Historic Court Ruling Regarding Electronic Harassment

The whole thing was unreadable, I have never in my life seen such garbage posted on the internet.
And to top it off, there was no ruling at all made in this discombobulated bunch of words.
I did read most of it, what I got is that she had a cold (more like pneumonia), was seeing a psychiatrist, has hot flashes because she is way over 65 years old, had her credit wrecked by microwaves, has "acreage", has problems with illegal bicyclists and has mental problems beyond belief.
I really believe that laughing is very good for the mind, so I thank you Art for the laugh.
I certainly hope that you don't take this unresolved case seriously. It's a joke.
And, thank you Podfish for your insights, you are spot on.

[QUOTE=podfish;182602]boy, every time I think I'm done with this, something so egregious is presented that I get sucked back in./QUOTE]

now I'm laughing ... thank you ...

so you too know more then anyone else involved in the case including the judge? ... OK ...

and what are your qualifications again? ... and would you care to comment on the conference in Brussels?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Aldo El Hefe:

...
I really believe that laughing is very good for the mind, so I thank you Art for the laugh.
I certainly hope that you don't take this unresolved case seriously. It's a joke.
And, thank you Podfish for your insights, you are spot on.

---

and yes, she won her case .. according to Levi McCann "you will see at least twice, if not more, the court saying that Watterson has proven "Prima Facie" evidence and it stands in the court... Now in layman's terms that means that she won the entire case ".....

here's more coverage of it ...

https://libertasintel.wordpress.com/...nt-court-case/

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

and yes, she won her case .. according to Levi McCann "you will see at least twice, if not more, the court saying that Watterson has proven "Prima Facie" evidence and it stands in the court... Now in layman's terms that means that she won the entire case ".....

here's more coverage of it ...

https://libertasintel.wordpress.com/...nt-court-case/

---

'winning her case' means she has a restraining order:

"So in summary, Kathleen received a conditional restraining order for electromagnetic frequency harassment with penalties of up to 2 years in prison and up to $5000 in fines for violation of the court order."

I'd be really interested in reading about a successful prosecution for violating this order. That's when she'd need to prove that such a thing actually happened. The other case you mentioned also was regarding a request for a restraining order. I'm curious enough to follow up - next time I see him, I'll ask a lawyer friend if restraining orders are as casually authorized as this one seemed to be. There certainly was no informed questioning of the 'technical expert's assertions. As the defendant's lawyer pointed out, the judge was acting as an advocate for the plaintiff since she wanted to serve as her own lawyer. I'd be interested in how well that aspect of the hearing goes over if there's ever any serious consequences. Note there are no fines mentioned, or any other real impact on the defendant. If, as I assert, the defendant is extremely unlikely to be able to use any form of "electromagnetic frequency" weapon, then the restraining order has zero meaning. This case does nothing to prove the reality of such harassment.

--- by the way, I have no opinion about whether he's trying to harass her or not. If indeed he pointed his dish antenna at her house, and he understood her fearfulness (which was probably pretty apparent) then he most likely did indeed want to freak her out. She may well deserve a restraining order against him. But there's still no evidence of any harm other than the very real emotional stress the plaintiff is reporting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Wow Podfish, I had no idea that you were so knowledgeable about microwaves ...

---

I'm stretching for an analogy.
The nonsense this "expert" says about square waves, sawtooth waves, etc. mixed in with his apparent knowledge of the real tools used to measure electromagnetic radiation is rather incongruous and confusing. It's as if a car mechanic who just did a perfectly adequate tuneup told you that leaving your blinkers on too long will cause heart disease, and using windshield wipers when it's only a little foggy will disrupt your sleep patterns. Apparently he can handle some things requiring a reasonable amount of technical knowledge, but he sure has an over-excited imagination.

Ham radio operators are only licensed to operate radio equipment, they are not licensed to operate any microwave equipment.
Ham radio operators are usually kind and considerate of their nearby neighbors when operating their radio transmitters, some of them are quite powerful and unlike microwave these radio antennas are omni-directional, meaning that they transmit radiofrequency radiation in all directions.
It sounds like this old lady was a bit paranoid and thought that the radio antennas were actually microwave dishes. She probably complained to the defendant and he just played on her fear and lack of knowledge. In other words, he was just messing with her mind and intimidating her in retaliation for her being a kook.
There were no microwaves involved in this case, just possibly some harassment.
No court would ever order a ham radio operator to give up his license and hobby just because of some paranoid old lady who mistakenly thinks that radio antennas are actually microwave antennas. And, since radio antennas are omni directional (except for a YAGI), I could see where a judge would forbid the defendant from pointing a YAGI antenna at the plaintiffs house from now on. The only reason that the defendant pointed his satellite dishes or YAGI antennas at the plaintiff's house was to harass her, there are no signals to receive from her house.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I'm stretching for an analogy.
The nonsense this "expert" says about square waves, sawtooth waves, etc. mixed in with his apparent knowledge of the real tools used to measure electromagnetic radiation is rather incongruous and confusing. It's as if a car mechanic who just did a perfectly adequate tuneup told you that leaving your blinkers on too long will cause heart disease, and using windshield wipers when it's only a little foggy will disrupt your sleep patterns. Apparently he can handle some things requiring a reasonable amount of technical knowledge, but he sure has an over-excited imagination.

