| lisasawitch 2005-08-18, 11:54 am |
| You were accused tried and convicted did not appeal and never have had
anyone but you declare yourself innocent or the charges false.
Shut up already. And answer the questions below.
You're a DELIBERATE LIAR!
KATHLEEN IT AIN'T FUNNY STOP THE LIES YOU LYING LIAR!
Featured in Court & Police
Kathleen Dickson
Published on 5/8/2004
Kathleen Dickson, 46, of 23 Garden St., Pawcatuck, was charged Thursday
with being a fugitive from justice.
=A9 The Day Publishing Co., 2004
Featured in Court & Police
Kathleen Dickson
Published on 5/9/2004
Kathleen Dickson, 45, of 23 Garden St., Pawcatuck, was charged Friday
with second-degree harassment and threatening.
=A9 The Day Publishing Co., 2004
ANSWER THE QUESTIONS KATHLEEN
Let's see how you like it kathleen EVERY time you post, I will change
the title of the thread and I will post these questions until you
answer them one by one and answering them means NOT talking about
McSweegan or former Governor Rowland and all your typical diversionary
crap anyway.
PLUS you are cross posting ONCE AGAIN TOTALLY OFF TOPIC and you're
selfish to do this to one newsgroups CRIMINAL to do it to multiple
newsgroups--yes here is your "crime": You are preventing people who
need help from getting help for your selfish personal reasons that you
are so completely egocentric along with delusional paranoid
schizophrenic with psychotic features that you just can't see past your
own twisted delusional psychotic personal agenda--which ought to be
about getting your kids back and solving your own enormous problems in
life instead of trying to solve anyone else's. By preventing people
from getting help you are responsible for the consequences. Surely
people are dying as a result so you are a murderer (trying out a little
kathleen "logic" here. So you are now being reported to the DOJ FBI and
CIA and WHO and UN and DCF and the federal and state courts and
homeland insanity department and all over the planet as a murderer.
How do you like them apples?
Now answer the questions. And stop the off topic cross posting. Answer
the questions TRUTHFULLY for a change. Focus on the question. If
there's a question yOU don't understand which is hard to believe given
your self declared genius IQ, let us know and we'll rephrase it.
Don't LIE as you do and don't try your diversionary tactics. Ignore
this and I will keep reposting it kathleen. Not only that but your
silence will be construed as admissions to all OF the facts listed as
questions.
PS: This is NOT "taunting" You have put your credibility at issue. You
have repeatedly said that you NEVER lie. We deserve the answers to
these questions. Straight answers.
REPOST:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group.../browse_thre...
Nope we're talking about YOU. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS
And come back and tell us when Steere or McSweegan or anyone else is
actually charged with your "Lyme Crymes" instead of telling us what
you, in all your infinite wisdom, think will happen.
Now let's talk not about who WILL be convicted but WHO already has
been--YOU.
Here's the question list. One by one give us some answers. Your post is
just like the Bush White House trying to DIVERT attention from what
Karl Rove did to Joe Wilson--by attacking him AGAIN.
Nope answer the questions kathleen. Stop trying to change the subject.
I know you're delusional but try to focus. Here is a list of questions
for YOU. We've already heard your ramblings about 100,000 times. Now
dish some TRUTH for a change--I'm going to leave space between the
questions for your answers:
Was your case appealed and was your conviction overturned?
You CLAIM there is a court Order prohibiting you from criticizing the
government. Post it!
And what isn't true? Everything can be backed up with your own posts
kathleen. Not a big secret how people know since you posted it all
here.
Were you charged with and convicted of threatening and harassing
Jessica Gauvin?
Did you flee to Canada?
Did you tell everyone that your case was a custody case against DCF
when the truth was that it was a criminal case against you and your
kids had been taken away many months earlier and you didn't even appeal
that?
Did you threaten to bomb the stonington schools, joke or not?
Did you show up at your kid's safe house with a bag full of drugs
whether you meant to give them to your lawyer or not?
Come on specifically what isn't true?
You were charged tried and convicted in a court of law. Right or wrong,
admit or deny?
Now you say you've proven you're innocent.
In what court were your convictions overturned?
In fact, tell us what the charges were. Give some detail. What exactly
were you convicted of doing or threatening to do to Jessica Gauvin?
Tell us what your diagnosis was in the mental institution?
You admit or deny that your kids were taken away by child services in
CT?
