I met the legal definition of FIGHTING BACK by first, trying as hard as possible to keep myself SAFE from capture of image by illegal camera tapping by NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG. I met the legal definition of FIGHTING BACK by calling police and making an POLICE COMPLAINT. Finally, I met the legal definition of FIGHTING BACK by advancing LAWSUIT against the illegal use of my image as PORNOGRAPHY.
Below, I post what is in Baltimore City our far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek player as CITY ATTORNEY PRETENDING to be fighting for women's civil rights regarding SEXUAL ASSAULT. I say PRETENDING because these statutes passed whether state assembly or city council which then are never ENFORCED -----are not left social benefit. Baltimore City Attorney record of prosecuting physical sexual assault is dismal at best. Absolutely no addressing saturated illegal surveillance NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG PORNOGRAPHY in every community in BALTIMORE and especially downtown in HOTELS et al.
'"For far too long in Maryland, we've been promoting a sort of rape culture," Baltimore's State Attorney Marilyn Mosby told the Baltimore Sun'.
Anyone wanting to create a lawsuit surrounding NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG---whether tenet or HOMEOWNER need to distinguish between FIGHTING BACK.....NON-CONTACT SEXUAL ASSAULT.
by Bethy Squires
Jul 27 2017, 1:29pm
Why Do We Still Have Laws that Say It's Not Rape Unless the Victim Fights Back?
In states like Alabama, outdated "earnest resistance" laws that require assault victims to fight back are still on the books.
The story of Megan Rondini—who reported a rape to Tuscaloosa police in July 2015, only to have the police side with her alleged attacker—has shocked millions of readers since Buzzfeed published an extensive report on the case in June of this year, not least because it highlights the antiquated state of rape laws in America. According to the account, 20-year-old Rondini had been out with her sorority sisters when 34-year-old TJ Bunn, a businessman from a prominent Tuscaloosa family, spotted her walking in the street and offered her a ride. He then drove her to his house, told her to go to his room, and insisted that they have sex. Rondini repeatedly told him she didn't want to have sex, but eventually felt like complying was the only way he would let her leave. After Bunn fell asleep, Rondini fled out his bedroom window. The police who investigated her claim did not believe that she had adequately resisted Bunn's advances. "Look at it from my side," an officer reportedly told her. "You never kicked him or hit him or tried to resist him." In this officer's mind—and according to the laws of the state of Alabama—it's only rape when the victim "earnestly" fights back.
Specifically, the legal definition of rape in Alabama is sexual intercourse in which the actor "uses forcible compulsion" or "the other person is incapable of consent" by reason of mental incapacitation, age, or physical incapacitation. In turn, "forcible compulsion" is defined as "Physical force that overcomes earnest resistance or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of immediate death or serious physical injury to himself or another person." In practice, the vagueness of the phrasing leaves room for interpretation at every level: everyone from the beat cop taking a victim's statement to the judge presiding over a grand jury has a chance to personally define what resistance counts as earnest.
"Earnest resistance has been defined relatively loosely," says Kathleen Connolly of the Alabama Coalition Against Rape (ACAR). "Saying 'no' or putting your hands up has counted in case law."
"Very few states have in their codes that resistance is required," says Jennifer Long, the chief executive officer of AEquitas, a resource on violence against women designed for prosecutors. "But as a practical matter, when you have the use of force as part of the law, there is an insidious burden that's placed on a victim." The burden is psychological as well as evidentiary. "Rape victims are likely to self-blame, so when we actually say, 'Why didn't you fight?' we cause real psychological damage," says Long. "And that damage can be severe."
Maryland recently changed its definition of sexual assault to remove a requirement for physical resistance. "For far too long in Maryland, we've been promoting a sort of rape culture," Baltimore's State Attorney Marilyn Mosby told the Baltimore Sun. Montana also changed its definition of rape this year. Activists in Alabama are hoping to do the same. "I am hopeful," Meg McGlamery of the Crisis Center Birmingham. "It is time."
