ADAOK.ORG

Stupid F* Frequently Asked Questions

SFFAQ covers some basic concepts that every competent person should know, but recur in astounding frequency in the false claims surrounding the child taking and child abuse claims concerning the ongoing 2001-2023 concealment for extortion of a business in CHICKASAW NATION RESERVATION by competitors in Japan and China, their agency in persons in the United States and IANA.ORG and ICANN and META and GOOGLE service abuse, and consistent ANTRITRUST PRACTICES that require harsh language to briefly convey the urgency of not being a waste of public time.

Harsh language to follow. Not suitable for all audiences. Ages 21+. Nothing in the following shall be construed as LEGAL ADVICE. It is a policy handbook on the customs and practices of common law in the State of Oklahoma and former occupied territories settled by United States Citizens in INDIAN TERRITORY made foreign to United States by McGirt v State of Oklahoma.

Stalking - What it IS and what IS NOT

Because the abusers are quick to use 'trigger words' to place the public on guard against the result of their activity and response as if it were without a provocation, some fundamental concepts are necessary to consider.

Who contacted whom, where, how many times, in what context and purpose of legitimate business or in a disruptive manner to impact business and public sense of security, and persistent activity to this degree.

Claiming that someone is talking about you, doesn't cut it. Where they are making statements of fact on their own property, in their own DOMAIN or forum that is *expressly* not created using the NAME OF THE VICTIM or their family, identity, personal name, incorporates in the URL their TRADEMARK(S), incorporated in the META DATA TAG their trademark(s), address, or names of their intimate partner or image of them or their family or intimate partner to degrade and abuse their public character by modification or portrayal in a pose of sickness, weakness, injury, or video or photos obtained to highlight that injury to assert inferiority or weakness - is protected to some degree.*

Use of photos of persons without permission, excluding photos of behavior brought into specific legal question in a public prior post or allegation of commercial or legal public controversy obligating a proof on answer and without alteration other than to conceal their exposure, limit injury to viewers, or establish the base facts of the discussion then to be carried on such matter specific to the photo as evidence and to facts at law under II-3 and II-22 rule; would be criminal, and in transmission to place or attach or leave on the business sites or personal site or other place of public viewing associated with those persons owned by them or used by them under license for COMMERCIAL PURPOSE - clear intent to injure and stalking.

Like 23 messages posted to a FACEBOOK BUSINESS PAGE on Feb 4 2023, with images to defame and URL to video taken after an attack on a person to injure and with health and welfare falsely representing medical conditions and medical privacy rights of a clear legal value falsely to overcome the person in taking over $60,000 USD and a child - would be wrongdoing. Effort to allege the party so portrayed is 'stalking' while the claimant is doing these things to that party, are simple felony fraud to attest the act they are committing is a violation by the victim rather than the perpetrator posting such content to a BUSINESS PAGE to harm COMMERCIAL TRADE.

At law, Title 21 Okalhoma Statutory Code Section 21-1172 (A)(2) defines this conduct as electronic communication with intent to terrify, intimidate, harass, threaen, and inflict (financial) injury to any person (living or incorporated) and to the property (business) of that person.

Use of images such as weapons and detailed discussion of confrontations and to abuse the gender and masculinity of such person to meet them in a concealed place, such as J. Deutch persona of Donald Jonathon Beal has done in 2022 December, would further be part of Section (A)(3) communication - whether or not such demand were granted reply - of clear intent to put the party in fear of physical harm or death.

In calls to claim and overspeak to the telephone of James Allen, in a pattern of activity also during such threats and with correlated frequency to such abuse; refusing to give identity or giving false identity, satisfies (A)(4) rule.

These acts are crimes regardless of whether one is performing them or allowing a device - such as a network service or phone server - to perform the act for any other person by the administrator of the service. (A)(5)

The words 'in conspiracy or concerted action' expressly deny the requirement to establish a 'proof' or 'agreement' or 'joint action' in the doing of such acts - to incite attack upon the person as we see in 2002-2004 and 2008 and 2011 and 2013 and 2021-2023 ongoing threats, published by Donald Jonathon Beal and Veronica Petersen with Alicia McMahon. Claims these are 'coincidence' do not afford a legal defense, nor does such use of the TRADEMARK of such person to harass and abuse enjoy any protection regardless of the denial of a plan or direct knowledge of the person(s) sending or publishing such content ot impair the rightful owner of the mark to claim and exclusive use in repeated harassment as though that were a legal defense. (A)(6)

Jurisdiction of such abuse is defined by Section (C), which states such act shall " be deemed to have been committed at either the place of origin or the place of reception."