Admit or deny you were charged with crimes?
Admit or deny you feld to canada?
Admit or deny you were convicted?
Admit or deny you were institutionalized in a mental ward locked wing?
Admit or deny that your convictions were never reversed, in fact you
never filed an appeal did you?
So who's lying about what?
Yeah sure, you say everyone lied about the charges. But that's not what
the court thought was it?
Did you register a website claiming on it you were working for Pfizer
at the time when you had "retired" years before?
Was Lymeraft which solicited funds for YOU, ever a proper legally
registered charity?
Kathleen you're the liar here.
Do you really expect everyone to believe that the rest of the world is
crazy, not you?
And that the rest if the world has conspired to frame you? Because of
your lyme activism which you have even admitted amounts to more posting
on the internet than any real accomplishments?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...wse_thread/thr=
ead/961a6d2015746801/41df41b82df2d0a1?hl=3Den#41df41b82df2d0a1
Come on kathleen. What isn't true specifically issue by issue above.
Tell us specifically which items you say aren't true. We can go back
and find the posts where you admitted stuff and show what a liar YOU
are!
And see kathleen's post advocating cyberterrorism:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...wse_thread/thr=
ead/f4f83960053d8933/cbae392e9ba84df7?q=3DEWALD&rnum=3D3&hl=3Den#cbae392e9b=
a84df7
This is a federal crime. A SERIOUS Federal Crime. So do what you think
is right! By the way this is almost certainly a violation of her
probation/parole.
Kathleen Dickson
860-599-5451
23 Garden St., Pawcatuck 06379
Remember, she's provided everyone with contact information for the FBI
in New Haven: FBI New Haven 203-777-6311
Here's a way to contact the FBI via the internet:
FBI Tips and Public Leads
https://tips.fbi.gov/
While the FBI continues to encourage the public to submit information
regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, this form may also
be used to report any suspected criminal activity to the FBI.
FBI Tips and Public Leads
Your First Name
Your Middle Name
Your Last Name
Your Phone
Your Email
Your Street 1
Your Street 2
Your Suite/Apt/Mail Stop
Your City
Your State
Your Country
Your Zip Code / Route
Please describe your information:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group...wse_thread/thr=
ead/507b61f6eeaa6a31/540c8012ea93f24d?q=3Dcyber&rnum=3D1&hl=3Den#540c8012ea=
93f24d
kathleen May 3, 1:45 pm hide options
Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: "kathleen" <kathleen.dick...@snet.net> - Find messages by this
author
Date: 3 May 2005 10:45:05 -0700
Local: Tues, May 3 2005 1:45 pm
Subject: FBI Cyber Crime information
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
http://www.fbi.gov/cyberinvest/cyberhome.htm
http://www.ic3.gov/
National White Collar crime center:
http://www.nw3c.org/----------------------------
The FBI plays two very important roles in cyberspace. First, it is the
lead law enforcement agency for investigating cyber attacks by foreign
adversaries and terrorists. The potential damage to the United
States'national security from a cyber-based attack includes
devastating interruptions of critical communications, transportation,
and other services. Additionally, such attacks could be used to access
and steal protected information and plans. The FBI also works to
prevent criminals, sexual predators, and others intent on malicious
destruction from using the Internet and on-line services to steal from,
defraud, and otherwise victimize citizens, businesses, and communities.
The mission of the Cyber Division is to:
coordinate, supervise and facilitate the FBI's investigation of those
federal violations in which the Internet, computer systems, or networks
are exploited as the principal instruments or targets of terrorist
organizations, foreign government sponsored intelligence operations, or
criminal activity and for which the use of such systems is essential to
that activity;
form and maintain public/private alliances in conjunction with enhanced
education and training to maximize counterterrorism,
counter-intelligence, and law enforcement cyber response capabilities;
and
until such time as a final decision is made regarding the future role
and location of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC),
the FBI will direct and coordinate the Center's mission to protect the
Nation's critical information infrastructure and other key assets.
Federal Bureau of Investigation - Contact Us
http://www.fbi.gov/contactus.htm
The FBI can be contacted twenty-four hours a day, every day. Here's
how:
FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Call (202) 324-3000 or write to the following address:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
J=2E Edgar Hoover Building
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20535-0001
Local FBI Offices
See Your Local FBI Office for the addresses and phone numbers of our
field offices nationwide-as well as links to their web sites.