I share this article from 1977 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO in regards to my case because it shows the point in which public policy geared to DEREGULATING our legal and societal attitudes toward PORNOGRAPHY were loosened driven by global banking 1% wanting to create SOFT PORN MAGAZINES------Larry Flint/Hugh Hefner-----as well as a SOFT PORN FILM INDUSTRY both of which over these decades moved to include HARD PORN----non-physical porn to physical porn.
What is called EXCLUSIVE OBSCENITY NUISANCE STATUTES were written with a goal of ending CRIMINAL STATUS for PORNOGRAPHY and creating a CIVIL STATUS for violating pornography legal precedence. These NUISANCE STATUTES were directly aimed at CORPORATE PORNOGRAPHY and included the requirement of CONSENT by any citizen wanting to POSE for HUGH HEFNER----or be that PORN FILM STAR.
These NUISANCE STATUTES in no way negated what has been several centuries of COMMON LAW----US FEDERAL LAWS regarding SEXUAL ASSAULT.
'and by the growing conviction among civil libertarians that any form of restriction on the availability of sexually explicit expression to consenting adults is incompatible with the first amendment.'
Above, we see far-right wing global banking 1% LIBERTARIAN views on public policy telling us there should be NO RESTRICTIONS to availability of SEXUALLY EXPLICIT EXPRESSION to consenting adults. This means--------creating a business surrounding SEXUAL PORNOGRAPHY is a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT that trumps several centuries of COMMON LAW and US Federal legal precedence over PORNOGRAPHY.
Again, the distinction between LEGAL PORNOGRAPHY-----between what CONSENTING ADULTS----even CHILDREN was still in place.
The University of Chicago Law Review
VOLUME 44 NUMBER 3 SPRING 1977
The Case For An Exclusive Obscenity Nuisance Statute
Criminal penalties are increasingly perceived to be too severe for regulating obscenity.
Professor Rendleman shares this perception and suggests that we replace criminal obscenity laws with an exclusive civil sanction utilizing injunctions. He proposes a comprehensive nuisance statute and discusses the various issues that arise in the equitable regulation of pornography.
If there ever was a consensus in American society about the proper role of the government in controlling
pornography, that consensus is breaking down. To be sure prosecutors continue to enjoy popular support for pursuing the distributors of obscenity.
But the distributors have become emboldened by their own commercially lucrative, if silent, public support, and by the growing conviction among civil libertarians that any form of restriction on the availability of sexually explicit expression to consenting adults is incompatible with the first amendment.'
In the face of this eroding consensus, the law, at least at the state legislative level, is moving slowly but inexorably toward less instrusive methods of regulating obscenity.
This Supreme Court ruling below made clear states may regulate HARD CORE PORN-----but may not regulate obscenity counter to FEDERAL LAW. Again, these definitions are directed at PORNOGRAPHY businesses dealing in LEGALLY DEFINED PORNOGRAPHY.
A state cannot pass statutes skirting 300 years of COMMON LAW/FEDERAL COURT PRECEDENCE as to how ruling define NON-PHYSICAL SEXUAL ASSAULT----NON-CONSENT even with LEGAL PORNOGRAPHY.
The Court held that state regulation of obscenity must be limited to hard core pornography, defined by the following guidelines:
whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Legal standings until today seek out and prosecute any PORN FILM/PORN PHOTO where ACTORS/CITIZENS are known to be NON-CONSENTING----AKA being FORCED into these sexually explicit capture of images as PORN.
This is today's NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG illegal surveillance and pornography black market must work so hard to create VOICE SOUND BITES ET AL making it appear those captured by illegal cameras are WILLING to be portrayed by these camera pornographers and not UNWILLING ----NO CONSENT victims.
I started today's DEPOSITION parsing the history of NUISANCE LAWS tied to PORNOGRAPHY to lead into what NUISANCE LAWS cover now. My neighbor may be that NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG-----tapping into my apartment/someone BUILDING/HOUSE to gather PORNOGRAPHY------thinking it may fall into a category of NUISANCE PORNOGRAPHY. I want to clear in this lawsuit-------there is no such thing as NUISANCE PORNOGRAPHY when it is tied to ILLEGAL COLLECTION OF PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES.
