I have received numerous private communications concerning the recent attacks perpetrated on my family and me. Moreover, it has been suggested by several individuals that my contention that a crime has been committed is false, although, personally, I can’t see how they could make such a claim without tacitly admitting that they were privy to the intimate details of all that transpired. I am not an attorney, nor am I familiar with the law in each state, but I have recently received a crash course on the crimes of identity theft and cyberstalking. Therefore, I am making this post in an attempt to answer what questions I can, clear the air, provide proof of my sincerity to those who were involved, and hopefully prevent these offenses from ever happening again. The facts of the matter are clear. Many of us witnessed the posts on online-college.info, collegehints.com, and aed become progressively more strident, bellicose, and revealing of personal information, all solely for the purpose of harassment. What only a few were aware of at the time was that they were extensive “backchannel” communications (emails, telephone conversations, etc.) of a sinister and conspiratorial nature, which, in essence, coordinated these efforts. Last month, these activities culminated in one individual stealing my identity to make a post to several newsgroups taunting and challenging several Federal agencies. Others chimed in to add fuel to the fire. These posts served no legitimate purpose; their only purpose, like the others before them, was simply to cause me substantial emotional distress. Thanks to the full and quick cooperation of talkabout.com (the Web site used to conceal the identities of some of the perpetrators posting to newsgroups), various ISPs (particularly one in Southern California), and several of the co-conspirators, investigators have uncovered the full nature and extent of the crimes and the true identities of all involved. One poster on another forum expressed his opinion that a crime was not committed, “based on the long standing tradition of free speech embodied in the US Constitution.” First, let me briefly state that, in spite of the fact that not all speech is protected, federal laws are indeed notoriously lax in this specific instance. For example, 18 U.S.C. 875 (c) is not an all-inclusive anti-cyberstalking statute, as it applies only to communications of actual threats, and not in situations where a cyberstalker is engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to harass or annoy another person. 47 U.S.C. 223 is broader than 18 U.S.C. 875 because it covers both threats and harassment, but it only applies to direct communications between the perpetrator and the victim, therefore it is not applicable in a situation where a person harasses or terrorizes another person by posting messages on a bulletin board or in a chat room or encourages others to harass or annoy another person. Concerning identity theft, the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, enacted by Congress in October 1998 (and codified, in part, at 18 U.S.C. §1028) is the federal law making identity theft a crime. It states that it is a federal crime when someone “knowingly transfers or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable state or local law.” Under the Act, a name, telephone number, address, or any other piece of information that may be used alone or in conjunction with other information to identify a specific individual (“means of identification.”). Therefore, it seems that 18 U.S.C. 875 (c) and 47 U.S.C. 223 do not apply in this case, and the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act would only apply if the identity theft was used to commit, aid or abet a felony under federal, state, or local law. The point is moot, however; as according to the FBI, most cyberstalking cases are investigated and prosecuted by local authorities either in the jurisdiction where victim resides or the jurisdiction where the messages originated. Needless to say, if it comes to that, I would prefer to press charges in my home state of Florida (for a multitude of reasons). According to the investigators, several attorneys, and a few state legislators (a state senator was particularly helpful), in Florida, the relevant statutes are 817.568, 784.048, and 817.569. In my next post, I’ll examine and post links to these statutes. It will become obvious that if the messages originate in, or as it is in this case, the victim resides in the State of Florida, crimes have indeed been committed.
