the delay was not de- signed to circumvent speedy trial requirements) coupled with a good reason to delay and subsequently reinstate the prosecution (i.e. a witness refuses to testify but then capitulates). But, because this matter is purely one of Illi- nois law, ours is nothing more than a well-reasoned guess.

In sum, the case against Lloyd Mitchell is technically pending, despite the lapse of almost nine years and the absolute absence of any activity connected with the prose- cution of this case during this time. This tidy (if some- what simplified) description of this enigmatic procedural tool lays the foundation for our consideration of the Mit- chells' claims.

The order was for no-contact and for No-Stalking (as defined in the statute).

Making the website was not "contact" nor was it "stalking" as defined as two acts that cause emotional distress - but emotional distress by itself is irrelevant for free speech cases. Although the order correctly limits directed speech to the CW, I do not think it limits making a website to gripe about my legal experience.

 

[cyjeff]

Has nothing to do with a Class-Action, I was merely pointing out that in a class action you can claim juridiction for alleging that either one defendant or one plaintiff lives outside the state as the others. This is true.

Again, this is not a class action suit so that reference doesn't matter. If you want to sue an individual, you must sue them in THEIR jurisdiction.

What you are trying to do (I think) is to jurisdiction shop. You can't do that.

So my question is, for a federal question can you bring claims against the gov. and pure state claims against a non-state actor - co-defendant, if the cause of action is the same? The answer seems to be yes.

The government and a person not acting on behalf of the government would never share the same suit.

They would have to be separate.

So now the question is whether there is probable cause - if I have a claim.

You say no, which is OK, I will take your advice, that is why I came here.

Goody. Don't know why you wouldn't take the advice of the judge, then. You remember? That whole "don't contact them directly or indirectly" thing.

I will not take personal assults and name-calling like "Crazy" and "Nutbag". Or attacks on typos.

Why not? They were certainly meant that way. Whenever you go out of your way to defame another person and then hide behind what you believe your constitutional rights to be, you look, sound and are acting crazy....

What is that old line about "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

If you had any sense, you would see that you communicating with me is worse than anything I said to/about the CW.

Well, except for the court order, of course. Oh, and the overblown sense of entitlement.

In other words, if the Police had Probable cause to arrest me based on my speech, then they have probable cause to arrest you for calling me names on this forum. Checkmate

Again, you really have no idea what you are talking about. You keep stating "facts" as given that aren't facts.

I am certainly entitled to my opinion. In my opinion, you are a nutbag and more than a casual rider on the crazy train. My opinion is legally protected. You, however, have a bit of a restriction on that freedom of speech you hide behind so happily - a no contact order. Try to remember that we don't know the players here and certainly don't know the truth or fiction behind any of your statements. I do know that a judge told you to stop and you didn't. I also know that you cybersquatted a site name that was also a person's name for the sole purpose of harassing that person...And you actually talk about THIS case in that post restraining order post... don't think that the judge won't appreciate seeing THAT. Especially when you called him a crook.

You do, of course, realize that the judge could hold you in contempt on that little bit of libel alone, right?

(by the way, don't bother deleting it now. Too late for that.)

 

[tranquility]

Yes I do, Mitchel v. Keenan (7th Circuit);

Ah, I see the problem. The acronym SOL usually stands for Statute of Limitations. In your case, it was defined as:

 The prosecutor had the charge against Lloyd Mitchell “stricken with leave to reinstate,” otherwise known as an SOL.

Perhaps you should have given the definition if you wanted it to mean something outside the norm.

Although the order correctly limits directed speech to the CW, I do not think it limits making a website to gripe about my legal experience.

We will have to wait until a judge with access to the facts opines about it to tell.

 

[umkemesic]

Again, this is not a class action suit so that reference doesn't matter. If you want to sue an individual, you must sue them in THEIR jurisdiction.

What you are trying to do (I think) is to jurisdiction shop. You can't do that.

