Portland’s U of OR hosted Reprob@tes H@rass Photojournalist

Portland's Chinatown

Portland’s China Town is now a tense convergence zone between the dispossessed and the city’s business interests.

“When it’s uncomfortable, when it’s unpopular, even when it’s dangerous to speak the truth, is the precise time the truth should be spoken.” 

Portland, OR (9-20-14) — Portland’s University of Oregon Turnbull Center campus permitted @narchists attending the Cascade Media Convergence to H@rass a photojournalist attending to cover the event. The UoO has a journalism department as well as a school of law. The narrative reporting on the dereliction of duty and incompetence at the University along with pictures of some of the miscre@nts follows.

Rick’s Magical Mystery Bus was a no-show.

It all began with a Facebook invitation to Portland’s Cascade Media Convergence event from what turned out to be Olympia’s Works In Progress’ (WIP) Sylvia Smith–a woman who had edited the community based alternative newspaper for the past 24 years. It had steadily devolved from its inception during the heady days of Jesse Jackson’s Presidential bid through his ‘Rainbow Coalition’ to a screed for many malcontents and those sympathetic with violently r@dical elements in the State’s capitol city. Sylvia had asked Rick Fellows, the director of Oly’s Media Island (a 501(c)3 non-profit located across the street from the public library)  if he would provide transportation on a bus HE owned to those interested in attending. The bus was not rented or leased by anyone, including Sylvia or WIP. It was to be done on a cost share basis among those riding on it interested in attending the event. Figures vacillated between $10 and $25 with at least 10 on board to be viable. The exact time of departure was going to be announced, but it was said it would be leaving from the Media Island location. Some registered as interested online including yours truly.


WIP’s Sylvia Smith

Consternation must have reached apocalyptic proportions as Sylvia belatedly notified the reporter he was talented, well written, but persona non grata and too ‘black’ to even ride the bus let alone in the rear of it. A self appointed spokesperson for a community based alternative newspaper was telling an independent photojournalist he would not be permitted to ride in the company of fellow independent journalists on a privately owned bus that had not been rented/leased belonging to a friend (Rick) who has benefited from the generosity of the reporter in the past. Rick, incidentally, when asked, confided if the reporter paid his share of the fuel expenses for the trip, Rick wasn’t about to kick him off the bus, but expressed discomfort with the awkward position Sylvia has created for him. Sylvia also roundly discouraged this reporter from even attending the event itself–an event  neither she nor WIP were sponsoring or even attended (no, not one) in the end. Rick was last seen repairing his car and is not thought to have attended either. There were not enough people from Olympia interested in going to make taking the bus practical. Yet Sylvia had argued others who were going to be in attendance had taken exception to a photojournalist coming said to have a reputation of taking photos of his subjects at public events with/without their permission. Moreover, Sylvia asserted the reporter had a “gnarly reputation” at relating to others at such events ‘inappropriately’ and disrupting them. (Without fear nor favor?) There was NO substantiation of the same or any disruptions except at the hands of the miscre@nts because there was no truth to the assertion. Clearly, WIP had been hi-jacked by Sylvia’s chosen outl@ws and the paper had become a cheerleader rather than an editorial asset to the community.

Friday’s opening blast at the event was a social and dance held at Portland’s Musicians’ Union Hall–a party that could be skipped without missing what was anticipated as the centerpiece to the intrigue: The sheltering of @narchists conspiring against the state using its facilities and tax supported institutions to work out the details of their strategies to sow revolution and v@ndalism, pontificating about their ‘rights’ while relishing denying the rights of others. It would all have to wait until Saturday’s first workshop scheduled for 10:00 am.


Milit@nt Literature Tabled under the guise of a public ‘Cascade Media Convergence’ at a public university

Considerably late for the 1st after checking into a local hostel, the 2nd workshop was presented by a journalism faculty member at the University without a hitch. Lunch was to be a 45 minute pause. Portland’s Saturday Marketplace was only a block away under the Burnside Bridge. The Graffiti Workshop was scheduled in room 302. This was the one said to be attended by those who wanted nothing documented or pictures taken.

The organizers had demanded registration from the reporter upon his arrival and $ for the 2 days of workshops. Both were given. While getting oriented, he noticed many other photographers present taking pictures or filming in the various rooms where workshops were being held. Knowing photography is not a crime and the scope of 1st Amendment guarantees, the reporter was confident of the legal boundaries, but not his safety. He’d been set upon/mobbed & robbed by @narchists before such as at TESC’s Anarchist Convergence in Olympia, 2013. He’d brought witnesses for this occasion and the resolve to defend himself. One open carry advocate had offered to come. A surge of support had been voiced by civil rights advocates and those fond of a free press. One woman with a 7-year old daughter had offered to accompany him on the trip, but had been discouraged due to the fact that if a venue isn’t safe for a journalist, it isn’t safe for a 7-year old child.

Greg Lewis @ttended the Casc@de Medi@ Convergence

Sensei Lewis in a different venue

Upon leaving the elevator, the photographer was challenged by the young man with the big hands seen below. “Are you going to take pictures?” he was asked. “I’m not required to respond to you and don’t want to talk to you,” he replied, “You’re blocking my path.” He was in the public hallway leading to room 302 where the great graffiti grope was to be held. The br@t crowded him and repeated his question with the same rebuff as the photographer stepped back and the miscre@nt advanced with each step, with each warning to step away from him–to leave him alone or he would defend himself from the @ssault. The young man ignored the warnings while asking what the reporter was doing as he dialed the University for assistance. “None of your business,” he was told.

Eventually, virtually all of those there/arriving opted to mob the photographer while certain unannounced witnesses looked on and the confrontation was recorded until the totally incompetent inadequately trained security guard for the building arrived. Being about the same age as the other callow miscre@nts, possibly a student as well, the guard joined in the very same antics, trying to block/intimidate the photographer while the organizers offered the reporter’s registration fee back. It was declined. The University administrator (Mike) had, by that time, arrived and witnessed a tense physical standoff on the verge of escalating to a self-defense action where the @ggressors had been repeatedly warned to stop yet continued to advance on the retreating reporter. In the interest of safety and perceiving more responsiveness from the older man, Mike asked the reporter to leave the scene but accompany him to discuss it. The journalist acceded to the request but continued to be h@rried by the incredibly incompetent ill-trained security guard until the reporter warned him NOT to touch him. Seeing this excess, the administrator chimed in and ordered the guard to back off. Reaching the ground floor, witness in tow, a discussion ensued.

