Re: KATHLOON wants control of the internets! BUT SHE'S A FELON LIAR TERRORIST MONSTER MOM FRAUD AND WHACKO

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.


© 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.


© 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/sci.med.diseases.lyme/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/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/961a6d2015746801/41df41b82df2d0a1?hl=en#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/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/f4f83960053d8933/cbae392e9ba84df7?q=EWALD&rnum=3&hl=en#cbae392e9ba84df7


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/sci.med.diseases.lyme/browse_thread/thread/507b61f6eeaa6a31/540c8012ea93f24d?q=cyber&rnum=1&hl=en#540c8012ea93f24d

kathleen May 3, 1:45 pm hide options


Newsgroups: sci.med.diseases.lyme
From: "kathleen" <kathleen.***...@xxxxxxxx> - 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. 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.



Chuck D Adams wrote:
> Bush wants control of the internets!
> by think2004
> Fri Jul 1st, 2005 at 08:32:13 PDT
> CNN is running a story this morning is entitled U.S. keeps control of
> Internet computers.
>
> No big deal, right? After all, the U.S. has had control of the ICANN
> computers, in a manner of speaking. CNN gives us a bit of background:
>
>
> The computers in question serve as the Internet's master directories and
> tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users
> around the world interact with them every day, likely without knowing it.
> Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific
> suffix essentially unreachable. [...]
>
> Thursday's declaration means Commerce would keep that control [of ICANN],
> regardless of whether and when those conditions [previously specified for
> ICANN] are met.
>
>
> That's when the alarm bells started ringing.
>
>
> a.. think2004's diary :: ::
> b..
> If you've ever read the Project for the New American Century's (PNAC's)
> white paper entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses", maybe the sirens
> started ringing in your head as well. Here's a portion of pages 11-12, where
> PNAC begins to lay out the groundwork necessary to achieve their pax
> americana:
>
>
> ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
>
>
> a.. defend the American homeland;
>
> b.. fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
>
> c.. perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security
> environment in critical regions;
>
> d.. transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs;"
>
>
> To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and
> budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must: [...]
>
> CONTROL THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL COMMONS" OF SPACE AND "CYBERSPACE," and pave
> the way for the creation of a new military service - U.S. Space Forces -
> with the mission of space control.
>
>
> My first thought, upon reading the CNN article, was to wonder who the
> Secretary of Commerce was. Was he in good company as a PNAC signatory, with
> Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Khalilzhad, Pearle et al? Well, a
> cursory google told me that the Commerce Secretary is Carlos Gutierrez, and
> other than hanging with a bad crowd, he doesn't have any obvious PNAC
> affiliations, and hasn't autographed any of their propaganda/policies.
>
> I decided to hit Google News, and see what others might be saying about this
> story. Oh my!
>
> The Register, a British Tech publication, had this to say:
>
>
> Bush administration annexes control of the Internet
>
> An extraordinary statement by the US government has sent shockwaves around
> the Internet world and thrown the future of the network into doubt.
>
> In a worrying U-turn, the US Department of Commerce (DoC) has made it clear
> it intends to retain control of the Internet's root servers indefinitely. It
> was due to relinquish that control in September 2006, when its contract with
> overseeing body ICANN ended.
>
> The decision - something that people have long feared may happen - will not
> only make large parts of the world furious but also puts ICANN in a very
> difficult position. The organisation has slowly been expanding out of its
> California base in an effort to become an international body with overall
> responsibility for the Internet.
>
> The US government is professing its full backing for ICANN (which it
> created) at the same time that it awards itself control of the Net's
> foundations, which will have the inevitable effect of pulling the
> organisation back into the US.
>
>
> That's disturbing enough. The U.S. had planned to relinquish total control
> of ICANN to the international community, possibly the International
> Telecommunications Union (ITU) body of the United Nations. Oh my, not those
> pesky folks at the UN. Where's Bolton when we need him?
>
> Well, for now, we've got the Commerce Department. They introduced the Bush
> administration's intentions with a nice little powerpoint presentation that
> seems to have been put together for the Wireless Communications Association
> International 2005 Annual Conference. And look who's on page 2!
>
> It's our fearless leader, about to discuss the Internets! Here's what The
> Register had to say about that:
>
>
> But what is most disturbing about Gallagher's presentation, is how it
> endlessly refers to the president. The first slide has a picture of George
> Bush. The second begins "Thanks to the president's policies, America's
> economy is strong". The next slide is "The president's broadband vision".
> The next slide leads with a quote from Bush and two pictures of him. And on
> and on it goes. There is barely a single slide that doesn't quote from the
> president.
>
> Clearly the Internet has entered the Bush administration's vision and the
> resulting DoC statement - which boldly tells the rest of the world that the
> US will continue to run the Internet and everyone will just have to lump
> it - is very in keeping with how the US government is currently run.
>
> The big question now is whether the rest of the world will be cowed. ICANN
> has yet to release a statement on the DoC's surprise declaration but it
> knows which side its bread is buttered on and so will probably make a
> careful and broadly supportive statement.
>
>
> This move clearly has the Bush administration's fingerprints all over it, as
> evidenced by the Commerce Department's presentation. Likewise, as PNAC is
> all over the White House, PNAC is leaving skid marks as well.
>
> I'm alarmed, and I think we need to keep our eyes on this story. The
> implications of strict U.S. control over what web sites could potentially be
> delivered to users is significant. Think about it. If the rest of the world
> is blocked from input into ICANN, ICANN (and our Commerce Department) could
> ultimately decide which websites can be viewed by the world's users. Another
> path this leads me to is the PATRIOT Act. Can anyone who's more familiar
> with the act than I am fill me in on what references it may have regarding
> internet usage or implementation? I could be totally off base on that one,
> but it's crossed my mind, and I don't have time to research it at the
> moment.
>
> Is this the first step towards U.S. government control of the internets?
>
>
> Display: ThreadedMinimalNestedFlatFlat UnthreadedDynamic ThreadedDynamic
> Minimal

.