HELP FOR SPARROW

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
As some of you may know, Sparrow - a fearless protester who always exemplifies courageousness, consistency, persistence while serving as an emancipator and educator against the crimes of Scientology was handed his TRO papers on July 24th. His case is being held today, July 26th.

Sparrow is AWESOME. :happydance: And so are YOU Ms. Pittny. :yes: :D

Seems that he will in fact need some help, unless as you mentioned an attorney will represent him pro bono. Especially after they filed additional papers against him today as well. Anything I can do to support him I definitely will do. He's doing more than his share to help educate the world about the dark side of scientology.
 

pittny12

Patron with Honors
I have spoken to Sparrow and since he thought that Kim Bellote was going to be representing herself as he was going to be representing himself, he thought that he was not going to need legal representation.

However, since Kendrick Moxin showed his face and is now representing Ms. Belotte, Sparrow was asked by the judge if he wanted to represent himself or have time to seek for legal representation. Sparrow has a couple of days to decide and the next hearing is August 12th. (I think he posted the incorrect date on WWP). If there is ANYONE out there that can give him some legal advice or knows of someone that can represent him, I know that he would greatly appreciate it.

As I stated before he must make a decision soon as to represent himself against Moxon or find an attorney.

HELP IS DEFINETELY NEEDED NOW AND WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED!

Thank you!
 

Mystic

Crusader
Someone please clue me in on what is going on? Like what happened? What is Kim Belotti's (I knew her parents very well) involvement? Details, mon, details.

Please.
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
I have spoken to Sparrow and since he thought that Kim Bellote was going to be representing herself as he was going to be representing himself, he thought that he was not going to need legal representation.

As I stated before he must make a decision soon as to represent himself against Moxon or find an attorney.

HELP IS DEFINETELY NEEDED NOW AND WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED!

I've spoken to & emailed Sparrow some solid referrals. Hopefully, he has allies near him that can assist him in finding the appropriate attorney. I have discussed with him potential complications with setting up a defense fund account.

I have confirmed that none of said complications apply in Sparrow's case, so I would encourage the establishment of a defense fund if that's the road Sparrow wants to take. I'll leave that up to him.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Here is the DC law:



DC ST § 22-404

Formerly cited as DC ST 1981 § 22-504

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness
Division IV. Criminal Law and Procedure and Prisoners.

Title 22. Criminal Offenses and Penalties. (Refs & Annos)

Subtitle I. Criminal Offenses.

Chapter 4. Assault; Mayhem; Threats. (Refs & Annos)

arrow.gif
§ 22-404. Assault or threatened assault in a menacing manner; stalking.



(a)(1) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both.

(2) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes significant bodily injury to another shall be fined not more than $3,000 or be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "significant bodily injury" means an injury that requires hospitalization or immediate medical attention.


(b) Repealed.


(c) Repealed.


(d) Repealed.


(e) Repealed.

CREDIT(S)

(Mar. 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1322, ch. 854, § 806; May 8, 1993, D.C. Law 9-269, § 2, 39 DCR 9014; Nov. 17, 1993, D.C. Law 10-53, § 2, 40 DCR 5446; Aug. 20, 1994, D.C. Law 10-151, § 105(d), 41 DCR 2608; May 16, 1995, D.C. Law 10-255, § 16, 41 DCR 5193; June 3, 1997, D.C. Law 11-275, § 3, 44 DCR 1408; Apr. 24, 2007, D.C. Law 16-306, § 207, 53 DCR 8610; Dec. 10, 2009, D.C. Law 18-88, § 302, 56 DCR 7413.)

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Codifications

1981 Ed., § 22-504.

1973 Ed., § 22-504.

Effect of Amendments

D.C. Law 16-306 rewrote subsec. (a), which had read as follows:

"(a) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both."

D.C. Law 18-88 repealed subsecs. (b) to (e), which had read as follows:

"(b) Any person who on more than one occasion engages in conduct with the intent to cause emotional distress to another person or places another person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or harassing that person, or who, without a legal purpose, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, is guilty of the crime of stalking and shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned not more than 12 months, or both. Constitutionally protected activity, such as conduct by a party to a labor dispute in furtherance of labor or management objectives in that dispute, is not included within the meaning of this definition.