“You blew it,” opined the photographer, “My rights as a photojournalist in a public venue at a public event were clearly being violated and you sided with the miscre@nts!” “I’m not certain what the laws are regarding this situation,” plead Mike. Mike was the responsible University administrator for the facility that Saturday. “I don’t think it’s ‘public’, but I just don’t know,” he continued. “Well, it is,” pressed the reporter, “Why don’t you call some of the University lawyers or law instructors and find out?” “That’s not so easy on a weekend,” said Mike. “Geeze, you’re a public university, you have a law school and a department of journalism here,” scoffed the reporter. He began to go into a litany of legal precedents and examples to make his case. “I used to work for the Seattle Times,” announced Mike. “Good,” came the reply, “Then we won’t have to reiterate basics to journalism we both already know–stuff like reporting without fear nor favor or having to seek permission from the very subjects on whom you’re reporting. You are a government institution/facility and if I had to ask its permission to do what I do, a free press wouldn’t mean very much, now would it?” “I just don’t know for sure,” pleaded Mike, “Give me some time to consult to find the answers.” “I’m sure you’ll come up with the right ones after you do your homework,” the photojournalist reckoned, “I’m an expert in this area. How much time do you need?” The reporter was wearing his 6″ PRESS button and cynically anticipated Mike telling him it might be a few days. “Can you give me about 25 minutes,” came the reply. “Sure,” the man with the camera nodded, “We’re near the Saturday Market and riverfront park. I’m certain we can find something to do for that amount of time.”

It was still early afternoon. As they proceeded to leave the building, the reporter stopped by the desk where his security guard antagonist had positioned himself near the entrance. “Do you have a phone book?” he asked, “I’d like the phone number of The Oregonian.” The guard looked through it and gave him the correct phone number. “So, tell me,” he continued, “Why are you so ‘shy’ about having your picture taken?” “Why are you so insistent on taking them or adverse to being blocked?” sneered the guard. “Look! Let me fill you in on some stuff in which you should be professionally interested,” glared the reporter, “First, you are NOT a law enforcement officer. You have no arrest powers and unlike a sworn peace officer, neither I NOR YOU may ‘advance’ on a person. Only a police/law officer may do that in law. Nor may you touch me.” “I didn’t touch you,” he objected. “Yes, you did! Unlike a sworn peace officer, you do NOT have qualified immunity from a lawsuit holding you liable for your actions, even if they were in good faith,” he continued. The guard nodded in agreement.

The Oregonian was sympathetic, called the situation tragic, but as a mainstream outlet, didn’t appear inclined to follow up on the story. They may have placed a phone call to the university, who knows?

The weather was quite warm/sunny that afternoon, muggy even except for the welcome breeze that floated down the river valley near its waters. The streets and park were crowded. The huge expanse of grass was cluttered with the homeless and all their worldly possessions, even teacup poodles thrown together among shopping carts and whatever could hold them. Daytime was siesta time for them. Public bathrooms were scarce, but unlike Olympia, there were some including a hybrid that exposed the head and lower legs of the occupants to public view while shielding their torso and pelvis as they sat on the toilet set into the public sidewalk. Somewhat further away beyond the bevy of food carts was an army of fiberglass outhouses in formation beneath the Burnside Bridge. Its ranks were arranged so as to discourage any who might want to squeeze through to open one of the doors. Its flank was cordoned/fenced off, but careful reconnoitering allowed a maneuver that granted relief. Portland was a city with accommodations for the savvy and/or determined only. Still, they existed–in stark contrast to Seattle and Olympia. Portland is also a city wildly enthusiastic about bicycles. They’re everywhere in a bewildering array of configurations and styles. Portland is a city intensely 3-dimensional. It is dense, tall, highly engineered, and equally deep hidden below grade. It’s public transportation system with Max, buses, trolleys and tram is rivaled by none–dirt cheap to ride. In fact, the drivers downtown weren’t seen to be asking anyone for proof of their fare. Hostels run about $35/night in the Pearl/Nob Hill District. Quality eateries abound w/reasonably priced menus. Volunteers wandered the core area handing out free sandwiches to those who appeared needy. For civil engineers and students of architecture, it is an impressive work of art–full and robust with a glut of humanity among the shards of high rises, plethora of bridges, and riverfront hideaways.

Perhaps an hour had passed. A call to Mike yielded a request for about 15 minutes more. “It’ll take us about that long to walk there,” he was reassured, “That’ll be fine.” He was still talking upon our arrival, not in an office, but seated in an alcove of the lobby in the leased historic building. “I’m sorry. It took somewhat longer than I anticipated,” he apologized upon approaching us perhaps just within earshot of the security guard near the entryway. He paused, caught his breath, and candidly announced, “We agree with you!” Before a response could be had, he excused himself for a few moments more to complete some pressing business before returning. “It is true that this space is public and so is the event,” he declared, “It’s also true the university administers the space.” “You know, this isn’t exactly my first rodeo,” leveled the reporter, “I’ve become an expert in this area of law and am exquisitely familiar with the nuances, boundaries, and precedents. I was confident your conclusions would make more sense once you’d done your homework.” “Well,” Mike continued, “I spoke with some of the organizers as well as the security guard. They admitted other photographers were present. We clarified to them they were not permitted to discriminate against you, et ux, while allowing others taking photos/video.” That was precisely what had gone on, in fact, as many tripods and cameras were seen earlier at the event. “So, what do you want to do,” queried Mike. “Actually, I’d like to continue to cover all of the event, including tomorrow,” the reporter suggested. “OK,” Mike responded, “but there are some conditions.” “Such as?” asked the photographer. “I won’t be able to be here tomorrow, so if any dispute arises, the security guard will have to sort it out,” Mike clarified. “No!” the reporter balked, “He’s incompetent.” Mike remained silent in apparent agreement.  The guard had been monumentally incompetent and vacuous, the epitome of a clueless apparatchik, as willfully ignorant as the miscre@nts he’d sided with. “I’ll tell you what,” winked the journalist, “I’ll make you a counter-offer…an accord and satisfaction in legal parlance. It’s obvious that there will be no love lost between myself and the @narchists in any event. Here’s the deal I’ll accept….”

Unfortunately the story will have to be truncated here as the deal included a non-disclosure clause. But, if there’s feathers on the face of this reporter who looks like the cat that ate the canary, it’s because it was delicious. It’s an agreement that likely wouldn’t have been reached but for the suspicion Mike genuinely liked the reporter and his journalistic ethics/dedication to 1st Amendment principles, his love of this country and the precepts upon which it was founded, the inalienable rights of all the people, his courage in pursuing reporting without fear nor favor–in short, a truly independent journalist. The public is entitled to no less, the Constitution singles out only one profession by name for protection–the press! The University of Oregon stands 4-square for that proposition without fear nor favor.


