gobbletygork

I see a lot of examples of it out there. Like here, here, here, here, here. That's just at one blog, but another example is: here . One can only assume with some of what's been written about Stuporpatriots being written by Joe Cafasso (from witnesses who've seen him posting to the blog), that there is a connection between his cyberstalking women and others and Columbia University's turning a blind eye to the fact that he does it with their own equipment.

Cyberstalking is clearly against the law, and New York has some explicit wording to that effect:

States in the U.S. have begun to address the use of computer equipment for stalking purposes:

• Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire and New York have included prohibitions against harassing electronic, computer or e-mail communications in their harassment legislation.

I'm not certain if this legislation has been passed in New York, but it would be to strengthen that which is already on the books:

A05376 Summary:

BILL NO    A05376

SAME AS    No same as

SPONSOR    Mosiello

COSPNSR    Acampora, Burling, Wirth, Kolb, Mirones

MLTSPNSR   Bacalles, Barra, Calhoun, Casale, Galef, McDonough, Oaks, Rabbitt,
   Reilich, Stephens, Townsend

Amd S156.00, add S120.18, Pen L

Creates crime of cyberstalking in the first degree and makes it a class E

felony; defines "computer network" on which crime must take place.

Federal laws have been passed in order to protect people from stalkers like Cafasso (at usdoj.gov):

Federal cyberstalking laws

Federal law provides a number of important tools that are available to combat cyberstalking. Under 18 U.S.C. 875(c), it is a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, to transmit any communication in interstate or foreign commerce containing a threat to injure the person of another. Section 875(c) applies to any communication actually transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce - thus it includes threats transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce via the telephone, e-mail, beepers, or the Internet.

Although 18 U.S.C. 875 is an important tool, it is not an all-purpose anti-cyberstalking statute. First, it applies only to communications of actual threats. Thus, it would not apply in a situation where a cyberstalker engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to harass or annoy another (absent some threat). Also, it is not clear that it would apply to situations where a person harasses or terrorizes another by posting messages on a bulletin board or in a chat room encouraging others to harass or annoy another person (as in the California case, discussed infra.).

Certain forms of cyberstalking also may be prosecuted under 47 U.S.C. 223. One provision of this statute makes it a federal crime, punishable by up to two years in prison, to use a telephone or telecommunications device to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten any person at the called number.⁽¹⁰⁾ The statute also requires that the perpetrator not reveal his or her name. See 47 U.S.C. 223(a)(1)(C). Although this statute is broader than 18 U.S.C. 875 -- in that it covers both threats and harassment -- Section 223 applies only to direct communications between the perpetrator and the victim. Thus, it would not reach a cyberstalking situation where a person harasses or terrorizes another person by posting messages on a bulletin board or in a chat room encouraging others to harass or annoy another person. Moreover, Section 223 is only a misdemeanor, punishable by not more than two years in prison.

The Interstate Stalking Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, makes it a crime for any person to travel across state lines with the intent to injure or harass another person and, in the course thereof, places that person or a member of that person's family in a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. See 18 U.S.C. 2261A. Although a number of serious stalking cases have been prosecuted under Section 2261A, the requirement that the stalker physically travel across state lines makes it largely inapplicable to cyberstalking cases.

Kathryn Cramer refers to the 'new attack dogs' and separates herself from whoever is writing there. I'm sorry, I don't know where they are. She should link to them so people can see what is being written there. The only ones I'm aware of are Carteret Con Artist and some things that Cao has written at Cao's blog, but those are the only two, at least that I know of. Cao has been around for a while as far as I can tell, so Cao's blog doesn't fit into the description of 'new attack dog blog' or whatever it was she said about it. If I find any, I'm going to link them in my sidebar.

I know there are search tools out there, I'll have to do some more investigation to see what other blogs there might be which are exposing what appears to be Joe Cafasso's long history of deception.

