To the Mitch and Nan Show: Stop harrassing me and my family and people I don’t know who share my name from across the country. Take down that autotrack.

Ann Coulter said: You know you’ve struck gold when liberals react with hysteria and rage to something you’ve said.

It’s called “kill the messenger” because they can’t stand the message, but according to the thought police, I’m the fascist. I can’t help but wonder…is this what happened to Donald Young?

Background:

Notice how they both think they’re Indiana Jones.

Joe Cafasso and Kathryn Cramer, pictured above, (no, the one on the right is Joe Cafasso–but I know it’s hard to tell the difference) held onto that Locateplus autotrack report run by Cafasso or someone connected with him- that Joe Cafasso posted on his blog back on December 17, 2005. Cramer had used my personal UNLISTED number from the autotrack report and called me, so I know that this came from their direction. I wrote blogspot because it violated their TOS, and that particular post was taken down, but it’s not lost on me that he had it to begin with, and that it would appear on the internet AGAIN at “The Mitch and Nan Show”.

This time I’m assuming it’s because I’m supporting Larry Sinclair and his getting out the story of homosexual sex and drug use in the back of a limousine with Barack Hussein Obama in 1999 when Obama claimed he’d given up drugs. All Larry is doing is asking for a response, and for Obama to correct his claim that he gave up drugs while in college. Larry witnessed Obama using cocaine when he was 38 years old and was serving as Illinois state senator. See Larry’s blog, here. What’s interesting is the fact that the Chicago police are investigating the murder of Donald Young, the gay choir director from Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church of Christ, and that Young called Sinclair before he was murdered. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. The public has a right to know, but not according to the thought police at the Mitch and Nan Show.

I will be notifying Locateplus that this report has appeared again on the internet, and I’ll be taking other action regarding this flagrant disregard for my privacy, and privacy of people I don’t even know.

Publishing the autotrack report is against the terms of service of Locateplus, which is why the individual who ran the autotrack on me lost their account with Locateplus.

I am requesting that this be taken down because it affects people that I don’t even know, in addition to several other things like - they’re breaking the law. It should be noted that Joe Cafasso has also tried to break into bank accounts has been involved in credit card fraud. Have these people no shame? The same tactics of reporting people to paypal and other stupidity used by Cafasso way back in blogging history are being used today by the Obamanots.

This report also includes information on my son, and he doesn’t have anything to do with this; he doesn’t write at my blog, and he isn’t involved with what I’m doing.

See Carteret Con Artist for more on Joe Cafasso. See also the New York Times article by James Rutenberg At Fox news: Joe Cafasso the Colonel Who Wasn’t

Years ago, I stepped right into it when I threw my online support behind Jack Idema, when his enemies were posting everywhere they could find a forum to do so on the internet about how he was a ‘torturer’, a ‘convicted felon’, and that he deserved to die. For crying out loud, the media loved him when he rescued the victims of the Nahrin Earthquake. He is a Green Beret; and did a lot of amazing things for the people of Afghanistan. That was forgotten in the blink of an eye after Abu Ghraib. The hatemongers were CELEBRATING that he was convicted and sentenced to serve time at Pulacharke Prison in Kabul by a Taliban-run kangaroo court. The defense was a joke; they weren’t allowed to question witnesses or even present their side of it, and they were convicted on the lies of known terrorists.

Nobody was allowed to have a different opinion; as Idema’s supporters were viciously attacked in a number of malicious ways, and Idema’s main enemy and the most vicious of them all- who carries his vendetta right up to today, is Joe Cafasso. He blamed the Rutenberg piece on Idema, blames Idema for losing his job at Fox News, etc.. That’s kind of funny - since a lot of people had a heads up on his con game.

He wrote on the post with the autotrack in it:

Well Ms. “Patriotic” Thomas we have been advised that as of December 16, 2005 a criminal complaint was sworn out against you for stalking in cyberspace under TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 110A §2261A. Interstate stalking, 18 U.S.C. §875(c) Interstate communications….
BTW we left out two others because we want them to be surprises…..

If you looked up Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110A §2261A, you’d find out that this is about interstate stalking - exactly what Joe does to women, and if I’m not mistaken, it was written to protect women from the kind of physical abuse that Cafasso is known to dish out to the women in his life. I never received a subpoena, this was a complete and utter lie to shut me up about Idema.

Idema’s death was so important to them that Ed Caraballo, the photojournalist who was there to record what Idema was doing, was completely ignored by the Committee to Protect Journalists - something Peter Bergen found disturbing. And the young Brent Bennett was also there along with him; I guess to them Ed and Brent’s fate was acceptable collateral damage as long as Idema disappeared for a long time. The hatred from these people toward Idema’s predicament - including, surprisingly, Uncle Jimbo from Blackfive, was shocking; as they willfully threw all three Americans under the bus. I even started a blogburst to ‘free Jack idema!’ Idema served a fraction of his sentence and was released, although it should have been in front of the world with an apology.

It’s an interesting ‘freedom of speech for me and not for thee’ mentality for these people.

What began after I threw my support behind Idema was an hysterical campaign of character assassination against me, just like the one they continue to wage today against me, with some of the same old tired retread weaponry they developed back then.

In between then and now-there has been not a peep out of them since Idema’s release two years ago, but I was waiting for the next shoe to drop, and lo and behold, here it is:

The Mitch and Nan Show - which sounds like a puppet show, doesn’t it? - posted my autotrack report again on their wordpress blog, with a priceless photoshop. Go look.

