When To Glock Or Not To Glock: The PI Question

Even if you aren't technically a PI (a private investigator is required to be licensed).

You may be the independent journalist, or lawyer's assistant. Or just curious about something that concerns the "public good"(other people might call you nosy). Whatever circumstances, there comes a time and case when the job or the story takes you to a place even cops fear to tread without a gun.

Never take the gun if you don't need it. Once in a while you'll be wrong, but 99% of the time you'll be right.

If you're wrong, retreat if you can. Better to come back prepared.




When you know you're entering a dangerous situation, one where people are known or are
strongly suspected of having committed murder, or another serious assault, always take your gun.
But, when it's no longer needed and the job is
finished, take it home and lock it up again. Always lock it up when it's not in use.









Your gun is not an ego accessory. It is a tool.
99% of the time you don't need it. If you
think you need it more than that, you need to reconsider how you're doing what you're going. Maybe this isn't the gig you're cut out for.

It's not the movies. Most information you get
will be from asking the right people polite questions.




And the most common job you'll be asked to
do is the cliche: shadowing a suspected unfaithful spouse. That doesn't require a gun...no matter what your client tries to tell you.


Wrote this after I came back from my first "field trip": that is, a job that was more than "polite questions". It was, thankfully, uneventful. I prefer "polite question" jobs.

We're all Anonymous on April 12th

I've never been into the protest gig. I'm more a sign the petition of season type of gal, shooting off the occasional postcard to my congress critter. But "Anonymous" has got me intrigued.

Scientology(or as they write it, $cientology) always looked like a scam of some kind. Even before Tom Cruise got assimilated. But the flyer I got this last weekend while shopping(or trying to shop; my favorite retro second hand store vanished when I wasn't looking), got me to thinking more about Scientology than I ever want to. (This is a different flyer from the one above. My scanner is broken)

Among the references listed:

www.whyaretheydead.net

Pretty bad. Whatever else anyone thinks its just not normal for any organization to have this many "accidents" and "suicides". Unfortunately this page was last updated July 2006 so it doesn't have the latest suspicious death: Shawn Lonsdale.

Shawn Lonsdale - Scientology smear flyers across Clearwater



Slandering a protester isn't very original, guys.

Anyway, Lonsdale was found dead on February 16th, 2008:

Critic of Scientology Shawn Lonsdale found dead

This article raises good points but makes my inner gumshoe cringe. Never speculate or go "over the top". Lines like "Did Scientologists have a hand in the death of Shawn Lonsdale?" make you look crazy. Instead focus on the facts that don't add up.

For starters, did Lonsdale look or act like anyone who might be suicidal? And, as the article points out, with so many known "persons of interest" and an obvious documented campaign to discredit him, why has this been ruled a suicide so quickly?

Back to the references. Google "Scientology costs".

Then Google "Scientology psychiatry". And I'm the first to admit psychiatry has it's own problems.

When your through with that, move on to these:

Scientology Slaves
Project Snow White
Scientology disconnect
Scientology south park

Many pieces make my inner journalist cringe too, but the facts paint a picture, however amateurishly, of an organization run like a criminal syndicate.

That's where I think "Anonymous" could use some help getting their message across. When you say a "cult" people nod their heads and move on, assuming someone is dealing with the crazy people. But the Scientologists have been good at re framing these problem as differences in belief. And when you say cult, even if it's true, there's still an idea somehow the victims were at fault; isn't it obvious it's a cult?

Not when they've registered themselves as a respectable corporation, it's not.

Bottom line? Most organizations, religious or otherwise, never have people connected to them dying under dubious circumstances. The only organizations that mimic this pattern are organized crime. Someone needs to tell "Anonymous" to go lighter on the "cult" rhetoric and call Scientology what it's acting like: a criminal syndicate.

Maybe I'll go and tell someone.
On April 12th.

Anonymously, of course.

Bill's Story: F.Y.I. on the Q.T.

I met Bill (not his real name) a couple years back at a rally in town. Smart, educated and only slightly eccentric(for a peace activist) Bill always found the work hard but rewarding and always worth it. And when another organization showed up to pitch in and help with an upcoming event he didn't think anything of it. That's what you're supposed to do in solidarity, right?