FBI Offices Worldwide
If you are outside the United States and need to reach the FBI, call
the nearest U.S. Embassy or Consulate office.
Reporting Crime
To report a violation of U.S. federal law or provide a possible tip in
a criminal or counterterrorism investigation, use our electronic FBI
Tips and Public Leads form. Or contact your local FBI field office or
closest international office.
To report suspected espionage activity, see our Awareness of National
Security Issues and Response (ANSIR) page.
Been victimized by an online scam? File a complaint with the Internet
Crime Complaint Center run by the FBI and the National White Collar
Crime Center.
iksnizsak...@yahoo.com wrote:
> We SOLD Iraq these bioweapons, which was why Dubya waited until UNSCOM
> cleaned up this mess, before we went in to finish them off, which was
> Kissinger and Wolfowitz' plan all along,
>
> Even before this slob was NOT elected in 2000.
>
> Just check out Robin Cook's resignation speech to confirm.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm
>
> "It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical
> munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold
> Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical
> and munitions factories."
>
> Cook's resignation speech
>
> Here is the full text of Robin Cook's resignation speech in the House
> of Commons, which won applause from some backbenchers in unprecedented
> Commons scenes.
>
> This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House
> from the back benches.
>
> I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from
> here.
>
> None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the
> past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this
> House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable,
> Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.
>
> It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk
> my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press
> interview.
>
> On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press
> interview has been given before this statement.
>
> I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war
> without international agreement or domestic support.
>
> Backing Blair
>
> The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour
> party in my lifetime.
>
> I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope
> that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I
> will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace
> him.
>
> I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying
> to secure a second resolution.
>
> I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign
> secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the
> Security Council.
>
> But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it
> was to succeed.
>
> Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a
> second resolution was of no importance.
>
> French intransigence?
>
> France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in
> recent days.
>
> It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany
> wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for
> inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum
> necessary to carry a second resolution.
>
> We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international
> hostility is all the result of President Chirac.
>
> The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without
> agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading
> partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security
> Council.
>
> To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
>
> Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition
> against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever
> have imagined possible.
>
> 'Heavy price'
>
> History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led
> so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
>
> The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.
>
> Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by
> multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.
>
> Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are
> weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in
> stalemate.
>
> Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be
> fired.
>
> I have heard some parallels between military action in these
> circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was
> no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that
> we took in Kosovo.
>
> It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it
> was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the
> region. France and Germany were our active allies.
>
> It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that
> it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council
> as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.
>
> Public doubts
>
> The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an
> urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.
>
> Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the
> international community nor the British public is persuaded that there
> is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
>
> The threshold for war should always be high.
>
> None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming
> bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will
> "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at
> least in the thousands.
>
> I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves
> with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.
>
> I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it
> is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.
>
> It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an
> alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.
>
> Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of
> not having an alternative strategy.
>
> For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the
> western strategy of containment.
>
> Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the
> Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted
> Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.
>
> Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the
> time of the last Gulf war.
>
> Threat questioned
>
> Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that
> we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim
> that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped
> that the war will be over in a few days.
>
> We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is
> weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that
> he is a threat.
>
> Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly
> understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of
> being delivered against a strategic city target.
>
> It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical
> munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold
> Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical
> and munitions factories.
>
> Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a
> military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped
> to create?
>
> Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition
> to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN
> inspectors?
>
> Israeli breaches
>
> Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that
> the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
>
> I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which
> to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.
>
> Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to
> withdraw from the occupied territories.
>
> We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of
> Israel to comply.
>
> I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has
> given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle
> east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the
> Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and
> another rule for the rest.
>
> Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in
> Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime
> change in Iraq.
>
> That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress
> is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation:
> it reduces the case for war.
>
> Presidential differences
>
> What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that
> if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had
> been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
>
> The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I
> have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.
>
> On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is
> sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are
> not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
>
> They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they
> are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with
> an agenda of its own.
>
> Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military
> adventure without a broader international coalition and against the
> hostility of many of our traditional allies.
>
> House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go
> to war.
>
> It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer
> occupies a central role in British politics.
>
> Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this
> House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither
> international agreement nor domestic support.
>
> I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military
> action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with
> a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.
>
> Story from BBC NEWS:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/...ics/2859431.stm
>=20
> Published: 2003/03/18 10:41:34 GMT
>=20
> =A9 BBC MMV
|