Cyberstalker ‘joe’ Sent Repeated Harassing Communications From Network Registered To City Government In California; Threatened To Sue PP Blog

EDITOR’S NOTE: Is it any wonder so many people believe the Internet is just one giant cesspool? This is the latest news on “joe,” who graduated from Ponzi advocacy to cyberstalking in September.

UPDATED 4:28 P.M. ET (U.S.A.) Saying he wants to give the PatrickPretty.com Blog something else to “chew on” after it announced Saturday that it would share information about cyberstalkers with law enforcement, cyberstalker “joe” now has threatened to file a lawsuit against the Blog.

The lawsuit threat followed on the heels of ceaseless nuisance communications from “joe” and a previous threat by “joe” to start “fires” at the Blog by leeching off insecure computer networks to frustrate attempts to track him. On Dec. 7 between 8:24 p.m. and 8:42 p.m. (ET), “joe” sent six harassing communications from a computer network whose IP resolves to a city government in California.

It is not believed that “joe” is an employee of the city. Rather, it is believed that he used the city’s resources to mask his identity. In September, “joe” claimed he had the ability to access insecure networks near his home and “was able to get online in a few places.” He also claimed there were “a few internet cafes around me” and that the Blog had better “get ready for the return of “joe.”

PatrickPretty.com announced today that it has shared information on seven IPs used by joe, including the IP of the city government in California. The Blog also shared 14 email addresses used by “joe,” one of which used the word “boo,” another of which used the word “eerie” and yet another of which used the word “greatone.”

Some of the email addresses included nonsensical words. At the same time, the Blog since Saturday has shared information on six additional user identities employed by “joe.” The Blog previously reported that “joe” repeatedly used sexual references in his communications, referring to himself in some communications as “Joseph the phallicly gifted.” He also has employed the username “Mr. Wonderful” and “joe the magnificent (and good looking”), among others.

“joe,” an advocate for autosurf Ponzi schemes who says he does not care if they are legal or not as long as they pay, has repeatedly shifted IPs, usernames and email addresses in what the Blog views as a bid to probe it for security vulnerabilities and defeat its ability to prevent his nuisance communications from being published.

In September, “joe” demanded that the Blog publish his unwelcome communications, defining himself as a “bad penny” who would not go away until the Blog agreed to his terms. He has sent dozens and dozens of harassing communications over the Internet to the Blog since then.

Despite announcing his intent to harass the Blog and his plan to leech off insecure computer networks, start “fires,” frustrate efforts to track him and create maintenance problems, “joe” now says he intends to sue.

“You just can’t tell anyone who I am because i would sue you for invasion of Privacy among other things,”  joe said Saturday, after the Blog published its announcement it was sharing cyberstalking information with law enforcement. In a separate harassing communication after the Blog published its announcement, “joe” insisted he had a right to send the Blog “behind the scenes comments” and again suggested he may begin to employ YouTube to nuisance the Blog like the cyberstalker “unclefesta26.”

It was the second time “joe” raised the suggestion that he would escalate his cyberstalking mission by employing YouTube. Previously he expressed pleasure in harassing the Blog, saying he feels “some satisfaction that you seem to be intimidated by me.”

Both “joe” and “unclefesta26” have been blocked from the PatrickPretty.com for spamming, derailing conversations and posing chronic maintenance problems. Other websites have banned them as well.

“joe’s” apparent theory behind the threatened lawsuit is that the use of aliases insulate him from criminal or civil prosecution and give him a lawful platform from which he can send repeated harassing communications.

Under “joe’s” apparent theory, a person is permitted to stalk and harass individuals and businesses on the Internet  — and create labor-intensive and time-consuming maintenance work — simply by creating aliases. “joe” appears to believe that it is impossible to commit a crime or subject individuals or businesses to harassment if one does not use his actual name.

At the same time, “joe” seems to believe that those he would nuisance have a duty to permit him to nuisance them because his rights to free speech and privacy trumps the rights of those he would nuisance. Court case after court case demonstrates the fallacy of that thinking.

In 1998, for instance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tackled the Constitutional issues of free speech and privacy in a case in which a man was convicted of 36 counts of harassment by communication or address after sending repeated anonymous, harassing communications via wire — in this case, over telephone lines and a fax machine.

A lower court had ruled (emphasis added below) “the right to free speech is not absolute and that certain classes of speech, such as obscenity and fighting words, may be restricted.

“It found that Appellant’s . . .  faxes, which were sent repeatedly and anonymously, had no legitimate purpose. The court concluded that the faxes were intended to harass and were not a form of communication safeguarded by the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court also rejected the man’s privacy argument, ruling that the mere fact a communication is sent anonymously does not insulate the sender from prosecution under harassment laws.

In upholding rulings by lower courts and sustaining the conviction of a man who sent repeated anonymous communications by wire, the Supreme Court rejected the man’s argument that “he cannot be punished because his communications were anonymous.”

“Appellant’s argument, and the cases he cites in support, are misplaced because the statute at issue is directed at the harassing nature of the communications, which the legislature has a legitimate interest in proscribing,” the Supreme Court ruled.