Again, I am a tenet seeking justice for myself, but as well my DEPOSITION wants to include BUILDING OWNERS/HOMEOWNERS being either victims of illegal surveillance pornography or being FORCED to have a building captured by neighboring PORNOGRAPHERS.
If someone is a building owner being squeezed by these criminal pornography cartels forced to either allow tapping of devices or forced to sell property in order to avoid being made a NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG PORNOGRAPHER-----both legal cases need to distinguish between NUISANCE LAWS tied to pornography and current legal standing clearly identifying ILLEGAL PORNOGRAPHY or it distribution via internet is not PROTECTED under NUISANCE LAWS.
Being victim of NOSY NEIGHBOR AND THE GANG in private living space------one type of NUISANCE-----vs being victim of TOILET CAM for example inside business or institutional PUBLIC toilets.
There are two basic types of nuisance suits.
These are private and public nuisance actions.
Property Rights: My Neighbor is a Nuisance
By submitting this form, you agree to Findlaw.com's terms. We respect your privacy.
In the early days of this country, land was abundant and neighbors were distant. As the population began to grow and urban areas increased, the courts were called upon to resolve property disputes. One of the very first judge-made doctrines applied to property disputes in the United States, the law of nuisance, was inherited from England. This doctrine still finds its way into property disputes today. At the risk of oversimplification, this doctrine is generally raised when a neighboring property owner is acting in a manner that can be described as a nuisance.
The Law of Nuisance
Lawsuits invoking the law of nuisance typically involve neighbors suing their neighbors or a public official suing a property owner for the benefit of the general public. By bringing suit, the plaintiff usually seeks to control or limit the use of the land owned by the defendant.
There are two basic types of nuisance suits.
These are private and public nuisance actions.
A private nuisance means there has been a loss of the use or enjoyment of property without an actual physical invasion of that property. An action for a physical invasion of property is known as a trespass action. A public nuisance is one that has more far reaching effects. It has the ability to affect the health, safety, welfare, or comfort of the public in general.
No matter what the type of nuisance, to be subject to injunctive relief, the interference with the property must be substantial and continuous. Relief that is injunctive in nature generally requires the defendant to take some specific actions to minimize the negative effect of its operations on the plaintiff, from limiting the hours of the action to placing an all out prohibition on the negative action. In constructing its relief, however, most courts will attempt to balance the relative hardships to both of the parties involved in the action. Especially where an ongoing business, as opposed to an individual, is the defendant in the action, the court will try to minimize the economic impact on the business.
How Courts Decide Cases
In deciding nuisance disputes, several factors influence courts. First, courts will look at the location in which the alleged nuisance is occurring and any applicable zoning restrictions that may apply to that area. For instance, a court may be less likely to place restrictions on a livestock feedlot located in a rural area than on one located at the edge of urban sprawl. On the other hand, no matter how rural, if the feedlot is located in a "residential" zone, a court may be more likely to allow injunctive or other relief. At the same time, the fact that an activity is located in area that is zoned for that type of operation does not mean that it cannot be found to constitute a nuisance. For example, an area may be zoned to allow a mixture of residential and commercial building, and, a court might still find that an "all night" gas station creates a nuisance for the residential property owners in the area.
There are some other points to consider if you are thinking about bringing a nuisance action. First, a mere fear of future injury will not merit injunctive relief. Further, usually pure aesthetic considerations, such as the "look" of a funeral home in a residential area, will not rise to the level of a nuisance. Finally, where a person specifically purchases property knowing that a given operation is located nearby, the "moving to the nuisance" doctrine will usually prohibit injunctive relief. In this manner, if a person moves into a house located next to a baseball field, this doctrine may prohibit the person from seeking relief from the bright lights and noise.
Is Your Neighbor a Nuisance?
Get Legal Help with Your Property Rights
Being on either side of a nuisance lawsuit is not a pleasant experience and can be quite emotionally draining. Lawsuits like these arise when disputes between neighboring property owners go unresolved. If your neighbor is making it difficult for you to enjoy your property, you may want to reach out to an experienced real estate attorney to help you get to a resolution.