Sparrow now set to be arrested for stalking!

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Cross-Posted from WWP:



30 Minutes Ago
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/328-...sed-court-set-sept-10-a-70277/42/#post1303223
tikk
Member



Location: nyc


clear.gif
Re: Sparrow charged - attempted stalking. Released. Court set for Sept. 10
As some have already astutely questioned, "Attempted Stalking: WTF?" I'll try to exlain why the crime itself makes no sense under any law.

Every crime is comprised of two components: a 'mens rea' (state of mind) and an 'actus reus' (an act). You can't prove a crime without showing that both elements were present. For example, in a typical first degree homicide statute, the mens rea is 'intent to kill' and the actus reus is the physical act, e.g., stabbing, shooting, etc. If you shot someone but didn't intend to kill them, you are not guilty of first degree homicide.

With regard to stalking, per the D.C. statute, the mens rea is the intent to cause (or not intend but reasonably understand would cause) a person to fear for their safety, become frightened, or to suffer emotional distress. The actus reus refers to the course of conduct engaged in--typically stalkers follow, surveil, call, etc.

The essential nature of an "attempt" crime is that the mens rea (state of mind) is present but the actus reus is not. Thus, a defendant guilty of attempted homicide intended to kill but whose shot, for instance, failed to do so.

Here, attempted stalking means that the prosecution must show that Sparrow intended to cause Belotte to fear for her safety, etc., but failed to complete the actus reus--i.e., he failed, for example, to repeatedly follow, surveil, and/or call Belotte, but nevertheless attempted to do so.

It should be apparent, then, why "attempted stalking" makes so little sense here. Sparrow never attempted (and thus failed) to commit the actus reus. His acts, protesting the Org and exchanging words with Belotte, are either stalking or they are not. There was no attempt.
 

Div6

Crusader
Cross-Posted from WWP:



30 Minutes Ago
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/328-...sed-court-set-sept-10-a-70277/42/#post1303223
tikk
Member



Location: nyc


clear.gif
Re: Sparrow charged - attempted stalking. Released. Court set for Sept. 10
As some have already astutely questioned, "Attempted Stalking: WTF?" I'll try to exlain why the crime itself makes no sense under any law.

Every crime is comprised of two components: a 'mens rea' (state of mind) and an 'actus reus' (an act). You can't prove a crime without showing that both elements were present. For example, in a typical first degree homicide statute, the mens rea is 'intent to kill' and the actus reus is the physical act, e.g., stabbing, shooting, etc. If you shot someone but didn't intend to kill them, you are not guilty of first degree homicide.

With regard to stalking, per the D.C. statute, the mens rea is the intent to cause (or not intend but reasonably understand would cause) a person to fear for their safety, become frightened, or to suffer emotional distress. The actus reus refers to the course of conduct engaged in--typically stalkers follow, surveil, call, etc.

The essential nature of an "attempt" crime is that the mens rea (state of mind) is present but the actus reus is not. Thus, a defendant guilty of attempted homicide intended to kill but whose shot, for instance, failed to do so.

Here, attempted stalking means that the prosecution must show that Sparrow intended to cause Belotte to fear for her safety, etc., but failed to complete the actus reus--i.e., he failed, for example, to repeatedly follow, surveil, and/or call Belotte, but nevertheless attempted to do so.

It should be apparent, then, why "attempted stalking" makes so little sense here. Sparrow never attempted (and thus failed) to commit the actus reus. His acts, protesting the Org and exchanging words with Belotte, are either stalking or they are not. There was no attempt.

It was a compromise....the DA couldn't just drop it, so they reduced it to this ridiculous charge.....if there is justice in this world, they will now drop it and expunge the record. Bawwlotte was so OBVIOUSLY acting for the security camera that any one with any ability to OBSERVE (and remember, KSW says that the not-quite-bright are shut off from the fruits of observation) can see that it is a competely bogus charge. BUT, from the angle of the security camera, if you were a Noob Officer, you would do what they did. Obvious manipulation of the legal system is obvious.

But thanks for this explanation. It makes it seem to be an un-winnable case from the legal standpoint. The advantages this gives the scilons currently are: 1) No Sparrow in front of the org; and 2) an opportunity to deploy their dirty tricks squad to try to compromise the TRO.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
" ......1) No Sparrow in front of the org........"

If Sparrow is blocked from protesting in front of the org there are some other places he can carry his message. He can protest in front of the White House. He can go onto Anderson Cooper and get his message out to millions of people. He has enough video already which could be used to make an awesome documentary on the cult. They demonstrated (on video) how their Fair Game policy works including death threats against Sparrow. The possibilities are endless. :yes:
CoS should enjoy their "win" while they can. It's not over yet. :coolwink:
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
He can protest at the IRS:

'No Tax Exempt Cults!'
'No Secret Deals!'

He can protest at Homeland Security:

'Scientology Fair Game = Terrorism'
'Scientology Domestic Espionage since 1950'
'Scientology Minister Visa = Slave Labor'

He can protest at the Justice Department:

'RICO for Ron! Scientology - Criminal Conspiracy'

etc.

Zinj
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
. Bawwlotte was so OBVIOUSLY acting for the security camera that any one with any ability to OBSERVE (and remember, KSW says that the not-quite-bright are shut off from the fruits of observation) can see that it is a competely bogus charge. BUT, from the angle of the security camera, if you were a Noob Officer, you would do what they did. Obvious manipulation of the legal system is obvious.

