It is unfortunate, when one member of the TI community spends time attacking other TI's, rather than pursuing a legal case against the government and corporate criminals.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court said - "advocating violence... as a means of accomplishing political reform" does not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence. It is free speech. In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Supreme Court re-affirmed that free speech includes statements that are not imminent acts of violence.
Keep in mind, that Richard Lighthouse did not advocate violence or threats of any kind, and it states that on the website.
Linda Costanzo responds to some of the confusion around Public vs Non-Public information.
Section 119 ONLY APPLIES to Non-Public, restricted personal information that is made Public. If the information was already Public, then this section DOES NOT APPLY. Literally anyone, anywhere in the world can look up this information - it is free. Targeted Justice uses information that is already public, such as:
- Zabasearch.com
- Veripages.com
- County property records
- Hunter.io (email addresses)
- newspaper articles
- Voter registration records
LINDA'S LETTER:
(Linda responding to confused complainer):
I'm confused. You are "with Jack Christiana" in presenting the information in this post. You have included Richard Lighthouse's information here. Jack Christiana wrote a letter to TI’s attacking Mr. Lighthouse for publicly outing people who appear to be in charge of our targeting - and he urged people to not follow Targeted Justice because of this. Mr. Lighthouse published information that is available on thousands of "people finder" sites - already very public information. The law Jack Christiana cited for proof of his first accusation, relates to restricted and/or confidential information - not public information available to everyone.
Two of his accusations are based on laws enacted for the "Protection of Individuals Performing Certain Official Duties". Was he saying that the perpetrators of our targeting are merely performing official duties?
There are more allegations made by Mr. Christiana that should be researched by concerned TI’s due to Mr. Christiana’s narrow application of laws that, upon investigation, cast doubt upon what Mr. Christiana’s is stating in his letter to TI’s.
I have been targeted since 1993. I have been hospitalized 3 times with serious head injuries. For 26 years I have been subjected to all of which Mr. Ted Gunderson states in his affidavit provided for enforcing a FOIA request made to the DOJ re TI’s. For anyone to cast doubt on a group like Targeted Justice and Mr. Richard Lighthouse, in the manner that Mr. Christiana has, in my opinion, causes more disruption in our community which slows down our progress.
After being severely targeted for 26 years, I want this to come to an end and in my opinion, Targeted Justice, Richard Lighthouse and Midge Mathis provide the best path to end the horrific torment we experience.
Linda Costanza
18 U.S. Code § 119. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties
(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information about a covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, publicly available--
1) Targeted Justice uses information that is already public. Keep in mind the law was drafted in 2007, before most people were aware that such information was generally available.
2) Targeted Justice only seeks non-violent solutions to the targeting. This is stated repeatedly on the web site, and in the ebooks of Richard Lighthouse. We do not threaten. We do not harass.
More importantly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that these statements constitute FREE SPEECH.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Clarence Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, He was convicted on charges of advocating violence under Ohio laws while participating in a rally and making a speech. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
Basically, the Court stated his "advocating violence... as a means of accomplishing political reform" did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence. It is free speech.
Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment that reaffirmed and clarified the imminent lawless action test first articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Hess is still cited by courts to protect speech threatening future lawless action.
The case involved an antiwar protest on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington. Between 100 and 150 protesters were in the streets. The sheriff and his deputies then proceeded to clear the streets of the protestors. As the sheriff was passing Gregory Hess, one of the members of the crowd, Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct, which was overturned.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court said - "advocating violence... as a means of accomplishing political reform" does not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence. It is free speech. In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Supreme Court re-affirmed that free speech includes statements that are not imminent acts of violence.
Keep in mind, that Richard Lighthouse did not advocate violence or threats of any kind, and it states that on the website.
Linda Costanzo responds to some of the confusion around Public vs Non-Public information.
Section 119 ONLY APPLIES to Non-Public, restricted personal information that is made Public. If the information was already Public, then this section DOES NOT APPLY. Literally anyone, anywhere in the world can look up this information - it is free. Targeted Justice uses information that is already public, such as:
- Zabasearch.com
- Veripages.com
- County property records
- Hunter.io (email addresses)
- newspaper articles
- Voter registration records
LINDA'S LETTER:
(Linda responding to confused complainer):
I'm confused. You are "with Jack Christiana" in presenting the information in this post. You have included Richard Lighthouse's information here. Jack Christiana wrote a letter to TI’s attacking Mr. Lighthouse for publicly outing people who appear to be in charge of our targeting - and he urged people to not follow Targeted Justice because of this. Mr. Lighthouse published information that is available on thousands of "people finder" sites - already very public information. The law Jack Christiana cited for proof of his first accusation, relates to restricted and/or confidential information - not public information available to everyone.
Two of his accusations are based on laws enacted for the "Protection of Individuals Performing Certain Official Duties". Was he saying that the perpetrators of our targeting are merely performing official duties?
There are more allegations made by Mr. Christiana that should be researched by concerned TI’s due to Mr. Christiana’s narrow application of laws that, upon investigation, cast doubt upon what Mr. Christiana’s is stating in his letter to TI’s.
I have been targeted since 1993. I have been hospitalized 3 times with serious head injuries. For 26 years I have been subjected to all of which Mr. Ted Gunderson states in his affidavit provided for enforcing a FOIA request made to the DOJ re TI’s. For anyone to cast doubt on a group like Targeted Justice and Mr. Richard Lighthouse, in the manner that Mr. Christiana has, in my opinion, causes more disruption in our community which slows down our progress.
After being severely targeted for 26 years, I want this to come to an end and in my opinion, Targeted Justice, Richard Lighthouse and Midge Mathis provide the best path to end the horrific torment we experience.
Linda Costanza
18 U.S. Code § 119. Protection of individuals performing certain official duties
(a) In General.--Whoever knowingly makes restricted personal information about a covered person, or a member of the immediate family of that covered person, publicly available--
1) Targeted Justice uses information that is already public. Keep in mind the law was drafted in 2007, before most people were aware that such information was generally available.
2) Targeted Justice only seeks non-violent solutions to the targeting. This is stated repeatedly on the web site, and in the ebooks of Richard Lighthouse. We do not threaten. We do not harass.
More importantly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that these statements constitute FREE SPEECH.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Clarence Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, He was convicted on charges of advocating violence under Ohio laws while participating in a rally and making a speech. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
Basically, the Court stated his "advocating violence... as a means of accomplishing political reform" did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence. It is free speech.
Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment that reaffirmed and clarified the imminent lawless action test first articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Hess is still cited by courts to protect speech threatening future lawless action.
The case involved an antiwar protest on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington. Between 100 and 150 protesters were in the streets. The sheriff and his deputies then proceeded to clear the streets of the protestors. As the sheriff was passing Gregory Hess, one of the members of the crowd, Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct, which was overturned.
Thanks to Linda, for helping clarify this for the TI Community.
The Board of Directors at Targeted Justice
The Board of Directors at Targeted Justice
Hunter.io allows you to find email addresses for any domain.
Anyone can use this service.
Targeted Justice is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
Anyone can use this service.
Targeted Justice is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.