Soon the meetings became strained. Bill didn't think anything of it. Planning is always stressful and anything worth being emotionally invested in is bound to stir up strong feeling. But little things started to nag him: some people seemed to find themselves in positions of authority without any consensus or qualifications. Responsible questions about purpose and liability were treated with scorn. Soon Bill found his energy divided between peace making and begging hardworking people not to leave. He even found himself at odds with Steve, the manager of organization whom he'd always gotten along with. No matter how reasonable a concern was, it was spun as a personal conflict. Heroically Bill and four other organizers were able to pull off the event, with little or no help from the new organization. And what the new organization did do almost always has the effect of antagonizing or alienating the group's base. It did not help that this organization did not appear to understand what some terms actually meant in activism.

For instance the new group called for "mass civil disobedience". By definition this means protesting in illegal but nonviolent ways to draw attention to your cause. But when this was put into practice, members of the organization who called for this action reported activists to the police for doing the very thing they called them out to do. Subsequently these people were arrested and, in some cases, injured.

Like many, Bill was appalled. What had happened? After many angry conversations it became clear that what the organization had really wanted was a lawful protest demonstration. Then why didn't they say so? Did they know the difference? And if not, why not? Seasoned activists were part of this organization ; how could such a drastic misunderstanding have happened?

Then, in the course of gathering documentation, Bill found a strange statement among his organization's financial records. He had temporarily taken on managerial duties while Steve was out of town. Funds needed to be released and he wanted to take a quick account before the next meeting. They had always struggled for money, but always got by with fund raisers and the occasional anonymous donor. But, looking at the account history, he saw regular transfers of funds from a trust he had never heard of. Certainly none of the donors he knew. Cumulatively this cash flow was enough to take care of all their current debts, and cover their current expenses for the next six months. What particularly angered Bill was seeing a transfer dated the very day before a meeting four months earlier where they had brainstormed ideas to raise funds. All of this and they'd had plenty of money...somehow.

Bill called an emergency meeting of the officers, including the treasurer, Judy. Most people were confused but Judy was incensed that Bill had taken the liberty of looking through the groups private records without permission. When Bill pointed out he'd had permission and produced the email from Steve proving this, Judy changed the subject: why was Bill complaining the group had money? He should be happy. His point, echoed by many, was that until now the group had no idea they had this money and had been struggling unnecessarily for months, possibly years. What was this trust, Bill demanded? The group had a right to know who was apparently bankrolling them.

The meeting devolved into a shouting match. Most people sided with Bill or tried to play the peace maker; Judy refused to budge eventually calling Bill a provocateur. He was stunned. It was quickly decided by calmer heads that they should wait until Steve came back before trying to make a decision. Most wanted to believe it was a big misunderstanding.

But Bill felt this was something more than a misunderstanding. On a hunch, he stayed up all night copying as many relevant records he had access to about this trust. His hunch was right. The following morning not only was his access to finances revoked, but he found an angry email from Steve. Why was Bill snooping through the past accounts? Steve demanded. He was only given access in case funds needed to be approved. Then why didn't you ask Judy? Bill wondered. Steve said as Bill knew, they needed two signatures on the checks. That did not mean Bill was in anyway authorized to do a unilateral audit. Bill ignored this and instead asked about the trust. Who are they? What do they do and how long have they been giving the group money?

Steve didn't respond to this email. Instead he started sending an email around to the group claiming Bill had tried to access unauthorized funds. Bill did not hear about this until he came to the meeting a week later and felt everyone eying him suspiciously. Another shouting match ensued. Steve and Judy seemed united, with Judy now suggesting Bill had threatened her at the emergency meeting. That was the point Bill left saying: "I'm sorry you think you were threatened. I did not threaten you. I asked you to explain the financial accounts and you refused to. However, since you have stated you feel threatened by my presence I will leave and we can discuss this with a mediator instead."

Judy looking stunned. He'd never liked her. Many people had left the group over the years because she could be charming one minute then cold the next. As he walked to his car, he realized Judy never lost any of the battles she'd started; the people always left. Laughing at the irony, Bill drove away from the meeting place. He would never return again as a member of that group.

Months later he would return as a plaintiff. He tried to put it behind him and get on with his life. But he was dodged by depression and anger. He'd given three years of his life to working for peace and justice. He felt betrayed, and that was in addition to the group's completely avoidable confrontation with the police and the ensuing legal fallout. He would pass a couple of his old members at hearings and was pleasantly surprised that most of them held him no ill will. It was during this time that he heard rumors that Judy was spreading that he was a mentally imbalanced thief making outlandish accusations against the group. This was something she would warn new members about. Others would protest, but she'd say that new evidence had come to light but she didn't want to go into details.