Just another brick in the w@ll


Guardians of Tranquility stand guard next to homeless rest area


Tiff@ny glowers at photojournalist w/chutzpah to snap pictures at a public event held in a public venue–Portland’s public University of Oregon at 70 Couch Ave.


“Smiling faces I can see, but not for me…”


Gr@nd Poob@h?


Coconspir@tors bridle at being unm@sked/exposed


W@tching Us W@tching Them


@ggressive r@dicals @ssault/h@rass photojournalist at Portland’s University of Oregon during public media event


Timothy Allen Rice, organizer at the C@scade Media Convergence Gr@ffiti workshop held in Portland’s University of Oregon Turnbull Center on 70 Couch Ave. sponsored by BMedia.


3525 SE Schiller St, Portland, OR 97202

Timothy Allen Rice, 5′-10″, 33yo (now), 175#’s, swis id: 759907, eyes: blue, hair: brn, dob: 4-7-81, Cleveland High graduate, Occupy Portl@nd, self described atheist & libertarian soci@list


Tiffany w/comr@des & Tomas


Heil! Tim graduated from the U of OR in 2004 (Sociology) w/a BS degree, of course. He’s chairman of the board for The Portland Alliance; Cleveland High (Portland) 1999 graduate.


Yet another @ttendee at the gr@ffiti workshop


Something’s H@ppening here–Bew@re!


‘Ibrahim’ Muhammad Mubarak’s Fellowship & Compassion


Prop@ganda for the Young

CLICK BELOW for Audio of Registration & Payment for Cascade Media Convergence at Portland’s University of Oregon Turnbull Center facility:

CLICK BELOW for Audio of @ssault and the University of Oregon’s dereliction of duty by failing to protect and defend the photojournalist’s civil rights as well as the public’s:

About admin

Opposed to politicians who equivocate about air quality & BioMassacre
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Portland’s U of OR hosted Reprob@tes H@rass Photojournalist

  1. Bruce Wilkinson says:

    I started reading and stopped halfway. I didn’t see any advancement in any of your points from any previous article. I find your writing to be uninteresting in the scope of free press issues. That event was put on by my good people and my friends and you were a detractor when you could have been someone who made additions. How unfortunate and a loss. You didn’t further free press or independent press you hurt it and I don’t want to have anything to do with you since you clearly can’t see the forest for the trees. Sorry John but I’m not going to be brought into anymore of your silly manufactured controversies. Welcome to irrelevance, it’s a lonely place but at least there you are always right.

  2. admin says:

    Bruce, as I’ve pointed out previously, you’re a community organizer, not a journalist. You’re in the middle of directing the political campaign of a Wyoming man running for U.S. Senator and that means you must cater to the least common denominator. I don’t. Ghandi said even if you’re a lone voice in the wilderness, you should still speak the truth. I have. The fact it sounds redundant is because like so many violations of civil rights, it continues. PINAC.org (Photography Is Not A Crime) sounds predictable too since they keep beating the same drum: Violations of 1st Amendment Principles. Whether *I* am ‘irrelevant’ IS irrelevant. What’s not are the 1st Amendment principles all Americans, without exception, are entitled to. It’s no small feat to get a major university (such as the University of Oregon) to back down and admit they erred. It’s a bit like watching your grandfather wrestle an alligator and win! As to your p@ls, they acted like the thugs they were. The audio and the photos reveal that. They speak for themselves. Like the University administrator (Mike), you need to do some serious remedial homework on this issue. He was genuine enough to admit he was wrong (as was the airhead they had for a security guard) and the school (in the end) AGREED with me on this point. You…and your p@ls, still don’t get it and likely never will. Thus, any candidate for whom you’re proselyting should be viewed by skeptics with suspicion. Real Americans recognize we must exercise our rights or we shall lose them. You make a profession of running popularity contests. I grasp that. Mine is speaking the truth. You require a lot of friends to achieve your agenda. I don’t. I will continue to report without fear nor favor.

    • Bruce says:

      I don’t do popularity contests, if I did that I wouldn’t be struggling to change things. You are a blogger who rights about himself like the oh so many wayward youth you make fun of yet try and emulate. You are a broken record playing the same dumb song. Out of all the problems with media to get riled up about you choose perhaps the weakest and most obnoxious. Rick would agree with me there.

      • admin says:

        A political campaign (which you ARE managing) IS a popularity contest. I don’t manage them, I cover and report on them. There’s a fundamental difference between the two postures. Struggle for change all you like and more power to you. That shouldn’t include shooting the messenger. The material, images, and audio really speak for themselves.

        Do I ridicule the fatuous, the vacuous, the callow, foolish and naive? Sure–what writer could resist? Do I ask subjects on whom I’m reporting for their permission to photograph them?–most assuredly not! Do I expose and strip them of their anonymity when they become threatening or violent?–you bet! Do I publish pictures of participants who show up at public events, with or without their permission?–right again. Do they have a right to harass/threaten/assault journalists who do so?–nope. Do mainstream journalists always ask for the permission of the subjects they’re covering at public events in public venues?–no, they do not, and I’ve spoken to many doing so at the same venues where I’ve been.

        Your p@ls were out of line and engaging in criminal behavior, Bruce. They were also paranoid because they wanted to discuss and conspire to commit criminal acts–graffiti in this instance. They wanted, typically, to remain @nonymous so they can avoid accountability and remain invisible to the public. The public has a right to know who is destroying its property and public spaces. Perhaps you can’t smell the coffee because you’re sweet on them, but unlike you, I can’t afford to ignore the obvious because I like/dislike someone or a group. If they need a ‘friend’, tell them to get a dog. I am not their ‘friend’, advocate, cheer leader, or PR guy. YOU are the PR guy. That’s what you do for an income.

        As to your judgment and who you choose for your p@ls, I can only point out a certain r@dical young lady you trusted who publicly compared you on the internet to the photo of a child molester, claiming you resembled the man even down to the “lazy eye” after you two broke up. I called her out PUBLICLY for said slander and Rick (since you’re using him as some kind of litmus test) would agree w/me and did the same. Frankly, I think you need some calcium tablets for your spine. We both know who I’m talking about. But, if I was to follow YOUR path, I’d avoid making waves by calling her on the BS or taking her photo (which I’ve done) in public.