The government and a person not acting on behalf of the government would never share the same suit.

They would have to be separate.

Not forum shopping, I just don't want to file a Federal Suit and then file a State suit on the same issues. If I can get the non-state actor in the same suit it's easier than balancing both suits at once. Conversely, it may be "safer" to proceed with the Federal suit, and if the gov. is liable it would be easier to prove, by extension, the private actor is liable as well.

Goody. Don't know why you wouldn't take the advice of the judge, then. You remember? That whole "don't contact them directly or indirectly" thing.

You see, this is where coming to this forum has its drawbacks. The No-Contact order stated not to contact the CW or commit Stalking as Defined by the statute.

There was no contact, either directly or indirectly. The state is alleging that I violated the order by taking the pictures off her facebook without permission and creating this website. Both acts occurred before the OP.

Why not? They were certainly meant that way. Whenever you go out of your way to defame another person and then hide behind what you believe your constitutional rights to be, you look, sound and are acting crazy....

What is that old line about "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

That's correct, if it talks like a shyster, acts like a shyster, it's a shyster.

There is no defamation. There is nothing libelous on that website. You are taking "facts" that exist in an empty universe (your head) and applying inept legal reasoning (i.e. I contacted someone indirectly through a public website). That would mean I contacted her again by posting on this forum.

You see - the only one that sounds crazy is you.

Well, except for the court order, of course. Oh, and the overblown sense of entitlement.

Free Speech was not made to protect polite speech.

Again, you really have no idea what you are talking about. You keep stating "facts" as given that aren't facts.

Like that website forums and blogs can be indirect contact? Like I violated the order by collecting images prior to the order? That I purchased the website with the sole purpose of harssing the person?

I am certainly entitled to my opinion. In my opinion, you are a nutbag and more than a casual rider on the crazy train. My opinion is legally protected. You, however, have a bit of a restriction on that freedom of speech you hide behind so happily - a no contact order. Try to remember that we don't know the players here and certainly don't know the truth or fiction behind any of your statements. I do know that a judge told you to stop and you didn't. I also know that you cybersquatted a site name that was also a person's name for the sole purpose of harassing that person...And you actually talk about THIS case in that post restraining order post... don't think that the judge won't appreciate seeing THAT. Especially when you called him a crook.

Different Judge for one, again, for the 12th time - how a website can be considered as "contact" is a non sequitar. In-fact, the State is alleging that I violated the order by taking the pictures off her facebook, not that I contacted her.

Therefore the idea that a public website could be a form of "contact", either directly or indirectly, might be a tenable legal theory at Phoenix Online, or wherever you got your J.D., it is a non-issue as the State is not arguing contact, but emotional distress caused by the making of the website and the use of pictures without permission.

As I explained before, both those acts occurred before the OP, so the State would need to amend the charge if they want to include the post after I was arrested - so far that has not happened.

You do, of course, realize that the judge could hold you in contempt on that little bit of libel alone, right?

If I was your professor, I would make you write a tome on indirect/direct contempt. And libel - which, as you should have learned at law school, needs to be false.

Elected Judges are held to scrutiny as any elected officials. They are public - you know what, you just don't get it. Never mind.

(by the way, don't bother deleting it now. Too late for that.)

No. I already received discovery, they only have the blank blog, actually only the picture gallery. Regardless, there is nothing there**************.But it is better to error on the side of caution.

I asked for advice in one area of law I was not familiar with. I am not worried about the criminal violation, I will beat that with my eyes closed.
You seem not to understand, the State has already drew up the charges as actions occurring before the OP. They have already lost. They would have to amend the charges - to what could possibly be an offense, I have no idea.
I'll tell you what jerk-face. After this gets dismissed I will post the order dismissing the case. Then you can scream "you violated the order" all you like.

Cyber squatting is not illegal. If you go to fredphelps.com it is ran by someone who HATES Fred Phelps.

Regarding your other comments, they are frivilous.