Florida Statutes The Florida statute concerning identity theft is 817.568 Criminal use of personal identification information (see here). It reads, in part: (2)(a) Any person who willfully and without authorization fraudulently uses, or possesses with intent to fraudulently use, personal identification information concerning an individual without first obtaining that individual's consent, commits the offense of fraudulent use of personal identification information, which is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. 817.568 (1) (f) defines "personal identification information" as “any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual...” Moreover, contrary to the opinion of one poster on another forum who contended that the use of public records was legitimate, the statute, quite interestingly, actually prescribes stiffer penalties for the use of public records in the commission of this crime: (5) If an offense prohibited under this section was facilitated or furthered by the use of a public record, as defined in s. 119.011, the offense is reclassified to the next higher degree as follows: (a) A misdemeanor of the first degree is reclassified as a felony of the third degree. (b) A felony of the third degree is reclassified as a felony of the second degree. (c) A felony of the second degree is reclassified as a felony of the first degree. Therefore, the individual (now positively identified) who stole my identity to post to three different newsgroups (thereby compounding the error) has committed three second degree felonies. It is quite obvious that cyberstalking is a relatively new term. In fact, I would not even have been aware that it was indeed a crime in the State of Florida if a friend (who just happens to be a state senator) informed me that just last year the legislature passed S82 and H0479 (identical bills in the Senate and House, respectively) which amended and reenacted several statutes to include, define and provide penalties for cyberstalking. Governor Jeb Bush approved the measure on 5/21/03, effective 10/01/2003. The Florida statute concerning cyberstalking is 784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties (see here). It reads, in part: (2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 784.048 (1) (d) defines "cyberstalk" as engaging in “a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.” 784.048 does not prescribe harsher penalties for the use of public records for this crime, but interestingly there is a separate statute that does. 817.569 Criminal use of a public record or public records information; penalties (see here) reads, in its entirety: 817.569 Criminal use of a public record or public records information; penalties. A person who knowingly uses any public record, as defined in s. 119.011, or who knowingly uses information obtainable only through such public record, to facilitate or further the commission of: (1) A misdemeanor of the first degree, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. (2) A felony, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Therefore, anyone who committed the crime of cyberstalking is guilty of a first degree misdemeanor, those who utilized information from public records to do so are guilty of a separate and additional first degree misdemeanor. The Florida statute concerning conspiracy is 777.04 Attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy (see here). It reads, in part: (3) A person who agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person or persons to commit any offense commits the offense of criminal conspiracy, ranked for purposes of sentencing as provided in subsection (4). Those who participated in the backchannel communication activities (such as uncovering and sharing my personal information, debating my true identity, suggesting or asking what should or would be done, cheering on the activities of the others, etc.) are therefore guilty of either a first degree misdemeanor or a felony of the third degree, depending on the extent of their involvement. I should also point out that shortly after the posting of my personal information on the Internet, a separate (but obviously related) crime was committed at my home that could have resulted in bodily injury and caused me to fear for the safety of me and my family. The statutes immediately preceding 817.568 and 817.569 are, of course, 817.566 and 817.567. Perhaps only I can appreciate the irony that the offenses are entitled, respectively, “ Misrepresentation of association with, or academic standing at, postsecondary educational institution” and “Making false claims of academic degree or title.”
The Truth I would like to now address a series of posts (actually, an entire thread entitled, “Gus Sainz: "Diplomas? I don't have to show you any stinking diplomas!’”) on another forum that proposes the theory that the reason and the justification for the recent criminal activity perpetrated against my family and me was my continued refusal to divulge the source of my degrees. One poster contends that the criminal activity would cease if only I were to reveal the names of the institutions that granted my degrees, as this would end “all speculation and inquiry.” He has challenged me to stop “slithering about in the grass” and “stand up like a man for a change and reveal the truth.” I have decided to accept the challenge; here is the TRUTH. First, let me put and end to all the incessantly repeated ugly rumors that absolutely no one can corroborate. I had nothing to do with the closure of either online-college.info or ColleHints.com (unless you believe, as I do, that my non-participation contributed to its demise ). Who was really responsible should be fairly obvious to anyone with even rudimentary research skills. I have never “outed” anyone or contacted (by telephone, email, or any other means) an employer regarding a specific individual’s academic credentials. This is so important it bears repeating: I have never "ratted" on or “outed” anyone or contacted (by telephone, email, or any other means) an employer regarding a specific individual’s academic credentials. Furthermore, I have never posted on any forum or sent any email communications anonymously or using an alias. Never. I understand that some may have taken umbrage at my opinion that that repeating information that an individual has publicly revealed on the Internet (such as on a resume) did not constitute an invasion of privacy, as it was his or her own choice to make the information public. However, in spite of all the times this statement has been misconstrued or taken out of context, I still stand by it. I have never demanded that anyone reveal the source of his or her credentials