This means that the jurisdiction is PONTOTOC COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, where such claims and charges may be brought, regardless of any foreign place in the United States or outside the United States.

While a first offense is a misdemeanor, a second conviction is a felony.

Federal Anti-Stalking Statute (18 U.S. Code §2261A)

State of Oklahoma Anti-Stalking Statute (Title 21 §21-1173)

Obscene, threatening or harassing telecommunication or other electronic communications - Penalty. (Title 21 §21-1172)

§21-1172. Obscene, threatening or harassing telecommunication or other electronic communications - Penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for a person who, by means of a telecommunication or other electronic communication device, willfully either:

2. Makes a telecommunication or other electronic communication with intent to terrify, intimidate or harass, or threaten to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or property of that person;

3. Makes a telecommunication or other electronic communication, whether or not conversation ensues, with intent to put the party called in fear of physical harm or death;

4. Makes a telecommunication or other electronic communication, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing the identity of the person making the call or communication and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number;

5. Knowingly permits any telecommunication or other electronic communication under the control of the person to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section; and

6. In conspiracy or concerted action with other persons, makes repeated calls or electronic communications or simultaneous calls or electronic communications solely to harass any person at the called number(s).

B. As used in this section, “telecommunication” and “electronic communication” mean any type of telephonic, electronic or radio communications, or transmission of signs, signals, data, writings, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by telephone, including cellular telephones, wire, cable, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical system or the creation, display, management, storage, processing, transmission or distribution of images, text, voice, video or data by wire, cable or wireless means, including the Internet. The term includes:

1. A communication initiated by electronic mail, instant message, network call, or facsimile machine; and

2. A communication made to a pager.

C. Use of a telephone or other electronic communications facility under this section shall include all use made of such a facility between the points of origin and reception. Any offense under this section is a continuing offense and shall be deemed to have been committed at either the place of origin or the place of reception.

D. Except as provided in subsection E of this section, any person who is convicted of the provisions of subsection A of this section, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

E. Any person who is convicted of a second offense under this section shall be guilty of a felony.

Added by Laws 1969, c. 233, § 1, emerg. eff. April 21, 1969. Amended by Laws 1986, c. 215, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1986; Laws 1993, c. 283, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Laws 1997, c. 133, § 306, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2004, c. 275, § 5, eff. July 1, 2004; Laws 2005, c. 231, § Oklahoma Statutes - Title 21. Crimes and Punishments Page 351 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2005. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 306 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999.

Oklahoma Anti-Stalking Law (Title 21 Section 1173) are quite moderate compared to Federal Law, and separate from the prior electrnic communications criminal statute.

Terms like "reasonable person" and "member of the immediate family of that person" to "feel" any of the conditions - "terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested".

A standard of "feel" is very low. Effort to suggest this is a mental illess to conceal that right, is a crime.

This is further stated to emphase that the actual person being harassed "feel" terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested - is sufficient also.

In the case of the 2002-2023 onoging conduct by the Texas parties in the feature of this site, Section F(4)(c) is evident in repeatedly and contrary to express demand to cease and blocking, to appear in the workplace of JAMES ARNOLD ALLEN and sending electronic communications (f) for viewing by all persons attending that workplace as clients, customers, workers, creditors, investors, and members of the general public there for INTERSTATE COMMERCE purposes.

Allegations that JAMES ALLEN or SHADOWDANCERS L.L.C. are therefore 'stalking" anyone, by appearing, and publishing and discussing commercial content in the place of business of their own making and operations - under commercial lease or ownership to such use in contract - are absurd and fraud of a felony degree to deceive the public during criminal pattern of actions to interfere with custody and a registered court case and witnesses, potential jurors, and "ability to pay" on contracts then cited as cause to threaten harm or taking of property from the company due to reduced performance.

§21-1173. Stalking - Penalties.

A. Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person in a manner that:

1. Would cause a reasonable person or a member of the immediate family of that person as defined in subsection F of this section to feel frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested; and

2. Actually causes the person being followed or harassed to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested,

shall, upon conviction, be guilty of the crime of stalking, which is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one (1) year, or by a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. B. Any person who violates the provisions of subsection A of this section when:

1. There is a permanent or temporary restraining order, a protective order, an emergency ex parte protective order, or an injunction in effect prohibiting the behavior described in subsection A of this section against the same party, when the person violating the provisions of subsection A of this section has actual notice of the issuance of such order or injunction;

2. Said person is on probation or parole, a condition of which prohibits the behavior described in subsection A of this section against the same party or under the conditions of a community or alternative punishment; or

3. Said person, within ten (10) years preceding the violation of subsection A of this section, completed the execution of sentence for a conviction of a crime involving the use or threat of violence against the same party, or against any member of the immediate family of such party,

shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding five (5) years, or by a fine of not more than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

C. Any person who:

1. Commits a second act of stalking within ten (10) years of the completion of sentence for a prior conviction of stalking; or

2. Has a prior conviction of stalking and, after being served with a protective order that prohibits contact with an individual, knowingly makes unconsented contact with the same individual, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding five (5) years, or by a fine of not less than Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

D. Any person who commits an act of stalking within ten (10) years of the completion of execution of sentence for a prior conviction under subsection B or C of this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for a term not exceeding ten (10) years, or by a fine of not less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

E. Evidence that the defendant continued to engage in a course of conduct involving repeated unconsented contact, as defined in subsection F of this section, with the victim after having been requested by the victim to discontinue the same or any other form of unconsented contact, and to refrain from any further unconsented contact with the victim, shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the continuation of the course of conduct caused the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested.

F. For purposes of this section:

1. "Harasses" means a pattern or course of conduct directed toward another individual that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact, that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress, and that actually causes emotional distress to the victim. Harassment shall include harassing or obscene phone calls as prohibited by Section 1172 of this title and conduct prohibited by Section 850 of this title. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose;

2. "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of two or more separate acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct";

3. "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily require, medical or other professional treatment or counseling;

4. "Unconsented contact" means any contact with another individual that is initiated or continued without the consent of the individual, or in disregard of that individual's expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of unconsented contact. Unconsented contact includes but is not limited to any of the following:

a. following or appearing within the sight of that individual,

b. approaching or confronting that individual in a public place or on private property,

c. appearing at the workplace or residence of that individual,

d. entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual,

e. contacting that individual by telephone,

f. sending mail or electronic communications to that individual, and

g. placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual; and

5. "Member of the immediate family", for the purposes of this section, means any spouse, parent, child, person related within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity or any other person who regularly resides in the household or who regularly resided in the household within the prior six (6) months.

Added by Laws 1992, c. 107, § 1, emerg. eff. June 4, 1992. Amended by Laws 1993, c. 64, § 1, emerg. eff. April 13, 1993; Laws 1997, c. 133, § 307, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 1999, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 5, § 205, eff. July 1, 1999; Laws 2000, c. 370, § 14, eff. July 1, 2000; Laws 2015, c. 206, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2015. NOTE: Laws 1992, c. 348, § 4 repealed the original effective date of Laws 1992, c. 107, § 1 (Sept. 1, 1992). A new emergency effective date of June 4, 1992, was given to that section by Laws 1992, c. 348, § 5. NOTE: Laws 1998, 1st Ex.Sess., c. 2, § 23 amended the effective date of Laws 1997, c. 133, § 307 from July 1, 1998, to July 1, 1999

Federal Anti-Stalking Law (Title 18 Section 2261A) is similar, but includes specific details:

In the clause (2): "place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce..."

And in (2)(B): "causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in..."

Whereby the very act of Jan 6 2023 photography of our office to 'cause or attempt to cause' emotional distress to person(s) qualifies as a felony act entitled our full public notice and disclosure with all information leading to the arrest of the suspect. As is the Feb 5 and 6 messages from an employee of fbgov.com alleging to be a resident in Natrona County Wyoming and employee of the DENVER DATA CENTER of COGENT COMMUNICATIONS which were used in such attacks, threats, and claim of execution of October 5 2022 direct extortion letters to immediate family members to extort money and property over $60,000 USD; in cause of Veronica Marie Petersen; to bear public report.

Title 18 U.S. Code Section 2261A. Federal Stalking Law

Whoever—

(i) that person;

(ii) an immediate family member (as defined in section 115) of that person;

(iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person; or

(iv) the pet, service animal, emotional support animal, or horse of that person; or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A); or

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—

(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person, a pet, a service animal, an emotional support animal, or a horse described in clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (1)(A); or

(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A), shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) or section 2261B, as the case may be.

(Added Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, § 1069(a), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2655; amended Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title I, § 1107(b)(1), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1498; Pub. L. 109–162, title I, § 114(a), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 2987; Pub. L. 113–4, title I, § 107(b), Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 77; Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, § 12502(a)(1), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4982; Pub. L. 116–249, § 2(c), Dec. 22, 2020, 134 Stat. 1126.)

Responive image