        Being a photojournalist can be very dangerous as Tony Overman of the Olympian can attest. You owe a lot to journalists who stick their neck out whether you grasp that or not. Your p@ls are cut from the same warp and weave as any fascist. In fact, they’re a fascist’s wet dream as they deliberately intimidate the public thereby allowing the totalitarians to further erode our fundamental liberties. That you suck up to them is deplorable. It may be understandable given your bent and profession, but it still sux. The hard fact, Bruce, is a friend to everyone is a friend to no one. Moreover, if you try to make everyone happy, someone isn’t going to like it. You were more than a little stressed out for having violated this caveat before you left the Olympia area. How many times does it have to slap you upside the head before you wake up? The best recent example that comes to mind advancing this argument was the disruption last spring at the Law & Disorder conference Portland State hosted where Kristian Williams was a panelist at one of the presentation workshops. Not only do your p@ls NOT have clean hands, they’re filthy. The dog you’ve picked won’t hunt.

  3. Drew Hendricks says:

    So I’m interested in whether Patricia McAllister is your only accomplice, or just one of many. Was your deal with the School Administrator that he would give you a list of the people who attended the conference? Will you ever actually get video of a confrontation, or just poorly filtered audio of yourself being trespassed for being disruptive? The thing about freedom of association is that folks get to decide not to associate with you… even in public places, even if you consider yourself a journalist when everyone else does not. Being left off of a private bus is hardly imposition on your free speech, John. It’s clear that you have an axe to grind, not a thesis to illuminate or a question to answer – unless that question is how much ego one man can invest in the issue of Anarchists who are camera shy. Meanwhile, in Syria, real journalists are losing their heads over real reporting, about actual controversies. What a sad situation you have tried to manufacture.

    • admin says:

      Andrew Hendricks says: “Meanwhile, in Syria, real journalists are losing their heads over real reporting, about actual controversies. What a sad situation you have tried to manufacture.”

      The truth is journalists need not travel to the middle east to be @ssaulted, st@lked, v@ndalized, injured and robbed by lifestyle @narchists going to college on the taxpayer’s and their parent’s dime using those very institutions as a platform to conspire and plot in their self declared w@r against the state, the police, laws, government, public safety, private property, journalists, society, and even civilization itself.

      Andy Hobbs wrote a piece for The Olympian titled: Downtown Olympia: Taking Back The Streets.

      In it, he covers many of the themes oft repeated here over the past few years–the crime in downtown Olympia’s core area including prostitution, drugs, vandalism, car prowls, theft, assaults, intimidation, harassment, and the targeting of photojournalist…including Tony Overman, a photojournalist for The Olympian. Unfortunately, Andy tended to attribute these problems to transients and the homeless when, in fact, a great deal of it can be traced to area lifestyle @narchists and their professorial mentors (e.g. Peter Bohmer) receiving handsome state salaries from area public colleges such as TESC. The problem isn’t limited to Washington State, but was found at Portland’s University of Oregon per the article above as well. What’s truly unfortunate is some college administrators make the mistake of condoning such conspiracies under the guise of academic freedom until enlightened about the law’s definition of 1st Amendment principles and the right of the press to document/photograph what takes place in public venues and at public events.

      Tony Overman was st@lked by these miscre@nts for over a year for taking photos of street disturbances such as a young @irhead throwing a rock through a bank window in downtown Olympia for his newspaper employer. Tony had covered the war in Bosnia, yet opined he felt more threatened here at home by these violent r@dicals than he did in that war zone. One fem@le attacked tony, spray painting him and his camera. On one occasion, the street @narchists cornered Tony on the 4th Ave. bridge, threatening to throw him off it. They pursued him to his place of work, v@ndalizing his employer’s property and vehicles with graffiti reading: “Tony Overman is a ‘snitch'”. Eventually, they st@lked him to his home one night, vandalizing his vehicle and home. Tony later admitted he stayed up the rest of the night with a loaded shotgun in his lap.

      Make no mistake, despite Drew’s trivialization, these youthful @narchists are extremely dangerous and have a track record of not only destroying private/public property, but churches and of injuring photojournalists covering these events. The incident at Portland’s University of Oregon was cut from the same warp & weave.

      If the public wants to take back the streets, its parks, and public spaces, it will have to be vigilant and proactive as our police resources are inadequate alone to the task. These petty tr@itors who reject all laws, rights, and Constitutional principles only believe in force and hate. They habitually trade in this rhetoric and demonstrate it while attempting to terrorize the public and any journalists they perceive as trying to unmask or expose them. The public will have to use the cameras available to it and publish the results to forewarn their friends, family, and neighbors. In an era when the State of Washington has been found in contempt for failing its Constitutional duty to fully fund public education, can public funds be wasted on supporting the enemies of the state in the very institutions of higher learning financially stretched to the breaking point?

      The mainstream media does not do in depth coverage of the incubus of the lawlessness on our streets. Andy suspects the root of the problem is in the City of Olympia treating the homeless, transients, and dispossessed too well. This reporter believes much of the problem is orchestrated by the over-class, i.e. the elites, the spoiled rich kids who can afford to be political delet@ntes, not the underclass…and their mentors, the leftist professors at public colleges. Though the @narchists insist on rights for themselves (including photography), they’re quick to violate these same rights when others they dislike demand them. They’re indistinguishable, cut from the same warp and weave as the worst racists/bigots/totalitarians one can find. Worse, they’re a totalitarian’s wet dream, giving a sufficient pretext to further erode our fundamental liberties. The good news is the body politic loathes them and they’ll never exercise any real power other than the power to destroy, intimidate, bully, vandalize, steal, rob, assault, threaten, and harass because they’re also their own worst enemies. They label one another as ‘snitches’ when they’re not ratting on each other themselves. They jacket their own as child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders. They disrupt their own meetings.

      Anonymity has a long honorable tradition for pure speech, not crimin@lity, conspir@cy, and petty tre@son. The miscre@nts must be exposed if we are to preserve our democracy, our fundamental liberties, and our public safety.

  4. admin says:

    I’m interested in who your accomplices are, Andrew. Perhaps that’s makes us even, just so we understand each other. I’ll try to do better on the video–lighting and conditions are often poor. It is what it is. It’s not exactly studio conditions. And it’s not like a guy like you who lost the John Towery case when it was dismissed as untenable by the court would grasp that. While freedom of association is protected, freedom to exclude from a public event is not. You and your p@ls don’t get that. Neither is there freedom to intimidate, harass, and to assault in order to prevent a photographer from taking pictures at such an event. Photography is not a crime. Assault is.

