| lisasawitch 2005-08-19, 9:02 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.
iksnizsakdet@yahoo.com wrote:
> August 19, 2005
> Antiwar Populism:
>
>
> The Floodgates Open
>
> Russ Feingold, Chuck Hagel, and Cindy Sheehan give voice to the
> pro-peace zeitgeist
> by Justin Raimondo
>
> It's amusing to watch the utter powerlessness of the neocon attack
> machine as they try - without success - to smear Cindy Sheehan.
> Matt Drudge is heaving spittle at his computer screen, and Karl Rove
> must be having nightmares about this courageous albeit heartbroken
> housewife from Vacaville as she faces down his attack dogs and skewers
> them with the sheer simplicity and moral authority of her message. Amid
> all the debate and speculation - is she losing her "authenticity" as
> MoveOn.org moves in on her, and the professional handlers start to
> hover? - antiwar conservative Pat Buchanan had the most astute (and
> timely) analysis on MSNBC's Hardballwith Chris Matthews last night:
>
> "Something like 60 percent of the country do not believe the president
> is doing a good job in leading in the war. And I think she has given a
> voice and a face and a certain moral authority and authenticity to this
> giant protest movement. And Norah [O'Donnel], I'm telling you, I
> believe that some Democratic candidate, or some Democratic senator or
> governor is going to try to step forward the way McGovern did and Gene
> McCarthy did to give political leadership to this movement."
>
> Even as Pat was speaking, his prediction was coming true: Senator Russ
> Feingold (D-Wisc.), a prospective Democratic candidate for president,
> was telling U.S. News it's time to set a deadline - Dec. 31, 2006 -
> for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. He'll make the announcement
> today, at a "listening session" in Marquette, Wisc. Said Feingold:
>
> "I call what I am doing breaking the taboo. The senators have been
> intimidated and are not talking about a timeframe. We have to make it
> safe to go in the water and discuss this. A person shouldn't be accused
> of not supporting troops just because we want some clarity on our
> mission in Iraq."
>
> The Democrats, Feingold avers, are too timid when it comes to
> confronting the president on the war, and he's right about that: it
> was, after all, two Republicans, Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Ron
> Paul (R-Texas), who took the lead in introducing a resolution calling
> for the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal no later than Oct. 1, 2006
> (although it was co-sponsored from the start by two Democrats, Neil
> Abercrombie and Dennis Kucinich, Jones, being a Republican, was more
> visible and took the most heat). With national polls showing support
> for the war plummeting, it's time for the Democrats to play some
> catch-up, but the party honchos are slow to realize their opportunity
> - or have ideological problems with doing so. As Ari Berman, writing
> in The Nation, put it:
>
> "The prominence of party leaders like [Senator Joseph C.] Biden and
> [Hillary] Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates
> who support the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the
> Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are
> turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops, and
> British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial
> pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are
> unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the
> war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want U.S. troops
> brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal
> 'insiders poll' found that a similar margin of Democratic members of
> Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's
> military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is
> considered beyond the pale of 'sophisticated' debate."
>
> That was then, however: this is now. Feingold has thrown down the
> gauntlet to the hawkish party hierarchs, held hostage by the
> quasi-neocons over at the Democratic "Leadership" Council, and the base
> is enthusiastic, to say the least. The country is moving faster than
> the know-it-all Democratic "strategists" and their policy-wonk camp
> followers: and even one Republican presidential hopeful is quicker on
> his feet. When Senator Chuck Hagel, often mentioned as a potential GOP
> presidential candidate in '08, travels around his home state of
> Nebraska these days, he hears little else but talk of two subjects: the
> war and the price of oil. Hagel, like the markets, sees the connection
> in the aura of uncertainty created by Bush's war and his reckless
> foreign policy, which, he warned earlier this year, could be "worse
> than Vietnam." As he told Reuters:
>
> "In an interview, Hagel said uncertainties over Iraq and oil prices fed
> off and reinforced each other. 'The mood is one of a certain sense of
> unsteadiness,' he said. ... 'I think there's this steady unsure sense
> about where is this all leading - the constant daily reports on Iraq,
> our people being killed there, the money being spent there.'"
>
> The real dagger pointed at the heart of the War Party isn't the
> Democratic mobilization that is even now gathering to bring down the
> GOP, it's the people Hagel's been talking to back in Nebraska, all of
> them rock-solid Republicans. They will prove decisive in putting the
> war plans of the neocons on indefinite hold:
>
> "Hagel said even some who had previously backed Bush strongly on Iraq
> now felt deep unease. 'The feeling that I get back here, looking in the
> eyes of real people, where I knew where they were two years ago or a
> year ago - they've changed,' he said. 'These aren't people who ebb
> and flow on issues. These are rock-solid, conservative Republicans who
> love their country, support the troops, and support the president.'"
>
> The neoconradio screamers and the Fox News bleach blondes are always
> carrying on about how it's "the Left" and "the leftists" who are
> driving rising antiwar sentiment across the country, but if you look at
> the polls, it just isn't true. Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and a
> Democrat running in a heavily Republican district, almost beat the GOP
> candidate in a special congressional election in Ohio, winning 48
> percent of the vote, against the 52 percent won by Rob Portman, the
> Republican incumbent in 2004. The Republicans are running scared on the
> war issue, and GOPers are defecting from the ranks of the War Party in
> droves:
>
> "'There is just no enthusiasm for this war - nobody is happy about
> it,' said Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., who opposes the war. 'It
> certainly is not going to help Republican candidates, I can tell you
> that much.' Rep. Wayne Gilchrist, R-Md., who originally supported the
> war but has since turned against it, said he had encountered 'a lot of
> Republicans grousing about the situation as a whole, and how they have
> to respond to a lot of questions back home.'"
