Prior to Constable Brooker coming to my home the only visits I had from the police were Constables McCormick and Lennon.

We know that neither of those officers knew much about me because there was no history prior to that. We also know from reading the incident reports filed by those two officers that they noted no unusual behavior or indications of mental illness.

Unlike Constable Brooker who seemed to know that my computer was in the basement, Constables McCormick and Lennon seemed to know nothing other than what they were told by the complainant.

So just for sake of argument let's say that the unlawful surveillance began sometime between the visits of Constables McCormick and Lennon and the visit of Constable Brooker. Let's also say that the notion of me being mentally ill began sometime between those two visits as well. With the first documented suggestion of mental illness being Constable Brooker.

We know from reading the incident reports of Constables McCormick and Lennon that no crime had been committed against the complainant. In McCormicks own words he wrote that my actions did not meet the threshhold. And why would they have? There was no history of violence so there was no reason to suspect that the complainant was in any danger. There was no threat made against the complainant. Contact between myself and the complainant was minimal and took place over the span of half a year. Although the complainant would later exaggerate what had previously transpired and been documented by the police.

The next officer to make note of a possible mental illness was Constable Griffin. And I'll continue this in the documents I will be presenting to the police and the courts!

YOU ALL FALL DOWN!

---

anonymous 4 years ago

We're going to deal with REALITY this time!

We're going to deal with FACTS and EVIDENCE this time!

Once again, I am reminding you that YOU did NOT get it right!

You ARE going to get it RIGHT this time though!

Mark my fucking words!

---

anonymous 4 years ago

We also know that Mr. Dann is on record as having said in the local newspaper in January or February of 2001 (I'd have to look that up and I don't have the newspaper clipping handy at the moment) that he had no clue as to my identity. Was he lying? That remains to be seen.

We do know however that he knew that I was in the downtown library in June of 2001. We know this because he pulled the same stunt with the library staff as he did with the police. He sent me an email, waited for my reply, then called the library and told the library staff that I was harassing him. I showed the library staff that I was merely replying to his email and she allowed me to continue.

Is this true? To the best of my knowledge, yes. Are these things fact? They are as factual as the newspaper articles and police incident reports I am citing.

I know you have this desire to rewrite history, but I wish you the best of luck in rewriting the evidence!

I am sticking to my story! Nothing you say will sway even a syllable of what I have said. Don't even bother trying to introduce doubt because your word is no good. If you haven't evidence you haven't shit!

---

anonymous 4 years ago

The pièce de résistance in your lame attempt at painting me mentally ill is the letter authored by Mr. McFadden. Mr. McFadden went all out in trying to portray me as mentally ill. He used patent fabrications, overt contradictions, glaring omissions, and everything else but the kitchen sink.

This is going to be a cakewalk!

---

anonymous 4 years ago