    There was no private bus that went. Thus, there was no bus with which to deny access. The owner, who admittedly would NOT have excluded me, found there wasn’t enough interest to make it worth the trip. Neither Sylvia nor anyone else from WIP went at all. Of course that didn’t stop her from trying to discourage me from going–just like you try to discourage reporting on it. Yeah, journalists in Syria are covering important stuff and losing their lives over it. However, violence against journalists is also present right here in the Pacific NW and your favorite g@ng is among the perpetrators–your specious reasoning notwithstanding.

    Do I have an axe to grind?-you bet! I’d love to see those responsible for the violence, theft, and gratuitous v@ndalism arrested to be held accountable–short of that, exposed. I will do my best to make it possible. Perhaps Bruce Wilkinson said it best when he characterized the miscre@nts as the weakest and most obnoxious.

    All in all, I’m quite satisfied with the results, got the story I was after, and identified at least some of those who feel laws don’t apply to them while rights don’t apply to others. You speak of cops pulling legal misapprehensions out of their @ss while YOU demonstrate a classic example of the same right here. I don’t need your approval or popular consent to do what I do. I don’t even need the government’s permission for what I do, nor the permission of my subjects in a public venue or at a public event, such as here. I’m confident others will take note of this fact and be more courageous in challenging those who think 1st Amendment principles are their private domain.

    The event was NOT ‘private’. The venue was NOT ‘private’. Other photographers were present taking pictures WITHOUT explicit permission/approval. Consideration for registration was given and the bargain represented by the same was breached. Your p@ls violated my civil rights. You, as always, condone that–which is why police agencies and government agents continue to stalk you and them. Criminals and petty traitors should expect as much.

  5. bwildleaf says:

    Your “journalism” is extremely lazy and narrow minded. You’re whiny, grovelling, pathetic, paranoid and scared. I feel incredibly sorry for you. You should move out here and live in Wyoming. Here you would have nothing to complain about. There isn’t a single anarchist to threaten journalists anywhere nearby. The journalism out here is likewise very respectful of authority. Life is perfect for you out here, you can finally have peace of mind. Here there are no anarchists and therefore no crime and perfect governance. It will give you a little perspective since you have zero.

    • admin says:

      @narchists get around, Wyoming’s conservative culture notwithstanding. It’s be comforting to think they’re only a local threat to civil liberties, but that’d be a mistake. They’re a national threat–not because they’re powerful…they aren’t, but because they serve as a great pretext for better disciplined totalitarians discomforted by the fundamental liberties we have left. For this reason, the public must take back the streets and consign lifestyle @narchists to the dustbin of history. As for your concept of “journalism”, it comes from a lazy mind incapable of thinking outside your personal box and will be ignored. ‘Journalism’ is JOURNALING, i.e. documenting what happens, especially at public events in public venues without fear nor favor. Nobody else appears to be scrutinizing the connection between @narchists and college campuses mentored by old school leftists, at least publicly. Thus, it will be here. If Wyoming is all you say, it sounds pleasant enough if boring. But then, you know something about that.

  6. dana98501 says:

    I don’t share Amicus Curia’s views on the ‘danger’ posed by the anarchist kids. I think they are an effective counter to the authoritarians. I think they often go too far, but the other side goes way further and I think the anarchist kids represent a vital counter to the Machine’s manipulations. I have found the anarchist kids to be very smart, very well informed, and I have learned a lot of very valuable things from them. I greatly admire their refusal to compromise on principles even as I understand that the “my way or the highway” attitude is not a good way to actually get anything done. I also understand that a certain amount of paranoia is completely appropriate when you are the victim of regular federal government witch hunts that often result in many years in federal prison. Three of those kids had the courage to spend six months in jail rather than bow to serious pressure from the feds. I know first-hand how hard that is to do. Those kids regularly risk all for the cause and for that I give them serious props. Overall I support the anarchist kids political positions and I find Amicus Curia to be an abrasive and unpleasant person.

    However, being the lover of both personal freedom and of irony that I am, I can’t help but note that throughout this entire years-long series of confrontations that the anarchist kids are acting just like a bunch of authoritarians while Amicus Curia is supporting the stated anarchist positions of personal freedom and freedom of speech. Attacking or even intimidating a journalist because you don’t like what he says is not only off-the-hook fucked, but represents hypocrisy on a profound level. Freedom has to apply to everyone or it doesn’t apply to anyone. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT HE SAYS THEN POINT OUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH WHAT HE SAYS. I have engaged in several serious debates with several of the anarchist kids myself. You are very good at that.

    I will also say this: IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SECRET MEETINGS THEN DON’T HAVE THEM AT A PUBLIC EVENT IN A PUBLIC VENUE. Mr. Curia is absolutely correct that he has every right to take anyone’s picture that he wishes at such a venue. Also, throughout these many confrontations I can’t help but note that not one of Mr. Curia’s critics ever says a single thing about the actual issues that he raises and instead engage in personal attacks upon him, which is exactly what the authoritarians do whenever they want to de-legitimize an idea for which they have no factual counters. If you don’t like what he says, then counter his arguments with counter-arguments. Don’t try to censor people’s free speech. Ever.

    • admin says:

      There are more than two sides to this issue. Even characterizing it as anarchists vs non-anarchists is inaccurate. Common cause is not so easily delineated. The enemy of my enemy is a stratagem fraught with riptides. That @narchists *may* think outside the box, thus be capable of arriving at valuable insights doesn’t mean any one of them necessarily does so. But, the same could be said for any group or coalition. Finally, @narchists are NOT thrown in jail/prosecuted for their beliefs, but for their criminal behavior and the harm they do.

      The grand jury resisters *may* have exhibited ‘courage’…or they may as well have exhibited self serving calculations, as KTeeO virtually admitted in court and Leah Plante demonstrated. Ironically, the amount of time they spent in custody would have been much more limited (for civil contempt) if they’d refused to testify in a trial than before a federal Grand Jury engaged in little more than an investigation rather than an indictment, which never issued. Had they refused to testify during an actual federal trial, their civil contempt incarceration would have been terminated at the end of the trial under federal law/court rules. At trial, or perhaps during the Grand Jury proceedings themselves, they could legitimately have said, “I will say anything you want me to because I’m being threatened and feel intimidated. I’m afraid to say anything you won’t like.” Thus, they could have shined a spotlight on the zero credibility their testimony should have received. But it wasn’t their testimony the feds wanted. They wanted leads and abused the grand jury system to try to obtain them. A litigant (even the state) is entitled to every man’s evidence IN A TRIAL–not an investigation. Potential witnesses refuse to cooperate with investigators all the time without penalty. That’s because 1st Amendment (and 5th) principles protect our right to refuse to speak to anyone…the SAME 1st Amendment @narchists are quick to use as a shield, yet ignore when others invoke it. Injury to one is injury to all.

