On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 21:58:57 -0400, LronsScam <LronsScam@aohell.bomb> wrote: snip >Even though I share Bev's sentiments, what Keith is doing will not do any
>harm to himself. But it will harm Scn'gy ever so slightly.
>
>The thing of it is, if enough people do complain then the FBI can't say they
>didn't know about this situation.
I don't think that has been the case for a long time. > Their are a lot of reasons why they don't
> seem to care. For one, in many instances the cult is just using our laws to
> persecute people like Henson. The FBI would have no jurisdiction in that
> matter no matter how abusive they were. Even the hiring of PIs to tail people
> is something that isn't illegal.
It turns out this might not be so. The US Attorney I have been talking to thinks that hiring PIs to follow people around might be ok under the state stalking laws, but *NOT* under the federal or state laws about intimidating or retaliating against witnesses or informants. So all the stalking of me and my family after the point I made contact and became an informant reporting about the criminal acts of the cult are violations of Federal code Title 18, section 5012 and 5013 plus several other related racketeering laws not to mention similar state codes. In fact, *suing* me in the original copyright case might be a criminal act if I made contact with the FDA or other law enforcement before they filed the case against me (something I am looking into is the date of my first contact with the FDA). While I was writing this, I realized that my contacting law enforcement and becoming an informant about scientology went back well before they sued me. I could get the exact dates if someone has late '95 and early '96 postings to a.r.s where I reported the incidents. > Businesses are afforded many more rights
>than individuals. This is wrong, but it's our laws that allows it, and hence
>we the people allow it.
>
>The more complaints that come in to different FBI offices the better even if
>there isn't such a thing as an immediate investigation. Like many things in
>life, putting it on paper makes things work even at a snail's pace sometimes.
Because of these laws, there is good reason to report the criminal acts of the cult to the FBI and other law enforcement if you have the slightest reason to think they might go after you later. My letter to the FBI had at least a dozen such matters you could name in talking to your local FBI office, but you can get fresh meat to bring them off any week's worth of posting to a.r.s. >And let's say that there comes a new FBI chief into office and he has had
>some dealings with the cult on a first hand basis? He may need these
>accusations on paper to go ahead and rationalize some kind of investigation.
This may already have happened. Keith Henson