This violates wordpress’s terms of service:

By making Content available, you represent and warrant that:

• the Content is not obscene, libelous or defamatory (more info on what that means), hateful or racially or ethnically objectionable, and does not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party;

And doesn’t that photoshop strangely resemble the photoshop that I had up of Cramer and Cafasso?

But the law doesn’t apply to them when they’re waging character assassination. They break the law in the hopes they can get away with it, like the lawyer that keyed the Marine’s car.

Defamation is a legal action sounding in tort based on an intentional or reckless public false statement that injures another person’s reputation. Libel and slander are types of defamation.

The bottom line is people who carelessly collect and/or publish private details or false information about an individual that harms their reputation can get in trouble. I know this because Idema is no longer in Afghanistan, and has kept me aware of court proceedings where he has held the people who lied about him responsible. Idema’s successes in this regard have convinced me that Larry Sinclair’s course of action is completely correct.

For someone to run an autotrack and post the details - even if they “x” -out parts of social security numbers is against the terms of the agreement of both Locateplus, the outfit that ran the report, and of wordpress itself. Now, if someone like Cafasso or Cramer are selling my personal information, that’s another matter completely, but it’s not ethical, and it’s not legal.

Illinois law is very comprehensive regarding this as I posted here in 2006 after I’d discovered that Joe Cafasso was blogging on Columbia University servers on Kathryn Cramer’s stolen laptop:

Cyberstalking Laws
Illinois

720 ILCS 5/12-7.5
Sec. 12-7.5. Cyberstalking.

1. A person commits cyberstalking when he or she, knowingly and without lawful justification, on at least 2 separate occasions, harasses another person through the use of electronic communication and:
1. at any time transmits a threat of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint and the threat is directed towards that person or a family member of that person, or
2. places that person or a family member of that person in reasonable apprehension of immediate or future bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint.
2. As used in this Section:
“Harass” means to engage in a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that alarms, torments, or terrorizes that person.
“Electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writings, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electronmagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system.
“Electronic communication” includes transmissions by a computer through the Internet to another computer.
3. Sentence. Cyberstalking is a Class 4 felony. A second or subsequent conviction for cyberstalking is a Class 3 felony.

720 ILCS 135/0.01
Sec. 0.01. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Harassing and Obscene Communications Act.(Source: P.A. 90-578, eff. 6-1-98.)
Sec. 1-2. Harassment through electronic communications.

1. 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).
2. 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.
2. “Family or household member” includes spouses, former spouses, parents, children, stepchildren and other persons related by blood or by present or prior marriage, persons who share or formerly shared a common dwelling, persons who have or allegedly share a blood relationship through a child, persons who have or have had a dating or engagement relationship, and persons with disabilities and their personal assistants. For purposes of this Act, neither a casual acquaintanceship nor ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in business or social contexts shall be deemed to constitute a dating relationship.

(720 ILCS 135/1-3)
Sec. 1-3. Evidence inference. Evidence that a defendant made additional telephone calls or engaged in additional electronic communications after having been requested by a named complainant or by a family or household member of the complainant to stop may be considered as evidence of an intent to harass unless disproved by evidence to the contrary.

I’ve also been receiving telephone calls which indicates to me that they’re testing the numbers on that report. Autotrack is not a report that was created to be used in this way.

It’s a typical implied threat, and was done to Michelle Malkin when they posted her address. Their justification? I’m printing “lies”. But the definition of ‘lie’ isn’t that I’m being untruthful - it’s a case of my putting up facts that don’t agree with their political template. There is no ‘diveristy’ of intellectual thought where these people are concerned.

My personal information has been out there for years, they think they’ve hit paydirt by revealing my real name and address, but honestly, I’ve already been here! C’mon, you guys, this has already been done. And it’s still illegal, and I’m still going to fight to have it taken down.

Even though these people break the law without flinching, I think it’s funny that they are desperate to paint a picture of the people they disagree with as people who break the law.

Cafasso has spent time in jail for unpaid child support. He stole Cramer’s mac laptop - by Cramer’s own admission, and bilked her out of 20 grand. I think that’s pretty major stuff, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Now the Obama copycats who can’t come up with an original thought are going after Larry in the same way as Cafasso, Artis, Cramer, Pelton, etc.- went after Idema, quaking in fear that Larry is going to disrupt some DNC meeting - after he said he would LOVE to be there. But the question should be, What are they afraid of? Larry is just one guy who’s lying, right? Even if he showed up, what harm would it do? Are they that frightened that Larry’s story has traction? Are they that frightened that Larry might in fact come face-to-face with Obama and the truth would come out?

After all, if Obama is innocent of the charges, why do they protect him from answering them?

These people are not only overly sensitive, they’re wacked out. What are these fascists going to do, put him under house arrest?

When they lose in the battle of ideas, and they always seem to, it’s common practice now to go after people personally to shut them up. Cafasso reportedly did it to Rutenberg, but what Rutenberg printed about hiim was TRUE.

The Mitch squad is our modern day thought police - and to them, there is only ‘one correct way of thinking’. If you disagree, they’ll do terrible things; like accuse you of being a felon, a mental patient, or any number of lies. It’s a rather militant approach they’re taking for their ‘kinder peaceful world’, LOL

When it crosses over to up close and personal, and breaking the law, then the gloves have to come off.

If you have any suggestions, legal or otherwise, they are welcome, email me at caoilfhionn1@gmail dot com