    • Drew Hendricks says:

      Dana98501 raises some interesting Straw Men in his arguments. Among these are ‘Censorship’ (the act of requiring prior approval of public or private speech), The ‘Freedom of Speech’ (a right all US Persons have against the acts of their government, and none have against the acts of private persons nor corporate entities) and the idea of ‘Personal Freedom.’ The last is so vaguely stated as to be useless. If one considers for a moment that the freedom of persons at a conference for instance is balanced above against the freedom to arrive and catalog the persons in attendance through photography, one soon realizes that a fundamental conflict arises. An impartial observer would recognize how persons who advocate a philosophy often reviled by police forces and used as an excuse to follow, photograph, harass, arrest, and beat those advocates, might not welcome a person whose long history of publication is rife with hatred for their philosophy and disdain for both the facts, and dialogue or debate about those facts.

      As a personal example I note that I stated, in writing, in 2010 that the attack on Tony Overman of the Olympian was terrorism, not advisable tactically nor justifiable morally, and probably based on a misunderstanding of his role vis a vis the police. I tested my assertion through seeking public records and found that contrary to my assertions, Tony Overman had indeed inappropriately shared pre publication photographs with police on May Day 2008, long before he was attacked in 2010 and long after he had supposedly been attacked in November 2007 (He was also attacked by Police during this series of events in Nov 2007 and treated by PMR paramedics on the scene for pepper spray).

      I didn’t withdraw my position that the attack in 2010 (at Tony’s home) was terrorism – but I did recount how the facts actually muddied the issue and lent some factual support for those who did advocate that course of retaliation. From this series of writings, or from his own misunderstandings of them, Amicus Curia (John Smith) has repeatedly misquoted me as supporting the attacks on Tony Overman. John Smith is mistaken, and despite being lent the resources and citations for correcting the record has decided that verbiage – some of it germane and most of it not at all relevant – is the best compost to cover his failures of reportage, of analysis, and of moral character.

      John Smith is not interested in reporting the facts, nor is he a clear vessel for any observations he might carry to the reader. He is invested with malice, soaked in vitriol, and sensitive to the slightest opportunity to craft himself the victim of his declared enemies – who ironically never find their way to his house, as often as he finds his way to theirs – through Google Maps as an example above.

      John Smith repeatedly stalks, harasses, and mis- characterizes his declared ideological enemies. He doesn’t represent journalism so much as he represents prejudice and self righteousness, and he can’t defend his actions as they exist because they are clearly prohibited by the Statutes of the State of Washington, RCW 9a.46.110. In order to distract the reader, he poses as a journalist while in reality adding nothing of note to the factual understanding of the venues and events which he purports to “cover.”

      • admin says:

        Drew Hendricks is a self professed @narchist and ‘snitch hunter’. It would appear he was given access to the registration list for the Portland Cascade Media Convergence while at the same time bridling at the idea of exposing the identities of the principle miscre@nts at the event. Anonymity, like 1st Amendment principles, appears to be a selective one based on personal preference or distaste as practiced by such @narchists. Mr. Hendricks has ingratiated himself with this camp by doing some of their dirty work, but has been less successful in court, e.g. the John Towery lawsuit.

        It may be an @narchist’s wet dream to try to saddle a photojournalist with such stretches as labeling photography at public events as ‘stalking’, but such an interpretation of Washington’s (Not Oregon’s) statute would clearly run afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s 1st Amendment. The court’s have consistently ruled in all 50 states that photography, where the photographer is lawfully present and there is no expectation of privacy, is NOT a crime. Yet Mr. Hendricks suggests a lack critical thinking in the analysis the photojournalist brings to this topic. Moreover, Hendricks argues the @narchists are somehow justified in violating the civil rights of the photojournalist because they feel his reporting is unfair or misrepresents their position(s). However, unlike mainstream publications, THIS one indulges in posting the raw data, video, audio, and photos for the reader to draw their own conclusion in the belief such unmitigated facts speak for themselves, challenges to the narrative notwithstanding. In this instance, the ringleader can be heard suggesting the photographer might be admitted to the Graffiti workshop *IF* he agrees NOT to take photos. The photojournalist refused to consent to such an accord or be sucked into seeking permission from the very subjects he was covering at a public event and in a public forum.

        Hendricks indulges in another popular misconception, or worse, dissembling: He argues 1st Amendment principles ONLY apply to government interference with those guarantees. In other words, were (according to his logic) a soapbox speaker in a public park harassed or bullied or threatened by a private party for unpopular speech, this would (in his view) be permissible while a government agent who did so would be violating the speaker’s civil rights. Similarly, if a photographer in a public park met the same fate as the hypothetical speaker, Hendricks would conclude “no harm, no foul”, while a government agent curtailing the photographer’s activities would be impermissible in law. Perhaps the reason Mr. Hendricks makes a habit of losing lawsuits in which he is a plaintiff based on such erroneous notions is precisely due to these kinds of misapprehensions on his part. While no one is responsible for Hendricks’ remedial education in these areas, the tragedy is naive lifestyle @narchists are given to persuasion by his veneer of authority that comes with age. It is suggested they look at Mr. Hendricks’ track record in court. He consistently loses on these issues. Enemies of the state have no constitutionally protected inherent right against being monitored by the state–especially in public forums and at public events where they have NO expectation of privacy. For the same reason, they have no right to interfere with a photojournalist exercising his/her 1st Amendment rights to document what takes place there and WHO is present/attending. Cops don’t like being photographed/recorded either, yet their permission is not required. Neither do many celebrities. They are not 2nd class citizens. If they have no right to prevent photographs from being taken in public venues, NEITHER DO YOU! Mr. Hendricks’ argument, for that reason, isn’t simply vacuous, but is pernicious.