"(c) Any person who violates subsection (b) of this section when there is in effect a court order imposing a temporary restraining order, an injunction, a temporary protection order, civil protection order, stay-away or no contact order, civil restraining order, or any combination thereof, prohibiting contact between that person and the individual who is the victim of the conduct described in subsection (b) of this section shall be subject to the penalties set forth therein and in addition shall be required to give bond, for a period not exceeding 1 year, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section.

"(d) A second conviction occurring within 2 years of a first conviction for an offense under subsection (b) or (c) of this section, or for a similar offense under the law of any other jurisdiction, shall result in a fine of up to 1 1/2 times the maximum fines authorized for the offenses in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and imprisonment for a term of up to 1 1/2 times the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the offense. If such person was previously convicted more than once of an offense described in subsection (b) or (c) of this section, such person may be subject to a fine of up to 3 times the maximum fines authorized for the offenses in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and imprisonment for a term of up to 3 times the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for each offense. No conviction with respect to which a person has been pardoned on the grounds of innocence shall be taken into account in applying this section.

"(e) For the purpose of this section, the term 'harassing' means engaging in a course of conduct either in person, by telephone, or in writing, directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms, annoys, frightens, or torments the person, or engaging in a course of conduct either in person, by telephone, or in writing, which would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed, frightened, or tormented."

Emergency Act Amendments

For temporary amendment of section, see § 105(d) of the Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 1994 (D.C. Act 10-255, June 22, 1994, 41 DCR 4286).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 207 of Omnibus Public Safety Emergency Amendment Act of 2006 (D.C. Act 16-445, July 19, 2006, 53 DCR 6443).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 207 of Omnibus Public Safety Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2006 (D.C. Act 16-490, October 18, 2006, 53 DCR 8686).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 207 of Omnibus Public Safety Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2007 (D.C. Act 17-10, January 16, 2007, 54 DCR 1479).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 207 of Omnibus Public Safety Second Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2007 (D.C. Act 17-25, April 19, 2007, 54 DCR 4036).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 302 of Omnibus Public Safety and Justice Emergency Amendment Act of 2009 (D.C. Act 18-181, August 6, 2009, 56 DCR 6903).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 302 of Omnibus Public Safety and Justice Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2009 (D.C. Act 18- 227, October 21, 2009, 56 DCR 8668).

Legislative History of Laws

Law 9-269, the "Anti-Stalking Temporary Amendment of 1992," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 9-659. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on October 6, 1992, and November 4, 1992, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on November 23, 1992, it was assigned Act No. 9-317 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 9-269 became effective on May 8, 1993.

Law 10-53, the "Anti-Stalking Amendment Act of 1993," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 10-42, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on June 1, 1993, and June 29, 1993, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on July 16, 1993, it was assigned Act No. 10-46 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 10-53 became effective on November 17, 1993.

Law 10-151, the "Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Amendment Act of 1994," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 10-98, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on March 29, 1994, and April 12, 1994, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on May 4, 1994, it was assigned Act No. 10-238 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 10-151 became effective on August 20, 1994.

Law 10-255, the "Technical Amendments Act of 1994," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 10-673, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on June 21, 1994, and July 5, 1994, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on July 25, 1994, it was assigned Act No. 10-302 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 10-255 became effective May 16, 1995.

Law 11-275, the "Second Criminal Code Technical Amendments Act of 1996," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 11-909, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on November 7, 1996, and December 3, 1996, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on December 24, 1996, it was assigned Act No. 11-520 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 11-275 became effective on June 3, 1997.

Law 16-306, the "Omnibus Public Safety Amendment Act of 2006", was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 16-247, which was referred to Committee on the Judiciary. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on June 6, 2006, and October 3, 2006, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on October 17, 2006, it was assigned Act No. 16-482 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 16-306 became effective on April 24, 2007.