But thanks for this explanation. It makes it seem to be an un-winnable case from the legal standpoint. The advantages this gives the scilons currently are: 1) No Sparrow in front of the org; and 2) an opportunity to deploy their dirty tricks squad to try to compromise the TRO.

Where can I see that footage please?
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on



SCIENO-SCENARIO: If Scientology was being audited with it's own tech.....

AUDITOR
What are your crimes?

SCIENTOLOGY
Never mind that, we just had a huge
4th Dynamic win by completing the
drywall in the new Ideal Org!

AUDITOR
I will repeat the auditing command.
What are your crimes?
That...that...that....that...

SCIENTOLOGY
Oh. That's being a phony religion and not paying taxes
to support gov't services---but at the same time abusing public
services like police and the courts by trying to frame
innocent people--and costing honest tax payers even more.

AUDITOR
Thank you. Who nearly found out about that?

SCIENTOLOGY
All sane people.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
SCIENO-SCENARIO: If Scientology was being audited with it's own tech.....

AUDITOR
What are your crimes?

SCIENTOLOGY
Never mind that, we just had a huge
4th Dynamic win by completing the
drywall in the new Ideal Org!

AUDITOR
I will repeat the auditing command.
What are your crimes?
That...that...that....that...

SCIENTOLOGY
Oh. That's being a phony religion and not paying taxes
to support gov't services---but at the same time abusing public
services like police and the courts by trying to frame
innocent people--and costing honest tax payers even more.

AUDITOR
(Editors note: Auditor makes note of a Rockslam at this point)
Thank you. Who nearly found out about that?

SCIENTOLOGY
All sane people.

I happened to see the original worksheets for this session HH. You're not gonna tell everyone what happened when the auditor asked for an earlier similar? :coolwink:
 

freethinker

Sponsor
One thing is for sure, you don't know anything.

Is there anyone who really know anonsparrow personally?

NOPE!:no::no:
Thus, stop assuming things!
He could be a very dangerous person for what we know (just like Henson).
In fact there is a simple and true natural law, of which we should never forget:

"BEWARE THE PERSON OR GROUP WHO FIGHTS SCIENTOLOGY, FOR THAT PERSON FIGHTS TRUTH...NOT THE TRUTH OF NATURAL LAWS BUT THE TRUTH ABOUT HIMSELF":yes::yes::yes:
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP

There is a post on WWP which is relevant here. It is from Tikk, who I'm told is an attorney. He compares the rights that Sparrow has as a CoS protestor to those people who protest in front of abortion clinics:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/1303688-post867/

<snip>

"Another poster earlier brought up the example of abortion protesters, who are given extremely broad latitude to express their views, and which includes the extremely pointed and acrimonious confrontations that go on in front of abortion clinics. A wealth of case law has developed in this area from which the constitutional line can be fairly predicted. And while I don't presently have time to present a useful survey of the case law, I'm familiar enough to assert that the Constitution protects protesters shouting personal things at doctors walking into clinics. Sparrow's protests don't approach the degree of acrimony and level of sophistication as exists where pro-life activists target doctors. And his speech is no less protected."
 

The Great Zorg

Gold Meritorious Patron
Cool beans

There is a post on WWP which is relevant here. It is from Tikk, who I'm told is an attorney. He compares the rights that Sparrow has as a CoS protestor to those people who protest in front of abortion clinics:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/1303688-post867/<snip>"Another poster earlier brought up the example of abortion protesters, who are given extremely broad latitude to express their views, and which includes the extremely pointed and acrimonious confrontations that go on in front of abortion clinics. A wealth of case law has developed in this area from which the constitutional line can be fairly predicted. And while I don't presently have time to present a useful survey of the case law, I'm familiar enough to assert that the Constitution protects protesters shouting personal things at doctors walking into clinics. Sparrow's protests don't approach the degree of acrimony and level of sophistication as exists where pro-life activists target doctors. And his speech is no less protected."

Damn interesting, that! :yes: :thumbsup:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
When Scientologists apply the tech to each other....

I happened to see the original worksheets for this session HH. You're not gonna tell everyone what happened when the auditor asked for an earlier similar? :coolwink:

I was trying to keep entheta off ESMB posters' "lines". The problem is I could not locate their "lines"...so I guess I am forced to say what happened when the auditor asked for an earlier similar....

AUDITOR
Is there an earlier similar crime?

SCIENTOLOGY
M-m-m-m-myyyy crimes? NO!
WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES?!!!

AUDITOR
NO! You don't attack me!
I attack YOU!!!

SCIENTOLOGY
NO! YOU love drugs!

AUDITOR
NO! YOU love psychiatry!

SCIENTOLOGY
NO! YOU will die alone in the dark!

AUDITOR
NO! YOU will lose your eternity!

SCIENTOLOGY
NO! I declare YOU an SP!

AUDITOR
NO! You don't declare me.
I declare YOU!

SCIENTOLOGY
NO! I Fair Game YOU!

AUDITOR
NO! I utterly destroy YOU
without remorse!

The 2-way-com continued standardly and there was an inordinate amount of blown charge and "downward Meter motion" as they beat down on each other's heads with Mark VII QuantumsTM.
 
Sigh.

I remember Ron saying in a lecture something about an auditor never allowing a pc to blow a session, about someone socking another someone on the jaw, then dragging the pc unconscious over the doorway back into the auditing room and yelling in his face, "End of session!" I sure hope that was a joke!

Ron had kind of a skewed sense of humor sometimes...:unsure:
 

Barbz

Patron with Honors
Weird charge, "attempted stalking." I can only think of one case where this might be relevant:

attemptedstalking.jpg
 
Top