The charges of mental imbalance struck Bill as laughable and pathetic. But he took the matter of being called a thief seriously. He dealt with funds for a living and if ever he needed a new position he was not about to let Judy make that process any harder. They lived in a fairly small city and word could spread fast in their circles.

He consulted an attorney who was not sure if he had a case yet for defamation. What impressed the attorney was the documentation that Bill had made about the finances before he left. Thanks to past fund raising efforts, Bill was able to prove that he and many others had been deceived about the organization's true state of finances. At his attorney's request he asked members he was still on good terms with their recollections of past fund raisers. Word got around. Steve emailed Bill demanding he stop lying about the group being funded by the mob. Judy found time to send an email around to the group, cc'd to Bill, calling him a deranged lunatic probably working for the FBI.

Bill forwarded both these emails to his lawyer. He was advised to block Steve and Judy's emails. Bill did so. Then the financial documentation was referred to the DA. It looked to Bill's attorney that maybe there was an organized criminal element to the finances. The trust in question had no known criminal connections. But it did have connections...to a handful of other peace groups Bill had never heard of scattered throughout the United States. Bill was being scapegoated, his attorney explained, probably because of his knowledge of these finances. What they couldn't figure out was, if this trust was legal, and was funding real peace groups as appeared to be the case, why did they act as if it was a dirty family secret?

Bill received no more email's from Judy or Steve, but a couple people who finally left the group did forward him emails where Judy was telling stories on a private list about how he was out there disrupting activism and how he'd walked away with $500.00 of the group's money.

That was it. A cease and desist order was sent. Soon after, the DA found enough evidence to start looking into the affairs of both Judy and Steve. They were found out to have shared Bill's private contact information, thus explaining some mysterious emails he'd assumed to be spam. They also seemed to be indirectly responsible for the theft of his mail at one point; some over-zealous soul took their warnings of a FBI agent to heart and decided to take it on themselves to open his mail to see who he was really talking to. One was a bill, the other, a letter from a relative. Judy and Steve found themselves facing a defamation and invasion of privacy suit.

Until then they had been claiming they were victims of a "hate campaign". Now they tried to say it was all a misunderstanding and they wanted to talk to Bill. The last thing Bill was going to do was get anywhere close to these two outside of a court of law. Bill's attorney agreed; given their history, any attempts to mediate independently would muddle the case. He did think that an official mediation might help. At the very least it would show their good faith in wanting to resolve this issue outside of court. Reluctantly, Bill agreed.

Bill's attorney contacted Steve and Judy with this offer. They balked. Why did it have to be official? Couldn't they just talk? Bill's attorney patiently explained that no, after slandering and libeling Bill, an informal discussion was out of the question. They argued but agreed to go. A meeting as arranged. They never showed.

Bill was irritated. If they weren't going to do mediation that was fine. He just wanted to get the rest of it over. He'd just met someone and was reconsidering the whole case. If it wasn't for his professional reputation he may well have dropped it.

Then, a week before they were set to go to trial, a law firm contacted Bill's lawyer. They were representing Steve and Judy. They were prepared to settle out of court. And they made a "very reasonable offer".

Bill's attorney advised him to take it. Bill didn't argue.

The group Bill used to belong to still exists, but Steve is no longer the manager. To anyone who asks, Steve says he's done organizing. Judy was forced to resign as treasurer and, soon after, left the group; no one has heard from her in months.

The other organization lost all credibility in the eyes of rank and file activists, who were vindicated months later when all charges were dropped against those arrested.

Bill's engaged now. He even goes to a rally here and there, but he's very careful of who to trust. He's thinking of starting a group with some of the old members , but doesn't want it to take over his life again. He does wonder about the trust and if it still funds the group he used to be part of. If anything nags him, it's that part. He sometimes thinks part of the reason for the settlement offer was to keep the trust's name out of public scrutiny that would come with a court case.

All of this has made him feel strongly about fiscal transparency. If he's to be part of a new group, they must make financial statements completely transparent. So far his friends agree.

Will he return to peace activism? Time will tell.

Note: all names and some details have been changed to protect the privacy of all parties...even those who may not deserve it.