>
> The president, however, doesn't have to respond to any questions: he
> lives in a bubble, where anyone who contradicts him is summarily exiled
> or otherwise intimidated into silence. Word is out that the Bush White
> House is beginning to resemble the place during the last days of
> Richard Nixon: "Buy beleaguered, overworked White House aides enough
> drinks," says one wag, and
>
> "They describe a president whose public persona masks an angry,
> obscenity-spouting man who berates staff, unleashes tirades against
> those who disagree with him and ends meetings in the Oval Office with
> 'get out of here!' In fact, George W. Bush's mood swings have become so
> drastic that White House e-mails often contain 'weather reports' to
> warn of the president's demeanor. 'Calm seas' means Bush is calm while
> 'tornado alert' is a warning that he is pissed at the world."
>
> The War Party is clearly facing a "tornado alert" this summer, as Cindy
> Sheehan focuses the nation's attention on the tragic unwillingness of
> the leaders of both parties to confront the Iraq debacle. The mother of
> a fallen soldier wants to know why her son had to die - for a lie.
> Bush, says Hagel, is faced with a growing "credibility gap," but if the
> Democrats don't get up to speed on this issue, they, too, will be hurt
> by rising skepticism of our interventionist foreign policy and not only
> as it applies to Iraq.
>
> Wartime often transforms party labels, rendering traditional political
> categories of "left" and "right," "liberal" and "conservative"
> similarly meaningless. We seem to be at the beginning of some such
> transformative phrase.
>
> Amid all the debate, the name-calling, and the obfuscating fog of
> charges and counter-charges, what is clear to ordinary folks -
> Republicans as well as Democrats and independents - is that there are
> two wings of the War Party, represented by the leadership of both
> "major" parties. That's how we got into this mess to begin with, and
> only a break with the political patterns of the past can get us out.
> What is developing is a populist rebellion of the grassroots against
> the bipartisan pro-war elites, made possible by the emergence of a new
> antiwar majority in this country. Half of all Americans now believe the
> president "misled" - i.e., lied - them into war. A majority want
> out of Iraq within the next year. A third want out now.
>
> The War Party, however, is not going to give up quite so easily.
> Arrayed against this antiwar "people power" personified by Cindy
> Sheehan is the institutional power and majesty of the pro-war
> Establishment. They control the party machinery, major redoubts in the
> media, and most of all, the vast egos of major party politicians who
> are loath to admit they were wrong. The pro-war politicos don't have to
> have the majority behind them: they need only manipulate the levers of
> power and tip the balance in their favor.
>
> As long as they can keep the people - and the voters - corralled
> inside the two-party system, the authors and enablers of this criminal
> war will probably continue in power, defying the antiwar majority.
> Working against them, however, is the enormous pressure brought to bear
> by the emotional, financial, and military costs of this war, which
> could finally cause the dam to break, unleashing the floodgates of
> antiwar sentiment in America. On that day, the entire structure and
> rationale for our interventionist foreign policy will be swept away,
> and the two major parties could count among the casualties. By 2008, as
> the war escalates out of control and the full measure of the disaster
> that's befallen us becomes apparent, we should be ready for a
> Hagel-Feingold peace fusion ticket. (Feingold-Hagel? Whatever!)
>
> Yet it would be foolish to put our trust in politicians, of either -
> or any - party, and that's why grassroots demonstrations of
> opposition to the war are absolutely essential. The movement started by
> Cindy Sheehan and her supporters around the country - 1,500 vigils
> held on Wednesday, with more to come - is taking off like a rocket,
> and we at Antiwar.comencourage our readers to attend and show their
> support. What's more, we need to build the antiwar demonstrations being
> held Sept. 24-26: what's needed is a massive mobilization that includes
> not only the usual suspects but also antiwar conservatives, military
> folks and their families, libertarians, and just plain ordinary people
> who don't necessarily want to sign on to a whole laundry list of
> leftist causes. Tell the ideologues to leave their hobby horses at
> home: it's time to get serious about ending this war before it
> escalates beyond the power of anyone to rein it in.
>
> I have long advocated more creative ways than demonstrations, with the
> requisite placards and crowd-pleasing speeches, of protesting this war.
> Two years ago I offered up the idea of holding teach-ins across the
> nation, so as to educate the American public about the possibly quite
> horrific consequences of invading Iraq. Well, we have all been teaching
> ourselves by simply reading the daily headlines from Iraq and watching
> the slaughter on television, as that "liberated" country comes apart at
> the seams - and the new rulers usher in a tyranny that is different,
> and in some ways worse, than the one that preceded it.
>
> It isn't too late, however, to educate ourselves about how we got
> involved in this quagmire, and who exactly dragged us into it. We are
> learning more about that every day and will doubtless face new
> revelations in the future. Let's organize this process of
> self-education, and do more than carry placards: it's time to start
> educating the American public about how we got where we are today and
> how we can extricate ourselves from this enormous tragedy. Either we do
> that, or the disaster overtakes us...
>
> -Justin Raimondo
>
>
>
> Find this article at:
> http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3D7009
>
> Click Here to Print
> SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
> Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
|