Just put a mirror behind his wife's head and above the headboard.....that way you'll see him opening the door.
Is it me, or does every dumbass tramped up whore with no self esteem have a 'stalker' who is 'weird' and is 'in love with her' because she is 'so hot?' PS: myspace is indeed ghey and not even worthy of teh suk. Also, the stalker is johnny L!!
hmmm.. just found this: It's illegal to annoy A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language. "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." See full article here. Text Below: By Declan McCullagh Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST - News.com Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity. In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess. This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison. "The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else." Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy." To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure. The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16. There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm." That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal? There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are. Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals. In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.) Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled. "Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?" Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry. "I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds." He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else. It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets. If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold. And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it. Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
Do you really think the Feds are going to go after someone who annoys someone over the internet---never happen..
People randomly antagonize others over the internet for no real reason at all. I wouldn't even take the clown seriously. He just wants you foaming at the mouth with anger. Unless he is mentally disturbed and knows you and this girl you speak of. Or could be a random creep. Or somebody with too much time on their hands. Also consider the girl. Is she a looney tune? Would she harrass herself and you in an attempt at attention whoredom? Anyways, I'm sure you'll figure something out, just remember to dispose of the body properly.
You annoyed me by quoting the entire 9000 word post in your one line response. I'm calling the cops! -R
Radbod, I'll fly down there and we'll handle it...the wolf is on the way! Image Unavailable, Please Login
Radbod, I have alerted the Persian mafia. We have assembled a group that is planning to beat this eThug down with one of MK's 23" spinners from the Rolls and my mom's leftover hafsin. BooYAH! He is a jakesh nanneh and will pay dearly. Best, Montoya
Just ignore him.. don't give him any attention at all. Internet laws are more strict now but I don't think anything can be done about a threat. They'll just tell you to wait until something happens and that would be used as evidence. I had a situation come up a couple years ago and the police wouldn't do anything about it.
But he could also be a lunatic, and if you approach him on a 'bad day', you could get killed. This is why cops are careful when pulling someone over for speeding or running a stop sign in a 'quiet residential neighborhood', they don't know if the guy just came from murdering someone, or just broke into a house, or has drugs in the car, or is wanted somewhere else.........
Darth, what the hell? This is 2008. by the way, that story is messed up, and the woman needs to be put on the death chair, trying to be funny on the intrawebs. Ugh...e-thugs.
Well if you want to eliminate the problem completely.. Just tell him to come and get it.. Sit in your living room with your assault rifle, leave the door part way open and let him come on in... Once he is through the door way, put a couple caps in his a.. and then call the cops to come clean up the mess...