Dumb Crooks: My Hardboiled Story for the Week

So this guy tries to bust in our house right? He's looking for something quick and easy to turn into cash, electronics, dvds, anything. Maybe he has a habit. Don't know. I didn't ask. So he breaks the back window and tries to push the door open. It won't budge. What the poor schmuck doesn't understand is the hippies who live in the house pile up the recycling there. The crash of carefully sorted glass, plastics and cans falling down, wakes me up in the dawn.

Goddammit, I think stomping down the stairs. I told JJ not to make a leggo project of it. So I'm stomping down cursing under my breathe when the door opens. The front door. I didn't turn any light on yet, so all I see is a short squat shadow that freezes in the dark.

I flip the switch and see the sorriest excuse for a burglar. No man of mystery this one. The ripped jeans and ratty sweat shirt might have been dark blue at one time, but now they're just dark. But it's the traffic cone orange hat that sticks out.

He's as surprised to see me as I am to see him. Goddammit, I think; JJ left the door unlocked again. She says unlocked doors bring more joy into the home. If she could only see "traffic cone" head. But she's gone to her BF house so I'm left to deal with the "joy". Oh joy.

I'm too tired and annoyed to be scared. Besides the clown starts to sway on his feet and act like he's drunk before sitting on the couch to look harmless. Something about that rings a bell, but I can't hear it too well. Stomping back up stairs I call the cops who act like it's an international emergency. Maybe they could see "traffic cone" hat all the way downtown. It was bright enough. "No I don't feel unsafe; just get here!" I grouse. As I hang up I hear the door open and shut. He's gone.

When the cop arrive I give them the best description I have which isn't good. The jerk's face was shadowed. But I couldn't forget that glowing hat. And what do you know--after a walk around the block and a quick check into the local 7/11, they collar "traffic cone" hat guy who I could ID with my eyes closed in a dark room.

Then I'm walking the cops through the scene when I see it on the couch: the three dvd players JJ's brother left right where the burglar sat down! He either sat on them or by them , but he wasn't bright enough or quick enough to grab the goods before he escaped, however briefly.

Not that I'm complaining. He's not either; all he's got is breaking and entering. It'll go on his record but he'll probably walk the next day. No big; all I lost was some sleep.

After the cops left I wrote this, had a shot of ginger brew, then I went back to bed.

Moral of the story: if you're going to be a burglar, don't wear international orange on the job.

How Stupid Can You Get On The Internet?

Very stupid it turns out.

I have a friend in Michigan working on a case involving two clueless parents who helped their teenager spread rumors (or if you prefer, lies) about a classmate on the Internet.

I've discovered there seem to be many people who prolifically spread libel, but don't seem to understand how traceable their activities are. Criminal intent and ignorance of computer technology used for criminal activity is a very bad combination.

My Michigan buddy sent me this Youtube thread that was almost a mirror of the situation his office is working on. I'll print a portion; names etc have been changed, "therenow" is my friend:

"Wendy"

It's not what you think! How was I to know he'd catch me lying about the other men?

"DRSKA"

Ah, "Greg Smith" of San Diego. Your entire life is spent nipping at our heels like an entertainment dog chasing a red ball. Were you bred for amusement or stupidity?

"Therenow"

How you came to this conclusion will be an interesting read.

For the record I know neither "Wendy" nor "Greg Smith"

"DRSKA"

You must lead a boring life, then.

"Therenow "

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you feel it is important enough to bring up in your video thread, then it is important enough to explain how you know this and why you think it is relevant.

"Therenow"

So am I to take this to mean that was wild speculation on your part? "Greg Smith" is an anti poverty activist:
[LINK DELETED]

"Therenow"

He is in New York. He has posted his email address online:
[EMAIL DELETED]

Your information appears to be incorrect. Maybe you should email him about your concerns.

"DRSKA"

Why don't you knit me a sweater and get me some coffee too while you're at it. Sugar and cream, please.

"Therenow"

It seems you're saying you have no evidence to support your assertions. That's makes people wonder about your motives.

"DRSKA "

You're to learn how to read and stop interrupting the class with demands for attention.

Later in that same thread:

"Therenow"

That is my point. There is only evidence of a "Greg Smith" activist in New York. There is none for a "Greg Smith" activist in San Diego. You either have the wrong person or the wrong place.

"DRSKA "

Or perhaps you're not very good at finding evidence and should stick to your knitting.