        The rights of photojournalists are constitutionally protected and the PRESS is the only profession in the constitution given such protection BY NAME. This protection not only provides a shield against government interference in public venues, but preserves those rights against ALL enemies of liberty, both foreign AND domestic. The 2nd Amendment provides us the MEANS with which to put teeth instead of empty rhetoric into preserving those same rights. If ‘stalking’ existed, it was evident by those @ggressors FOLLOWING the reporter in the above story who repeatedly (listen to the audio) told them to STOP following/advancing on him and that he did NOT want to talk to them. They repeatedly persisted in a threatening manner. A police report has been filed and legal action is pending. The anonymity of the guilty has been stripped and will continue to be. If public safety is to be preserved, the anonymity said miscre@nts insist on to commit their petty and serious crimes must be denied. The state does not have the resources to maintain public order, to prevent force and fraud, in the face of those who have declared w@r against it without proactive public participation. Making this country ungovernable is precisely the @genda of the lifestyle @narchists succoring at public universities/colleges mentored by senior professors paid with your taxes.

        These violent street r@dicals have openly declared they are at w@r with the state, urge “f*ck the law!”, announce society is their enemy and even civilization itself. M@ny will def@ce your property (“Property is theft!”), write graffiti accusing their target of being a ‘snitch’ (e.g. Tony Overman), @ssault/rob photojournalists (e.g. TESC and Seattle’s M@y D@y riots), vandalize churches (e.g. the Mormon Church in Olympia) all while posting egotistical screeds claiming credit and expecting admiration from their p@ls. These are not “kids”, they are crimin@ls. Like any cancer, they should be dealt with like any other p@thogen, or in this instance, like any other criminal. “It seemed like a good politic@l ide@ at the time,” is no defense. When someone commits crimes against the state and conspires against those with whom they differ in the name of overthrowing the government/state, they should not be treated as merely petty crimin@ls, but as petty tr@itors.

        • John Smith is wrong in his assumption that I was granted a list of the organizers of the Portland Cascade Media Convergence. I’m not sure why he made that assumption.

          John Smith asserts that I have “ingratiated (myself) with this camp by doing some of their dirty work” but he does not state what dirty work this might be. Catching US Army Employee and infiltrator John J Towery II was certainly not ‘dirty work’ or ‘wet work’ or ‘black site rendition’ as so often practiced by the government he would defend from lawbreakers who spray paint private property.

          John Smith asserts, mistakenly, that catching John Towery and being a member of the plaintiff’s legal team in the capacity of an investigator somehow make me responsible for legal arguments in US District Court. He is of course mistaken in that assumption. The case is now under appeal in the Ninth Circuit and should be heard sometime in early 2015.

          Case law in Washington State clearly privileges journalism which is not biased, malicious, slanted, designed to cause harm to person or to reputation, and practiced in good faith. It does not confer a blanket protection from prosecution for trespassing (remaining where one has been clearly asked to leave) or assault (publication of someone’s home address with the intention of causing harm or suggesting harm to be done by others). A stalker cannot cling to a camera and a history of publishing music events and claim that he is a journalist, at the same time publicly labeling his subjects traitors who do not deserve the protection of the laws he claims protect him.

          John Smith implies that I have a “history of losing lawsuits,” but I have only ever been involved in two suits and both are still being heard by the courts.

          John Smith states that “Enemies of the state have no… right against being monitored by the state…” but he sidesteps the all too important step of a legal determination of who exactly is an “Enemy of the state.” Legal history would suggest a conviction in an open court of law might be a requisite step in such a case, but he can point to no such case where I was convicted and he can only paint the attendants at the public events he stalks with a broad ideological brush based on association, not individualized suspicion.

          John Smith’s assertion that the Second Amendment protects the First relies on an absence of historical knowledge or critical analysis. Clearly, shooting someone who holds their hands over their own face and claiming that they were interfering with the stalker’s right to pretend he’s a journalist would land Mr Smith in exactly the position where he was hourly monitored by the state, and without rights to avoid such monitoring. But he would at least face a jury first.

          John Smith spends his last paragraph reiterating why he is no journalist, but instead is merely a sad, angry individual attempting to ingratiate himself with a bully who does not want to be his friend, didn’t let him into the club, and would not grant him a law degree if he scrounged the money to pay for one.

          “Without fear or favor” makes a nice sentiment, but it’s put to the lie by the actions and words you undertake to publish, Mr Smith. You’re clearly full of fear, and your bluster and windmill tilting show this clearly to any who wish to wade through your rhetoric.

          • admin says:

            No, Hendricks obviously had access to a list of the registrants because he named at least one. As to his other counter arguments, the raw data speaks for itself.

          • admin says:

            ‘Fear’ is a relative term, and only a fool would ignore its survival merits. Yet reporters often struggle against legitimate fears for their safety and demonstrate courage by going in harm’s way. The photos reveal miscre@nts not covering their own face so much as trying to cover the photographer’s and pursuing him while they were at it. The main miscre@nt’s identity and location were made known, for those who weren’t already aware, here. Want to get your picture published?–threaten a photojournalist. Do you need the consent of folks like Hendricks to wield a camera or act as an independent/citizen photojournalist?–nope.

            The University of Oregon (finally) got this one right in the end. Hendricks?–not so much. @narchists ask people they disfavor to leave public events all the time. There’s no legal obligation to do so. In fact, they disrupt their own events to do so, relying on mob psychology to intimidate the target of their ire. When that fails, they whine about imagined infractions and violations of the law–an irony in itself for those who defy it.

            Who should be counted as an ‘enemy’ of the state? How about accepting at their word those who openly declare it? Any government which failed to monitor its openly self declared enemies would be remiss and properly held accountable by citizens relying on it to fulfill its core functions–to prevent force and fraud. Hendricks and his p@ls are wasting tax dollars w/specious litigation challenging this proposition. Perhaps it’s a philosophical question whether those who argue against laws, government, or even the notion of individual ‘rights’ should be accorded any, though they continue to retain these rights in law despite denying their existence or refusing to accept the rule of law.

          • Your assumption that I got my data for the September 26th post from the conference is mistaken. I got that name from your property ownership records through Mason County. You also named her on the video.

            Anarchists are not the only persons who ask others to leave their events; I’ve been told to leave public meeting rooms at the Thurston County Courthouse by deputies who wanted to hold a union meeting there, I’ve been told I could not use my camera at both the Thurston County and Pierce County courthouses, I’ve been told I had to show a photo ID to be accepted as a “legitimate” journalist. All of these cases may be legal or not, as you well know. There is no license to be a journalist nor does Washington case law recognize a requirement that one be paid to be a journalist. But the law is quite clear on neutrality and malice, on libel and balance. You are on the wrong side of those equations, and the photos you show above merely hint at your own obnoxious behavior, they certainly don’t show assault. If you had filed assault complaints I am sure they would be posted by now.