Law 18-88, the "Omnibus Public Safety and Justice Amendment Act of 2009", as introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 18-151, which was referred to the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. The bill as adopted on first and second readings on June 30, 2009, and July 31, 2009, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on August 26, 2009, it was assigned Act No. 18-189 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 18-88 became effective on December 10, 2009.

DC CODE § 22-404


Current through June 16, 2010

Copyright © 2010 By the District of Columbia. All Rights Reserved.
END OF DOCUMENT



© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Adobe Reader is required to view PDF images.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Here is the DC law:

Thanks for providing the DC law. One thing I noticed pretty quick is that an Assault per the definition was clearly carried out (in my opinion).
Not BY Sparrow, but rather against him. Video evidence has already been posted on this board, along with what appears to be death threats against him.

Last I checked, protesting while on a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected activity. Sparrow would do well to consult with an attorney who specializes in this aspect of law in addition to the appropriate criminal laws. I've noticed in the past that police are often confused about this aspect of the law.......about what activity is and is not protected under the constitution. Or sometimes they are *not* confused but just ignore the laws.
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Yes, I think Sparrow should read this because he has grounds for a counter suit if they want to persue it.

I also note that it has to be repeated actions towards a person that brings about fear. Kim has no grounds IMO, but Sparrow does.
Thanks for providing the DC law. One thing I noticed pretty quick is that an Assault per the definition was clearly carried out (in my opinion).
Not BY Sparrow, but rather against him. Video evidence has already been posted on this board, along with what appears to be death threats against him.

Last I checked, protesting while on a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected activity. Sparrow would do well to consult with an attorney who specializes in this aspect of law in addition to the appropriate criminal laws. I've noticed in the past that police are often confused about this aspect of the law.......about what activity is and is not protected under the constitution. Or sometimes they are *not* confused but just ignore the laws.
 

pittny12

Patron with Honors
Bringing in Ken Moxon was a move I didn't anticipate, I assumed they would bring in some local schiester doofus. That they brought in Moxon is something that the Sparrow should be extremely proud of, that means that they obviously consider him to be a serious threat, or, at a minimum, an unbearable pain in the ass for FCDC.

Personally, I admire Ken Moxon. That isn't to say that I like him, and it isn't to say that I don't think he is an asshole of monumental proportions, because clearly he is. I admire and respect him as a worthy opponent. He is to liars what a Stradivarious is to violins, a sociopathic waste of humanity. In otherwords, he is one helluva lawyer. I hope that the Sparrow manages to kick his ass with the truth in the form of his captured video evidence. Should Moxon prevail, I hope that some other DC anons pick up the slack. Apparently, the constant pressure that the Sparrow has been putting on them is taking its toll. I live in St. Louis, if I was out in DC I would take a shift on weekends.

Meanwhile ... at the risk of repeating myself and being redundant ... the arena that Moxon fights in is the arena of legal fictions. There are lots and lots of legal fictions around these days ... corporate entities, LLC's, fictitious business names, etc. Flesh and blood human beings in court room settings DO NOT directly interact with legal fictions, rather, they do so through their
"person" which IS a legal fiction. The nature of a "person" is a trust entity that was created through the birth registration process, and further entangled with the system via SSN, driver's license, voter registration, etc. Anywhere you see your name in ALL UPPERCASE it is the legal fiction "person" that is being addressed. Government is trustee, and the flesh and blood human being behind the "person" is a "contributing beneficiary". Beneficiaries have no say so as to how a trust is operated. That the beneficiary is "contributing" means that the beneficiary can incur liability on behalf of the trust. What a deal ... you have no say so as to the operation of the trust but you are expected to sign for it and incur liability on its behalf. THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE!!!

In the case of the statutory so-called "person" the flesh and blood human being beneficiary is holder in due course over the trust and has the ultimate right and claim over it. All you really have to do is file the right sort of lien action against the trust to become what is known as a "secured party creditor". You also have to fully understand the process and all that it entails and implies, but, once done, it then becomes possible to head off ANY action that the likes of a Kendrick Moxon could bring on behalf of whatever legal fiction entity he is representing.