"Therenow"

Sorry, but you obviously have no evidence to support your statements. If you had, you would have posted it days ago.

"...stick to your knitting."

Actually I fish. When I'm not working.

"DRSKA "

It's been up on the web for ages. Try using a search engine. Why do so you desperately crave my approval?

"Therenow"

"It's been up on the web for ages."

Gossip and innuendo are not evidence. If I get all my friends to say "DRSKA is a homosexual", that does not make you a homosexual no matter how much we repeat it. You have proven nothing. You are just repeating gossip.

The thread has been silent ever since. Whether it's because of complaints or because of "lost face" we don't know. This isn't serious on the surface but the dynamic is common enough to be worrying under the right circumstances.

This article by Purple Tigress makes it clear even if you're right, you are not "in the right" to "expose" someone working under a pseudonym, provided they are not breaking the law:

"Writing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can keep you out of trouble — both in your personal and public life — only to a point. While truth is the defense for libel and slander, it is NOT a defense for invasion of privacy and the Internet is the new frontier where not everything is clearly defined..."

But in the Youtube thread above it was obvious that the individual making these claims "Wendy" was "Greg Smith", had no evidence at all. (After digging into some very fringe sources, my friend found more people making similar claims about "Greg Smith", but all sources were on the level of the Weekly World News. These people also claim that no planes were used in the September 11th attacks and the government is attacking them with secret mind weapons. Consider the source.) Even the most "libertarian" hackers aren't going to get behind spreading wild rumors just because.

It's not just unethical but, if damages can be proven, you can be sued for libel and invasion of privacy. So think before you post those juicy rumors you can't substantiate.

A certain teenager's parents wish they had.

Slander and Invasion of Privacy: The New Tools to Stifle Dissent?

Free speech is not a license for intimidation tactics. When a "troll" crosses the line from being vicious and unpleasant to threatening personal safety do not hesitate to take legal action.

Those of us who post on message boards are all familiar with the "troll", the individual who is compelled to cause discord and disruption apparently for the joy of it. "Don't feed the trolls" we are admonished; by starving them of the attention they crave it is hoped they will give up and move on to other haunts. By and large this analysis is correct:

"Trolling entails luring others into pointless and time-consuming discussions. The name derives from the practice used in fishing where a baited line is dragged behind a boat (Oxford English Dictionary, 1992), although some Internet discourse refers to the troll as a fictional monster waiting under the bridge to snare innocent bystanders. Trolling often starts with a message that is "intentionally incorrect but not overly controversial." In this respect, trolling contrasts with flaming, which is "[a]n electronic mail or Usenet news message intended to insult, provoke or rebuke, or the act of sending such a message"(Free Online Dictionary of Computing, 1998). Trolling further differs from flaming in that the goal of flame bait is to incite any and all readers, whereas the goal of a troll is to draw in particularly naïve or vulnerable readers. Catching inexperienced users or "newbies" is a commonly stated aim of trollers (Andrew, 1996; Donath, 1999). As one Internet user, Andrew, states on his web site dedicated to trolling, "The object of recreational trolling is to sit back and laugh at all those gullible idiots that will believe *anything*" (Andrew, 1996). In practice, however, trolling and flaming often merge, in that in both cases, there is intent to disrupt the on-going conversation, and both can lead to extended aggravated argument."

From : http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html


But there is another type of troll that primarily visits political forums, who is more akin to the "internet stalker", but is very careful to "blend" with other trolls until they have a target. Like the common troll they appear to start fights for no real purpose. But unlike the common troll, ignoring them does not make them go away. They may be quiet for a brief time, but they return as soon as the subject comes back around to their interest. They are impervious to logic, are experts at disingenuous argument, know no shame, and will go out of their way to target individuals outside of the forum in question, going so far as to call for them to be hunted down as enemies of free speech.

Examining the traits of this troll species, one might conclude we are dealing with a kind of sociopath; they do excel at the "pity play" when they find themselves banned, the "pity play" when confronted is a known trademark of the sociopath. But it is hard to image pure chance accounting for the sheer numbers, persistence and density of these individuals in highly controversial political forums.