---

Once again Podfish or Aldo, would you care to comment on the link which I supplied about the conference in Brussels?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Once again Podfish or Aldo, would you care to comment on the link which I supplied about the conference in Brussels?

---

sorry, but I'm not sure what you expect in way of comment. I looked at the link, and sure nuff there's a conference. It doesn't look very technical to me, and I don't see how it pertains here.

to summarize my observations in this thread:
- there's nothing that counts as serious evidence that any real attempt at projecting microwaves has occurred.
- there's no finding by any court that such a thing has occurred
- the 'expert' says some very odd things, that don't make sense to anyone who has even a moderate amount of relevant knowledge.

However: it is indeed possible for microwaves to be aimed at a person, and if they were it would be potentially hazardous to a person's health. It's also possible the expert was clumsily trying to simplify concepts for a non-technical audience. But I don't have any reason to believe that either of those two things happened here.

Once again Podfish, if you are going to challenge the decisions that have been made by a court of law I think that it would be wise to state your qualifications ... if this is just personal opinion then that's what it is ... if on the other hand you are an expert in such matters then that would be something else ...

Also, most people, when faced with information like this would do a little research??? .... I can supply tons of links to scientists, global support groups, patents, lawsuits, etc. if you like ....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

sorry, but I'm not sure what you expect in way of comment. I looked at the link, and sure nuff there's a conference. It doesn't look very technical to me, and I don't see how it pertains here.

to summarize my observations in this thread:
- there's nothing that counts as serious evidence that any real attempt at projecting microwaves has occurred.
- there's no finding by any court that such a thing has occurred
- the 'expert' says some very odd things, that don't make sense to anyone who has even a moderate amount of relevant knowledge.

However: it is indeed possible for microwaves to be aimed at a person, and if they were it would be potentially hazardous to a person's health. It's also possible the expert was clumsily trying to simplify concepts for a non-technical audience. But I don't have any reason to believe that either of those two things happened here.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Once again Podfish, if you are going to challenge the decisions that have been made by a court of law I think that it would be wise to state your qualifications ... if this is just personal opinion then that's what it is ... if on the other hand you are an expert in such matters then that would be something else ...

Also, most people, when faced with information like this would do a little research??? .... I can supply tons of links to scientists, global support groups, patents, lawsuits, etc. if you like ....

---

you're now being (deliberately) obtuse. I explicitly pointed out that the judge made NO DECISION regarding the existence of harassment, at least according to the materials you supplied. The judge gave an injunction AGAINST FUTURE harassment. I see nothing in any of your links that consists of a finding that such an 'attack' has been made. So I did not "challenge the court". I did a little research (I read your links) and that's all they said.
And hell yes I'm an 'expert' by the standards that the deposed computer science professor uses to establish his own expertise. And it doesn't take an expert to say his representation of the nature of microwaves as square waves or sawtooth waves is nonsense. I've expressed a willingness to accept a deeper explanation from him, that he was deliberately and clumsily oversimplifying his description of wave behavior for a non-technical audience, but without a cross-examination or without testimony from another technically competent witness we'll apparently never know if he believes the explanations at face value. By the way, experience setting up wi-fi is NOT the same as having qualifications as an RF engineer. He's a software guy. Like in so many controversies that reach the public, you have people testifying outside their specialty but that isn't apparent to the average joe.

You're also very profligate in the links you give. You seem to swing from interest in a specific case to the broader issues of the purported gangstalker use of radiant weaponry; the only way I can imagine you found the Brussels conference relevant is that it shows that there's enough interest in that broad topic to draw a paying crowd, thus by association the concept must have some validity. I don't care to get into that debate. But there's yet to be presented a specific instance that is indisputably a radiant attack on an individual. Neither of the court cases you mention are anything more than issuance of a restraining order (again, judging by the links you provide). When either miscreant is convicted and fined or jailed for such an attack, by all means re-open this thread!