unless that individual first proffered a specific credential in support of his or her arguments or a particular opinion or position. Never. It is absurd to call me a hypocrite for refusing to disclose my credentials based on this unfounded allegation. I have never called anyone a liar or a shill without incontrovertible proof and the belief that these individuals were injuring others through their activities. I have never claimed to be an expert in distance education; I simply post verifiable facts and conclusions based on solid evidence. I leave it to others to judge my level of expertise. Some continually repeat these lies in hopes that they will be accepted as true and provide justification for unethical, despicable, and criminal behavior. I challenge anyone to prove what I have asserted above to be false; and if they cannot, I challenge them to look deep inside themselves, find whatever vestige of a sense of decency or self-esteem that may remain, and refrain from repeating these lies in the future. Second, the idea that, in order to discuss distance education and academic institutions, one must reveal the source of one’s degrees is nonsensical. It is even more absurd when it is postulated by individuals who post anonymously (and even under several aliases), or by those who do not insist that anyone wishing to discuss these topics must reveal their true identities. After all, what good is it to claim credentials if they cannot be corroborated or associated with a real person? Third, the idea that anyone, simply by virtue of his polite refusal to divulge personal information on the Internet is meritorious of criminal attacks is ludicrous and perverse. Moreover to assert that this activity would cease if I were to divulge this personal information is even more ridiculous. Of course, if the individual posting these assertions was, in any way, associated with these criminal acts, then they would not be ridiculous at all; they would be threats to be taken seriously. Fourth, several individuals that were involved (some in a greater or lesser way than others) in the conspiracy to, as one of them described it, “get” Gus have indeed contacted me. No one was coerced or threatened; I believe that all came to accept that my desire not to ruin anyone’s life or career was (and is) genuine. I did not try to silence anyone; I simply wanted assurances that my family and me (or anyone else, for that matter) would never be victimized in this way again. Those who have chosen to publicly denigrate and attack those who have chosen to take the high road and settle this matter civilly and amicably, those who feel threatened or bullied, those who are now proffering lame excuses for their behaviors, those who are implausibly denying their activities, and those who profess to doubt the criminality of what took place, only make others wonder and speculate as to the extent of their knowledge and involvement. Finally, I want to apologize for the lengths of these posts; I hope they answer most of the questions that I have been asked. I hope they reveal my sincerity in wanting to resolve this matter civilly, amicably and privately (notice that I have purposely chosen not to publicly identify those involved).
Based on what I've read here, I'd say the answer is, "crime." Sorry for these troubles. Let us know if there's any way to help. Jack
I'd Like to Add Something I'd like to add something here. I'm not a perfect human being, but I've tried to live an honorable life. My name -- the name my mother gave me at birth -- is Quinn Tyler Jackson, and I've done my best to keep it from causing people to cringe when they hear it. In my life are many mistakes -- but I have endeavored to not repeat them. At the most difficult time of my life, someone attacked me both publicly (AED) and privately, and the ultimate result was that I lost my contracts with a certain online school due to the incredible amount of noise that resulted. I've no clue as to the identity of who it was who did it. Frankly -- I don't give a damn who did it. What's done is done. I don't (and have never) wished any harm upon who did it. Whoever did it is long since forgiven. I made my bed -- I slept in it. But I'll be damned if people start using my name and what happened to it as a rationale for the kinds of behaviors that have been going on alluded to in Gus Sainz above posts. And frankly, when I observed in horror the kinds of things people said about Mark Israel, I shuddered to think that people would somehow rationalize their tirade based upon what happened to my life after being harassed out of my professorship. People: no human being deserves to be harassed. No human being deserves the kinds of abuse that have been heaped upon Mark Israel and his poor wife. Gus Sainz and Mark Israel are both honorable men. They express(ed) their opinions under their own name, as is the way of honorable men. To those who heaped abuse upon Mark's wife -- hang your heads in shame! Don't anyone dare rationalize such hideous pathological behavior based upon what happened to me and my career because the decisions I made about my unaccredited degrees were mine and mine alone. Seek to do good. Seek to make peace with your fellow human beings. Seek to calm others' anger, not to enflame it. AVOID HARM TO OTHERS. Good deeds, good thoughts, good words. This motto goes back to the time of Zoroaster. I am in no way a perfect creature. God alone is aware of my full and complete wretechedness. But, please, please -- consider what I have said here. All best wishes.
It is a crime. My full solidarity, Gus Sainz, and I hope you can solve this asap. A la carcel con ellos. Greetings.
Gus, I am sorry for what you are going through. When I stumbled across this site, I decided to voice what I thought was just one person's opinion (MY opinion). I began to get grouped with the group against degree mills, and have had some issues of my own. I was mistaken for others at the closed forums, but do stand behind what I have said, though i do not know the MAN they think I am . I was even called "your right hand man" in a thread, which I thought was interesting (since I don't know you ) I hope you fight the fight, as many of us have witnessed these horrible things, some for just putting an opinion on one site, creating discussion and educating each other. It is scary what people will do to overt the focus from them, data is compiled so easily on the internet, and I wish you then best. Since we have witnessed these things, if there is anything I can do to help, please let me know. Also, there are plenty of postings in the "administrator" area of DI that could be used in a court case, and I think the administrators would be happy to help.