The best video out on the web today to start understanding this concept is
"Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception" featuring Robert Arthur Menard, Freeman on the Land. The video is posted on youtube, also google video, vimeo, and on Menard's website, http://www.thinkfree.ca

Pete

Thanks for the explanation!
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
Who's threathening? - Not Sparrow!

However the Cult did hand him an SP Order, a Supressive Person Declare! - Which means that this large group of religious fanatics announced their intentions in writing!
HCOPL 18 OCT 67, Issue IV
PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS
··/··
ENEMY - SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.​
Well?

Anyway, I wanted to use the SP Declare in my own courtcase againt them. But they didn't deliver, so that didn't work out. But my guess is that I would have won the case with it..

(I learned later that they did indeed write up an SP Declare for me.. Was posted at the Orgs in DK and everyone I knew got it.)

:yes:
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Who's threathening? - Not Sparrow!

However the Cult did hand him an SP Order, a Supressive Person Declare! - Which means that this large group of religious fanatics announced their intentions in writing!


Good point........and not only did they announce their intentions in writing but they also put evidence on video for Sparrow (and the rest of the world) showing that they were applying the Fair Game policy. I believe that this is going to prove to be a Footbullet of monumental proportions. :yes:
 

Lovinglife625

Patron with Honors
Nope. But they could if the cards are not played correctly. Plus, everything that is posted about Sparrow on the boards will now be printed out and delivered into Moxon's hands.

Isn't that right, Sylvia, you fat retard..

LOL on how you put it Smurf.

/rant on/

In my opinion Moxon is a punk, a low life. He specializes in harassing and threatening others into compliance with the intentions of the abusive cult he represents. He looks so "big and powerful" to some because he has organized crime, I mean scientology, money proofing him up. He especially specializes in harassing those who don't have the financial or other resources to really fight back (such as he tried to do with Gregg in Boston and is trying to do with Sparrow).

I especially dislike what he does as he only cares to get a head on a pike for his master David Miscavige and he cares not if the person is innocent. Miscavige tried to do that is a huge way in the early 80s and some of us prevented him from succeeding. He is still trying decades later using flunkees like Moxon.

I knew Rick Moxon back in 1974 when we did the legal internship at the USGO and then later when I was in the USGO and he was AG Legal FCDC under me on legal matters outside of the courts. He was not such a bad guy then until he started trying to cover up abuses/crimes and to silence and otherwise hurt innocent people for a living using scientology money, not money he could ever earn on this own. He also seems to enjoy trying to intimidate witnesses/people giving depos. I look forward to the time when I am telling the truth on the stand and he tries this with me.

I remember when we were in Germany a couple of years ago speaking out about organized scientology and its lies and abuses. Moxon came over with a big team of attorneys and support to "stop us". He actually tried to intimidate one of Ursula's volunteer assistants by saying he would sue him. As he was starting to get to that assistant, I spoke with that assistant about what a joke Moxon was and how he got his jollies threatening others using the backup of organized scientology. Moxon and his team was laughed out of Germany. He lost in every possible way as he stood outside the events, powerless, as truth was told inside.

When we did the corporate reorganizations of the early 80s, Moxon was not allowed anywhere near it as it was deemed he was incompetent to help on such matters.

I believe that Moxon has a date with Karma for all the bad he has done. IMHO it will not end well for him. I just don't think one will ever find happiness, love or peace when walking a path of abusing others and supporting a group and its leader who are guilty of crimes against humanity.

Moxon is no man to fear. IMO he is a coward, hiding behind organized scientology, its money and its abusive intentions as he dances, a puppet for Miscavige, who is IMO even a bigger coward. This will not last forever.

Sparrow on the other hand is doing all he can to fight to expose abuses despite little financial resources. I completely support any legal actions to support him in fighting them including a fund for his legal defense as needed. I've met Sparrow and consider him one of the real good guys and a pleasure to be with.

