Section 646.9 (a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and  repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or  by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison.  (source).

 (e) For the purposes of this section, "harasses" means engages in
 a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person
 that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person,
 and that serves no legitimate purpose.

 CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
 ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
 
 SEC. 2.  (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
 her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
 this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
 press.

 

 SEC. 4.  Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
 discrimination or preference are guaranteed.  This liberty of
 conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
 with the peace or safety of the State.  The Legislature shall make no
 law respecting an establishment of religion.

 

Under Article 1, Section 2, you might argue that I am abusing the right of free speech.   Under Article 1, Section 4, you might further argue that my exercise of my religious beliefs, in terms of my duty and obligation to call you back to your mission, might be inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.  But such contentions cannot be reasonably sustained.  My emails to you are on point, highly focused, most respectful, and INFREQUENT.  Lay all my emails before the court. Let the judge read each one.  I am confident, that while the judge may not agree with my religious belief system, that the content of those emails, cannot be considered an abuse of my right of free speech, or that they are inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

 

The judge will see, that what those emails contain, primarily is simply the expression of my desire to explain to you, from my perspective, what the truth is.  And therefore, within the framework of my religious belief system (and the duty it imposes on adherents to call those who have strayed, back to their path and mission), that my efforts in this regard are defined, under the law, as a legitimate purpose.

 

(Moreover, setting aside the issue of religious duty, i.e. in terms of speaking the truth to the people who need to hear it, one could simply observe that the great majority of these emails are a result of past communications entered into freely by yourself, in as much as I am not finished responding to what you have said in the past, and if I am addressing points that rise out of previous communications freely entered into, which is the case, then this is fulfilling a legitimate purpose.  Most people would say, Sean, if you don't like, delete it.  Don't try to suppress the other person in their exercise of their free speech rights.  I believe that is exactly what you are trying to do, i.e. to use the power of a court to impose a prior restraint on free speech rights.  This is all the more true, in light of the fact that your remedy is so easy available, in terms of the delete key, or a mail rule that would dump the unwanted mail into the trash.  Explain to the judge why you are going to all of this trouble, when you could have taken a minute to implement such a mail rule.  It's not that you don't want to receive the emails.  It's that you want to stop a person from even writing them.)

 

Because my communications do serve a legitimate purpose, the definition of harassment cannot be met.  And on that basis alone, the accusation of "stalking" cannot be sustained.

 

But, for the sake of discussion, let's say the judge does not see my communication as "legitimate" under the law, and that in his opinion, my communications meet the definition of harassment as set forth in paragraph (e).  Notwithstanding this finding, you will notice that there is still another criteria that must be met.  The "harassment" must be both willful and malicious (see Section 646.9 (a) above).  What is the definition of "malicious"?  Given to, marked by, or arising from malice. What is "malice"?  The desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another.   Is there any evidence of this in any of my emails?  The answer is No.  My intent, clearly expressed, is to save you from pain and from the distress that will be yours if you do not turn around.  My intentions are absolutely the best, in terms of your welfare, and I believe that sentiment comes through everything I have written.

 

Because there is no evidence of malice in my behavior, the definition for "stalking" in Section 646.9 (a) requiring the specified harassment to be both willful and malicious, cannot be met.

But, for the sake of discussion, even though this is highly unlikely, let's say the judge finds evidence of malice in the emails I have sent to you, though I categorically refute that possibility.  But for the sake of discussion, let's say the judge does find evidence of malice. 

 

Nevertheless, there is still one additional criteria that must be met for the crime of stalking to have occurred.  There must be evidence of a credible threat. From Section 646.9 we read, "and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety."  You cannot just spout your imaginary fears in this regard.  You must have some evidence that points that way.  As you well know, there is no evidence at all that points in that direction.  If you feeling world actually registers such a fear, then you have entered into the domain of paranoia (drug related?).  My intent is clearly set forth in the emails I have sent to you, and there is nothing in there that could even remotely be taken as a threat against your personal safety.  This particular charge, if leveled, would seem the most irrational, because my stated goal is to see you return to the fulfillment of your mission.  It does not matter how far you have fallen.  You can be lifted out, and set back on your feet, healed.

 

Here, there is no point in speculating about whether the judge would find evidence of a threat to your safety, because there is no such evidence.  Nothing that I have ever said could ever be interpreted that way, and everything that I have said goes in exactly the opposite direction, towards your welfare.

 

In summary, for the stalking charge to be met, the judge will want to see some evidence in either area No. 1, or in all of the remaining areas, as follows.

 (1) Is there evidence that this person is following you around?  No Your Honor.
 
 OR
  
 (2) Is there evidence of malice in this person's behavior?  No Your Honor.
  
 AND
 
 (3) Is there evidence of harassment?  No Your Honor  (Given the likelihood that my communications would be seen as serving a legitimate purpose under the law as described above).
 
 AND
 
 (4) Evidence of credible threat?  No Your Honor

 

As you can see, if you brought allegations of stalking before a court, the judge would look to the law, and for evidence in each of these four general areas.  In your presentation you would have to provide evidence in this four general areas. As you can see, you would not be able to provide any evidence at all to support an allegation of stalking per se. To believe that you can walk into a court and make a stalking charge stick, well, it is figment of your imagination, clearly intended by the forces of darkness to assassinate my character. Well, remember the fable, Once Upon a Time.

 

The issue of harassment, by itself, might be another matter.  Let's look at that closely.  There is no criminal code dealing with harassment as such. In the penal code we only see harassment mentioned as one element of the crime of stalking, and in terms of sexual harassment.  To deal with the issue of generic "harassment", we need to look at the California Code of Civil Procedure.  I will take a close look at that in my next email. 

 

The minute I read your allegation of "stalking" I saw in my mind's eye, the behavior of a certain species of fish, which becomes really bloated, as a defense mechanism against their enemies.  Truly, by setting forth that allegation, you have made an enormous exaggeration that has no relationship to reality at all.

 

But, concerning the other allegation, I will reserve judgment until I have studied the issue in the Code of Civil Procedure.

 

May you pass every test.

 

Always Victory! Sincerely, Your Little Brother, Steven S. Showers   (Who is Your Little Brother?) (And Some Notes on Victory ) Homeward Bound - The Journal     of Ascended Master Devotion The Daily Blogger Grand Teton Web Cams The Lighthouse Keeper Roses of Camelot Lake WOW at the Heart     of the Inner Retreat Get Your Awesome     Violet Flame Button     Here! Mighty Victory's     Hourly Checklist