|
| Kathleen Duncan Lady kay duncan, Medium Kay, Brass Balls Pawn, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, perjury, fraud, R.I.C.O.,theft, colusion, forgery Fort |
| 5th of Oct, 2011 by User388148 |
Affiant believes that because he knows of certain facts, which appear to be criminal activity, it would therefore be unlawful for Affiant to not report these facts to the proper authorities by way of this affidavit.
Kathleen Duncan of 2237 Sw 14 th street, Fort Lauderdale has admitted in court the she know and is aware of other identifying names I am using on the internet as a way to avoid her from stalking me. Now she has broken the following law by calling me a con man on various websites, and stalking and I demand equal protection under the law. I have notified the Real Estate commission to cease and deist any and all reports on me an until a fuller investigation since I have caught them breaking the law and violating my rights and collusion with Ms. Duncan. I demand an investigation of the violation of my right by the RE Commission and Ms. Duncan I have notified the Florida attorney general that she accused me of stealing my car and signed my name to the title then having me arrested for theft. On 3/13/11 She posted 7 posting on me on :Rippoff Report- Con Artist Paul Gwaz Gwazdauskas, Paul Bamm, Paal Wall, Paul Dance, Et al faces Grand Theft Florida
.784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.--
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
(7) Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5A Security (15 It is tax fraud to use Courts to settle a dispute/controversy which could be settled peacefully outside of or
without the Court.
An official (officer of the court, policeman, etc.) must demonstrate that he/she is individually bonded inorder to use a summary process.
An official who impairs, debauches, voids or abridges an obligation of contract or the effect of a
commercial lien without proper cause, becomes a lien debtor and his/her property becomes forfeited as the
pledge to secure the lien. Pound breach (breach of impoundment) and rescue is a felony.
.
.
PUBLIC HAZARD BONDING OF CORPORATE AGENTS All officials are required by federal, state,
and municipal law to provide the name, address and telephone number of their public hazard and
malpractice bonding company and the policy number of the bond and, if required, a copy of the policy
describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance. Failure to provide this information
constitutes corporate and limited liability insurance fraud (15 USC) and is prim-a-facie evidence and
grounds to impose a lien upon the official personally to secure their public oath and service of office.
Parties:
Allegations:
Allegations arise from the conduct of the following COMPLAINT FOR
DEPRIVATION OF
CIVIL RIGHTS
FALSE IMPRISONMEMT,
INVASION OF PRIVACY,
OPTAINING PROPERTY BY FALSE PRETENCE
FORGERY
FRAUD 1) On or about November 15, 2008 the Defendant communicates, by phone, that she would like to the purchase Affiant’s 1994 Honda Accord located at 2237 Southwest 14 Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the Defendant’s home. The Affiant agrees to sell verbally and a bill of sale and payment would be drawn when he would arrive in Florida. He could not find this title, so request for a replacement be sent to the Defendant’s home from the DMV of Florida.
2) On or about December 15, 2008 the Defendant informs the Affiant she has found another love interest and their personal, professional and business relationship has ended and they would divide all common property 50/50.
3) On January 15, 2009, the Affiant traveled to the Defendants home from North Carolina. When the Affiant arrives he received, via the Fort Lauderdale Police Department, a document entitled “Restraining Orderâ€, which document was prepared especially for “Paul R. Gwazâ€.
4) Upon reading the aforementioned document, Affiant explains to the Officer this document is false because he has been in North Carolina and has not seen the Defendant in the last six months, and that he is there to pick up his belongings at the Defendants house. The Officer explained that he must show up in court for a hearing before he can retrieve his belongings.
5) Affiant has no contact with the Defendant until the February 24, 2009 at the Broward County Court House, Fort Lauderdale, Florida in court. It is there the Defendant admits, under oath, the false reporting of domestic violence. The Affiant asks for contempt of court charges and a police escort to retrieve his belongings. He is denied on both requests.
Affiant immediately goes to the District Attorney and the Police Department to file charges against the Defendant for theft and obtaining property through false pretences, for his half of the business assets of Star Locations, LLC which he had invested Thousands of dollars of cash, time, real and business property between June of 2006 and December 2008 and a list of property she had not returned including Cancer Treatment, cash, jewelry, files, etc. He sends a demand letter via registered mail to the Defendant to retrieve his belongings, The charges are never brought against the Defendant , by the Fort Lauderdale police or the prosecutor On or about February 23, 2009, Affiant arrives at Defendants home with a police escort but the defendant refuses to open the door. He returns two other times with the Police but she refuses to open the door. The third time she does appear, but she has installed an iron gate on the inside door secured by a padlock and chain. She denies entry to the police but claims his belongings are in a storage building outside. The Officers are specifically asked by the Affiant to check the ownership of the Honda Accord, because his tags are on the car. They verify that it still belongs to the Affiant. There is too much property to retrieve with only one person, therefore the motorcycle is moved to a neighbors and the car is left on the street. The original title is found in the stored belonging and a call is made to DMV to cancel the replacement title b y phone.
5) The Honda Accord is delivered to a used car dealer down the street and sold for $850.00 cash. On February 28, 2009, the car dealer informs the Affiant that there is a title problem so they agree to void the sale and the money is fully refunded to Stephen Sanders proving there was absolutely no criminal intent of theft. These facts are verified by the Detective Tom Ferri on the police report case number 09-22353 as a sworn statement by the Defendant.
