4) “Harass” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person

Hello. Aren’t you doing this yourself?

(a) A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort:

(1) The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff. In order to establish this element, the plaintiff shall be required to support his or her allegations with independent corroborating evidence.

(2) As a result of that pattern of conduct, the plaintiff reasonably feared for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member. For purposes of this paragraph, “immediate family” means a spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any person who regularly resides, or, within the six months preceding any portion of the pattern of conduct, regularly resided, in the plaintiff’s household.

(3) One of the following:

(A) The defendant, as a part of the pattern of conduct specified in paragraph (1), made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member and, on at least one occasion, the plaintiff clearly and definitively demanded that the defendant cease and abate his or her pattern of conduct and the defendant persisted in his or her pattern of conduct.

(B) The defendant violated a restraining order, including, but not limited to, any order issued pursuant to Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prohibiting any act described in subdivision (a).

(b) For the purposes of this section:

(1) “Pattern of conduct” means conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “pattern of conduct.”

(2) “Credible threat” means a verbal or written threat, including that communicated by means of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family.

(3) “Electronic communication device” includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. “Electronic communication” has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

(4) “Harass” means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.

Maybe you might want to brush up on stalking laws in california seeing as you can’t seem to drag yourself away from all things pertaining to me.

But go ahead and post what you think is my address. I’m interested in seeing what adress pulls up for a name I havnt used in a decade besides on blogs and myspace.

Actually, lying in print is illegal here in California. See Civil Code section 44, et seq. See also Elections Code section 20500, et seq. For your sake, I sure hope you aren’t formally affiliated with Guiliani’s campaign.

You fabricated – out of whole cloth – several quotes for Fred Thompson. This blog documented several of them in the past. I’m sure I could find several posts by you which amount to ‘libel on its face’ in a couple minutes.

Here’s a clue: the First Amendment does not apply to:
1. “fighting words” ( see Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) 315 U.S. 568, 572);
2. a “true threat” ( see Virginia v. Black (2003) 538 U.S. 343, 359);
3. an incitement to imminent lawless action ( see Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) 395 U.S. 444, 447);
4. obscenity ( see Roth v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 476, 485); or
5. DEFAMATION ( see Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) 343 U.S. 250, 266)