/rant off/
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
To paraphrase Hubbard, if you know the law it will protect you. Well, maybe, if it is not corrupted.

I note that item "b" below, in red, can be applied to some registrar activities: causing emotional distress, stalking, harassment... The physical harm component can be applied to RPFer's and other staff subject to repeated face ripping, etc.

Turnabout is fair play.



Here is the DC law:



DC ST § 22-404

Formerly cited as DC ST 1981 § 22-504

District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness
Division IV. Criminal Law and Procedure and Prisoners.

Title 22. Criminal Offenses and Penalties. (Refs & Annos)

Subtitle I. Criminal Offenses.

Chapter 4. Assault; Mayhem; Threats. (Refs & Annos)

arrow.gif
§ 22-404. Assault or threatened assault in a menacing manner; stalking.



(a)(1) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both.

(2) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, and intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes significant bodily injury to another shall be fined not more than $3,000 or be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "significant bodily injury" means an injury that requires hospitalization or immediate medical attention.


(b) Repealed.


(c) Repealed.


(d) Repealed.


(e) Repealed.

CREDIT(S)

(Mar. 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1322, ch. 854, § 806; May 8, 1993, D.C. Law 9-269, § 2, 39 DCR 9014; Nov. 17, 1993, D.C. Law 10-53, § 2, 40 DCR 5446; Aug. 20, 1994, D.C. Law 10-151, § 105(d), 41 DCR 2608; May 16, 1995, D.C. Law 10-255, § 16, 41 DCR 5193; June 3, 1997, D.C. Law 11-275, § 3, 44 DCR 1408; Apr. 24, 2007, D.C. Law 16-306, § 207, 53 DCR 8610; Dec. 10, 2009, D.C. Law 18-88, § 302, 56 DCR 7413.)

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Prior Codifications

1981 Ed., § 22-504.

1973 Ed., § 22-504.

Effect of Amendments

D.C. Law 16-306 rewrote subsec. (a), which had read as follows:

"(a) Whoever unlawfully assaults, or threatens another in a menacing manner, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than 180 days, or both."

D.C. Law 18-88 repealed subsecs. (b) to (e), which had read as follows:

"(b) Any person who on more than one occasion engages in conduct with the intent to cause emotional distress to another person or places another person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or harassing that person, or who, without a legal purpose, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, is guilty of the crime of stalking and shall be fined not more than $500 or be imprisoned not more than 12 months, or both. Constitutionally protected activity, such as conduct by a party to a labor dispute in furtherance of labor or management objectives in that dispute, is not included within the meaning of this definition.

"(c) Any person who violates subsection (b) of this section when there is in effect a court order imposing a temporary restraining order, an injunction, a temporary protection order, civil protection order, stay-away or no contact order, civil restraining order, or any combination thereof, prohibiting contact between that person and the individual who is the victim of the conduct described in subsection (b) of this section shall be subject to the penalties set forth therein and in addition shall be required to give bond, for a period not exceeding 1 year, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section.

"(d) A second conviction occurring within 2 years of a first conviction for an offense under subsection (b) or (c) of this section, or for a similar offense under the law of any other jurisdiction, shall result in a fine of up to 1 1/2 times the maximum fines authorized for the offenses in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and imprisonment for a term of up to 1 1/2 times the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for the offense. If such person was previously convicted more than once of an offense described in subsection (b) or (c) of this section, such person may be subject to a fine of up to 3 times the maximum fines authorized for the offenses in subsections (b) and (c) of this section and imprisonment for a term of up to 3 times the maximum term of imprisonment authorized for each offense. No conviction with respect to which a person has been pardoned on the grounds of innocence shall be taken into account in applying this section.

"(e) For the purpose of this section, the term 'harassing' means engaging in a course of conduct either in person, by telephone, or in writing, directed at a specific person, which seriously alarms, annoys, frightens, or torments the person, or engaging in a course of conduct either in person, by telephone, or in writing, which would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed, frightened, or tormented."