I don't know what I can add except federal law prohibits cyberstalking, this Violence Against Women Act is thorough. Cafasso's talking about Cao being 'a candidate for spousal abuse' or something with that sort of ring to it- certainly shows us that he doesn't have a problem with it under certain circumstances, we have women who've come forward who've talked about his physical violence toward them. The mensa girl is actually in hiding as a result of it; he destroyed her life. It isn't difficult or crazy to then arrive at the conclusion that his cyberstalking could go even further to in-person, in-your-face physical violence toward someone. That seems to be the chain of events in other cases of cyberstalking; the perp finds the woman and it eventually leads to his discovering where she lives, and things escalate from there. Cafasso's stalking isn't limited to women on the internet; he's just widened his repertoire to be inclusive of that technique. Fox News talks about this law here:

Fiery debate surrounds Section 113 of the Violence Against Women Act--a last minute addition to the act titled Preventing Cyberstalking.

Is the new law 'evil' or merely redundant? Will it destroy Internet communications as we know them or have no effect? Do members of Congress actually read the measures upon which they vote?

Section 113 was signed into law by President Bush on January 5. It amends 47 U.S.C. 223, the telecommunications harassment statute that is rooted in the Communications Act of 1934.

The telecommunications statute prohibits anyone from using a telephone or a telecommunications device "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person."

In application this has meant that you cannot anonymously annoy another person through the phone lines. Penalties include two years in prison and onerous fines.

Section 113 amends the statute to include "any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet."

Click here to see the specific additions to and deletions.

On January 9, electronic-freedom guru Declan McCullagh published an article entitled "Create an e-annoyance, go to jail." Almost instant furor ensued.

McCullagh opened by declaring, "It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity."

McCullagh and those who agree with his interpretation of Section 113 represent 'the law is evil and will damage the Internet' side of the debate. Their warnings revolve around the two "A"s: "annoyance" and "anonymous."

First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh argues that Section 113, if consistently applied, will criminalize annoying Web speech that is also meant to inform. For example, the anonymous creator of a blog that criticizes a politician may sincerely wish the target to become uncomfortable enough with public backlash to change his or her behavior. If the site engages in damaging lies, then existing libel laws apply.

Otherwise the right to state opinions under a pen name has been generally recognized by the First Amendment, with certain exceptions such as threats.

And that is where Cafasso has crossed the line, you see. The Stuporpatriots is a website where he has harangued and harrassed since its inception all supporters of Jack Idema. And it isn't my intent on this blog to take up that story; it's my intent here to concentrate on the outrageous and sometimes illegal behavior of Joe Cafasso.

For certain women, that law might be a Godsend, but where Cafasso is concerned, even though he's a dirtbag with not a pot to piss in, it would have to be pursued through the courts in order for it to do any good. His brazen attitude demonstrates he knows he doesn't have a thing for people to sue him for in court; the only people that will be able to accomplish something through the courts are those who want to force him to stop. A serial stalker, though, rarely gives up what turns him on. The beginning for these women from where I sit should be filing a TRO with accompanying documentation. As far as I can tell, there are at least a few who have a good case for pursuing this to force him to stop.

Another interesting article here talking about a California cyberstalker who was nailed as a result of related legislation:

Prosecutors said the jailed suspect, Gary Steven Dellapenta, posted messages under the unidentified woman's name. The notes, which appeared in America Online chat rooms and on the Net, said the woman had an unfulfilled sexual fantasy of being raped. The posts included her name, address, phone number, and instructions for disarming her home-security system, prosecutors said.

At various times since the posts began early last year, six men did show up at the woman's apartment in North Hollywood, police said. They didn't gain entry, however. Dellapenta, first arrested in November, was charged with stalking; using a computer to commit fraud, deceive or extort; and solicitation to commit sexual assault, charges that could bring seven years in prison. Dellapenta has pleaded not guilty and is being held in lieu of $300,000 bail.

"Men would come to her door in the middle of the night," the victim's mother told The Los Angeles Times. "She got dozens of calls by men who would leave filthy, disgusting messages."

Her daughter became so desperate that she placed a note on her apartment door saying the Internet ads were fakes posted by someone out to harm her. But new messages would be posted, saying that the note itself was part of the fantasy and to disregard it, the mother told The Times.

She added that her daughter was so terrified that she lost her job and dropped from 130 pounds to just 95 pounds today.

California's cyber-stalking law took effect 1 January and is similar lto statutes on the books in Alaska, Connecticut, New York, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.

Posted by gobbletygork on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 2:29 AM | Permalink