Known disruptive individuals who focus on politically controversial areas:


Keith Bridgeman, variety of sock puppets; focus, Parkinson's disease, atomic bombings

"Superdude" focus, National Politics

"Killtown", focus, noplanes/911

"Kent", focus, women's issues

Following is part of a case study involving Kent:

"The trolling incident occurred on a web-based discussion forum sponsored by a large-circulation feminist magazine published in the United States. The purpose of the discussion forum is to provide a space for dialogue advancing feminist concerns and issues. The forum has over 4,000 members, of whom about 200 participate actively. In the discussion analyzed in this paper, 41 individuals participated, 90% of them female and 10% of them male. Participants sometimes disagree on individual interpretations of feminist ideology and action, but generally share an agreement that women are politically disadvantaged compared to men, and that feminism is the best way to address this problem.
In early February of 2000, this agreement was challenged from two different sources. Several gun rights advocates from another forum joined the feminist forum exclusively to advocate against gun control legislation, starting more than a dozen new threads to argue their point of view. During the same period, a new male participant, Kent, started posting messages that were intentionally antagonistic to the core values of the forum. In his introduction to the forum, Kent identified himself as a middle-aged man in a professional position that involved overseas travel. He claimed to have been previously removed from other feminist forums for his views, and he also claimed he would eventually be removed from this feminist forum. He described himself as openly hostile to feminism, and started attacking forum members in dozens of posts spread throughout the forum.
Over a period of eight days alone, more than 80 posts were written to a thread discussing Kent's participation in that thread. Partly as a result of this discussion, the forum administrators adopted a new policy for participating in the forum (see Appendix A). Kent was eventually banned from the forum as a result of the new policy."


This more serious type of trolls ups the ante, crossing into legal territory by stalking, threats, calling for people to be hunted down and revealing others' personal information, or, just as bad, revealing a completely unrelated person's information in the mistaken belief they are the troll's target.

Why would a person take the risk of breaking the law just to get back at someone on-line? They may believe they are protected by their Internet anonymity. Perhaps they believe that no one will take the trouble to pursue charges with the authorities. Filing a suit is more trouble than most people are willing to go through over what seems to them a simple political disagreement. Instead they are more likely to leave the forum or at least stop posting.

Was this the goal of the stalker troll all along?

It seems "out there" to most rational people that anyone would go to the trouble to hire people with the express purpose of driving people away from participation in on-line political discussions. But there is a solid precedent for this speculation:

In July of 2007 a story was posted at Daily Kos about rent-a-trolls:

"Rent a Trolls!!! They've Got F&^%ing Rent a Trolls?
by LunkHead
Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:07:24 AM PDT
For this campaign season, it looks like someone is offering the services of trolls and sock puppets for hire. "


This was in the run up for the election, but it would not be a stretch to think that a corporation or lobbying firm could take advantage of such services to spread their message. Or frustrate grass roots opposition to their message.

The "jury is out" as they say, but the combination of traditional trolling sociopathic traits(especially the "pity play") combined with targeting individuals for harassment, invasion of privacy, and threats, forces one to consider that some stalker trolls are part of an organized intentional plan to drive people out of online political participation.

____________________________________________________________


Note: The "pity play" is described in "The Sociopath Next Door" as the calculated attempt of a sociopath to evade responsibility by claiming they are the hurt and injured party when confronted about their actions. This manifests in the stalker troll when, in spite of meticulous documentation of their misbehavior, they claim to be the target of a "censorship" or "hate campaign". At no point do they accept any responsibility for their part in the situation.

References:

Keith Bridgeman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TOJO

"Superdude"
http://www.politicsforumpoliticalworld.com/member-feedback/11566-banned.html

"Killtown"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12116

"Kent"
http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html

Referencing "illegal trolling"
http://fixunix.com/linux/347144-re-trolls-censorship.html

Miscellaneous
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/17/9137/01266

http://www.flayme.com/stalker/spiro.shtml

Bloggers Beware: Libel and Invasion of Privacy
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/18/043121.php
________________________________________________________________________
This article is the result of on going research into the activities of a political stalker troll. Feel free to email me about your own stories of being stalked online(email harassment, calls to "hunt you down", invasions or attempted invasions of privacy) as a direct result of your online political participation: tambro12@gmail.com

If you find yourself the target of illegal attacks from a "troll" online, including but not limited to threats to your physical safety, demands to reveal your personal information, especially when they do not, calls for stalking, document everything and do not hesitate to contact any of the following, urging them to take prompt appropriate action:

the site administrator/owner
your local police department
an attorney
a computer consultant to check your security

Free speech is not a license for intimidation tactics.