Emergency Act Amendments

For temporary amendment of section, see § 105(d) of the Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Emergency Amendment Act of 1994 (D.C. Act 10-255, June 22, 1994, 41 DCR 4286).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 207 of Omnibus Public Safety Emergency Amendment Act of 2006 (D.C. Act 16-445, July 19, 2006, 53 DCR 6443).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 207 of Omnibus Public Safety Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2006 (D.C. Act 16-490, October 18, 2006, 53 DCR 8686).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 207 of Omnibus Public Safety Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2007 (D.C. Act 17-10, January 16, 2007, 54 DCR 1479).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 207 of Omnibus Public Safety Second Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2007 (D.C. Act 17-25, April 19, 2007, 54 DCR 4036).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 302 of Omnibus Public Safety and Justice Emergency Amendment Act of 2009 (D.C. Act 18-181, August 6, 2009, 56 DCR 6903).

For temporary (90 day) amendment of section, see § 302 of Omnibus Public Safety and Justice Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2009 (D.C. Act 18- 227, October 21, 2009, 56 DCR 8668).

Legislative History of Laws

Law 9-269, the "Anti-Stalking Temporary Amendment of 1992," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 9-659. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on October 6, 1992, and November 4, 1992, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on November 23, 1992, it was assigned Act No. 9-317 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 9-269 became effective on May 8, 1993.

Law 10-53, the "Anti-Stalking Amendment Act of 1993," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 10-42, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on June 1, 1993, and June 29, 1993, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on July 16, 1993, it was assigned Act No. 10-46 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 10-53 became effective on November 17, 1993.

Law 10-151, the "Omnibus Criminal Justice Reform Amendment Act of 1994," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 10-98, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on March 29, 1994, and April 12, 1994, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on May 4, 1994, it was assigned Act No. 10-238 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 10-151 became effective on August 20, 1994.

Law 10-255, the "Technical Amendments Act of 1994," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 10-673, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on June 21, 1994, and July 5, 1994, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on July 25, 1994, it was assigned Act No. 10-302 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 10-255 became effective May 16, 1995.

Law 11-275, the "Second Criminal Code Technical Amendments Act of 1996," was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 11-909, which was referred to the Committee of the Whole. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on November 7, 1996, and December 3, 1996, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on December 24, 1996, it was assigned Act No. 11-520 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 11-275 became effective on June 3, 1997.

Law 16-306, the "Omnibus Public Safety Amendment Act of 2006", was introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 16-247, which was referred to Committee on the Judiciary. The Bill was adopted on first and second readings on June 6, 2006, and October 3, 2006, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on October 17, 2006, it was assigned Act No. 16-482 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 16-306 became effective on April 24, 2007.

Law 18-88, the "Omnibus Public Safety and Justice Amendment Act of 2009", as introduced in Council and assigned Bill No. 18-151, which was referred to the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. The bill as adopted on first and second readings on June 30, 2009, and July 31, 2009, respectively. Signed by the Mayor on August 26, 2009, it was assigned Act No. 18-189 and transmitted to both Houses of Congress for its review. D.C. Law 18-88 became effective on December 10, 2009.

DC CODE § 22-404


Current through June 16, 2010

Copyright © 2010 By the District of Columbia. All Rights Reserved.
END OF DOCUMENT



© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
Adobe Reader is required to view PDF images.
 

Lurker5

Gold Meritorious Patron
Same here

I am willing to donate should the need arise! He brings the truth out that needs to be defended against those that attempt to suppress the truth and continue the scam known as Scientology.

Please repost a new thread asking for donations towards his cause and I am there.

Same here :yes:
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Here's hoping that when Sparrow shows up to court he brings his SP Declare and a copy of Ron's HCOB on handling of suppressives.

Oh, and a random sampling of quotes from this page too:
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/krasel/germany/quotes.html

This one for sure:

"A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (first published in "Ability, the Magazine of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY", 1955) (full text)

"The purpose of [a lawsuit] is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."

Zinj
 

Smurf

Gold Meritorious SP
Preparations are being made to set up a defense fund for Sparrow that can't be sabotaged by the psychotic douchebag (Moxon).
 
Top