            I notice that you answer exactly none of the core arguments I have made, rather sweeping your paw over the words and declaring yourself righteous. Which is good, because no one else will.

          • admin says:

            The name used was ‘Pat’, but that’s a trifle. As to being asked to leave a PUBLIC event, it’s familiar territory. This site is full of examples. Leave your address and we’ll make sure you get a roll of calcium tablets for Christmas.


            It is true, a photojournalist must get permission from the presiding judge to take pictures in and during a legal proceeding. Public hallways and before the court convenes have no such restrictions under Washington State court rules.

            May you be asked to leave a public event when you are there lawfully and not disrupting it?–sure, but you have no legal duty to accede to the request. This is an old sop wherein government apparatchiks are among the worst offenders. They attempt to order a persona non grata to be gone all the time–it’s a regular part of being a photojournalist. Private citizens object to their photos being taken at these events on a regular basis. The well trained LEOs know better. DSHS, Bob Drewett, even judges/clerks who needed some remedial education regarding the right to photograph public court records.

            Once an event at a public venue has been thrown open to the public, selective exclusions without just cause are not permitted. Photography, which is not a crime, does not serve as such cause. That participants are not comfortable with a particular photographer does not meet the threshold. The police union could, conceivably reserve a given room and exclude the public, in general, but not individual members of that public without just cause. Similarly, DSHS was not permitted to exclude this photojournalist from their public lobby for taking photos there or refusing to ‘state his business’. A well trained Shelton LEO explained this to their office manager.

            In the above article, the photojournalist was being h@rassed in the hallway of a public university. Other photographers were not similarly harassed. @narchists are hardly the only ones to attempt to deny public venues to select members of the public. But that they try to present themselves as a viable alternative when their hands are dirtier than the rest is laughable. In this instance, Oregon’s disorderly conduct law, harassment of a senior citizen protections, assault, and breach of contract come to mind. The university took steps to attenuate its error. The miscre@nt in chief did not. Perhaps what’s most important here is @narchists are not singled out for criticism in this regard. There is plenty of criticism deserved across the spectrum, and it is recited in this blog–often. The corruption (as Ben Franklin anticipated) is rife in government AND the public! So is the incompetence, which is equally pernicious.

            Being forced to leave a public event without just cause is a violation of the individual’s fundamental liberty interests. In 2011, a complaint to 911 was made regarding an assault in Olympia’s Heritage Park during the Occupy encampment there. Officer Zachary of the WA State Patrol responded. It arose as a result of objections to photographs being taken in that public park as well. Officer Zachary had the training to recognize he could not, in law, order the photojournalist to leave the grounds/park or not to reenter it, or even to cite the reporter for recording their conversation without his permission. There will always be greater and lesser lights in the universe. Currently, @narchists appear to have little luminescence.

            Mr. Hendricks, next time you want to attend a gathering of LEOs or takes photos in a public venue, bring a witness, or THREE–i.e. follow your own advice you once gave in this regard. Oh, and don’t forget the calcium tablets.

  7. Amicus Curia says:

    RCW 9a.46.110

    (1) A person commits the crime of stalking if, without lawful authority and under circumstances not amounting to a felony attempt of another crime:

    (a) He or she intentionally and repeatedly harasses or repeatedly follows another person; and

    (b) The person being harassed or followed is placed in fear that the stalker intends to injure the person, another person, or property of the person or of another person. The feeling of fear must be one that a reasonable person in the same situation would experience under all the circumstances; and

    (c) The stalker either:

    (i) Intends to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person; or

    (ii) Knows or reasonably should know that the person is afraid, intimidated, or harassed even if the stalker did not intend to place the person in fear or intimidate or harass the person.

    (2)(a) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection (1)(c)(i) of this section that the stalker was not given actual notice that the person did not want the stalker to contact or follow the person; and

    (b) It is not a defense to the crime of stalking under subsection (1)(c)(ii) of this section that the stalker did not intend to frighten, intimidate, or harass the person.

    (3) It shall be a defense to the crime of stalking that the defendant is a licensed private investigator acting within the capacity of his or her license as provided by chapter 18.165 RCW.

    (4) Attempts to contact or follow the person after being given actual notice that the person does not want to be contacted or followed constitutes prima facie evidence that the stalker intends to intimidate or harass the person. “Contact” includes, in addition to any other form of contact or communication, the sending of an electronic communication to the person.

    (5)(a) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, a person who stalks another person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    (b) A person who stalks another is guilty of a class B felony if any of the following applies: (i) The stalker has previously been convicted in this state or any other state of any crime of harassment, as defined in RCW 9A.46.060, of the same victim or members of the victim’s family or household or any person specifically named in a protective order; (ii) the stalking violates any protective order protecting the person being stalked; (iii) the stalker has previously been convicted of a gross misdemeanor or felony stalking offense under this section for stalking another person; (iv) the stalker was armed with a deadly weapon, as defined in RCW 9.94A.825, while stalking the person; (v)(A) the stalker’s victim is or was a law enforcement officer; judge; juror; attorney; victim advocate; legislator; community corrections’ officer; an employee, contract staff person, or volunteer of a correctional agency; court employee, court clerk, or courthouse facilitator; or an employee of the child protective, child welfare, or adult protective services division within the department of social and health services; and (B) the stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against the victim for an act the victim performed during the course of official duties or to influence the victim’s performance of official duties; or (vi) the stalker’s victim is a current, former, or prospective witness in an adjudicative proceeding, and the stalker stalked the victim to retaliate against the victim as a result of the victim’s testimony or potential testimony.

    (6) As used in this section:

    (a) “Correctional agency” means a person working for the department of natural resources in a correctional setting or any state, county, or municipally operated agency with the authority to direct the release of a person serving a sentence or term of confinement and includes but is not limited to the department of corrections, the indeterminate sentence review board, and the department of social and health services.

    (b) “Follows” means deliberately maintaining visual or physical proximity to a specific person over a period of time. A finding that the alleged stalker repeatedly and deliberately appears at the person’s home, school, place of employment, business, or any other location to maintain visual or physical proximity to the person is sufficient to find that the alleged stalker follows the person. It is not necessary to establish that the alleged stalker follows the person while in transit from one location to another.

    (c) “Harasses” means unlawful harassment as defined in RCW 10.14.020.

    (d) “Protective order” means any temporary or permanent court order prohibiting or limiting violence against, harassment of, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to another person.

    (e) “Repeatedly” means on two or more separate occasions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.