6) On the same report made by the Defendant on page 2, her claim to the auto is false either she r someone she knows forged the Affiant signature on the replacement title. He makes over 20 attempts to notify the Detective to correct the record but he never returns the calls. The Affiant calls internal affairs and never gets a call back. The Affiant notifies his Attorney Mr. Hodgetts to put this on the record.
7) .
8) On page 5, She states she allowed the Affiant to pick up a “few thingsâ€, that was false, the Affiant had an entire household there, plus 2 jet ski, two kayaks, car and motorcycle. 9) 10) The Defendant claims the auto is worth $5,000. She has never paid for it, and she admits there was no criminal intent even stating the Affiant would think it was still in his name. She never took off the Affiant tags in 25 days and failed put on her tags. Claiming the car was hers yet she left the Affiant’s tags on from February 4 to February 27, 2009. That is almost a month.
11) Page 6 she assumes to think for the Affiant, and assumes his intent. Next she admits to her intent to break the law by driving a car with tags that are not hers to a paint and body shop.
12) Affiant then returns to North Carolina unaware that the Defendant has sworn out a warrant for stealing his own car.
18) 19. The Attorneys are required to provide evidence and proof of a performance in paying the bond under the Miller Act as found in Title 40 USC, Section 270 a - 270 D.-1 as the Attorneys are claiming to be a private entity and private contractors, and NOT Constitutional public officers.
20) The signature of the Judge on the Judgment is “ouuuuuuuuy†this in no way resembles anything close to “Denise S. Hartsfield†and looks in the cursive nature of Mr. Deal’s legal assistant. Upon reason and belief, Affiant suspects that the U.S. Mail sent out on June1, 2009 from his office could be mail fraud in violation of U.S. laws.
21) Upon reason and belief, there must exist an unnamed agent spying and delivering/denying information or as in one case she, Ms. Duncan been caught is, as I have caught her initiating calls and emails to friends and business associates giving out private information she could have only obtained in breach of privacy laws. . The Defendant was caught in a sting operation that proved she was obtaining information from the Affiant’s private e-mails the Attorney/client privilege was been breached. Most all the history of the two parties has been erased from the Affiant’s e-mails. It is believed that the Defendant did that or hired it done. Even when showed this to a Judge with a living witness, Affiant was not able to obtain a restraining order.
It is the Affiant’s belief the Defendants is using the Justice illegally to deprive the Affiant of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. using after seeing Glenn Greenwald's article at Salon.com, titled "Project Vigilant and the government/corporate destruction of privacy." In the article, he shows how the United States government neatly sidesteps any legal restraints that might prevent it from gathering information on its citizens – in this case, by accepting dossiers from a network of private cyber-vigilantes that operates in near-total secrecy and with no accountability to mechanisms like the Privacy Act or the Freedom of Information Act.
This group is comprised of as many as 500 operatives, some of whom have experience in data security and surveillance after leaving top-level positions at organizations like the U.S. Department of Justice, Homeland Security, the Pentagon, the NSA, the New York Stock Exchange… and they are exploiting loopholes in ISP contracts to mine data on every step you take online.
Project Vigilant is just one further tool the U.S. government uses when it can't get what it wants – let's not forget that as the 'War on Terror' escalated, the NSA showed through its warrantless wiretapping program that it believes that such privacy laws as there are stopping the government from spying on its own citizens are at best flexible, or at worst to be completely ignored. Affiant believes that mobile communications were not any safer, as Chris Paget's recent demonstration of cellphone tower spoofing showed just how easy and inexpensive it is for anyone with the appropriate knowledge to intercept and record private phone calls as well. Paget's device simply pretends to be a cellphone tower that delivers a closer and stronger signal than a real tower. Mobile phones automatically connect to the tower with the best signal, so they switch over to the spoofed tower, which quietly records the conversation and sends the information on to the real network. The user is completely unaware, the equipment Paget built for his demonstration, in which dozens of audience members' phones were 'hijacked,' cost him less than US$1500 – most of which was for the laptop he ran the system through. More about the demonstration at Paget's blog.
Affiant makes this report in good faith and under oath with respect to these criminal acts and will make himself available as a witness for the United States against the as yet unnamed individual(s) who has/have committed cyber crimes privacy crimes, and mail fraud.
Affiant request that ; PUBLIC HAZARD BONDING OF CORPORATE AGENTS All officials are required by federal, state, and municipal law to provide the name, address and telephone number of their public hazard and malpractice bonding company and the policy number of the bond and, if required, a copy of the policy describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance. Failure to provide this information constitutes corporate and limited liability insurance fraud (15 USC) and is prim-a-facie evidence and grounds to impose a lien upon the official personally to secure their public oath and service of office. ,
Charges of Fraud, false arrest, lying under oath, forgery, obtaining property under false pretence,1st degree auto theft charges be applied to the Defendant, Kathleen DuncanAffiant is left with no alternative but to report this criminal activity. . Other evidence remains in Affiant’s possession which can be produced upon initiation of investigation of these matters. |
|
|
|
Post your Comment
|
|
|
