Intent sometimes becomes very evident, and in other cases it is harder to prove. For example:
Case A) A deer hunter goes hunting with a person he secretly hates but has not let his companion know about his hatred. He then kills or injures him with one of his arrows or a bullet and claims it was an accident, but because the victim was not allowed to know the intent of his companion, the crime wasn't prevented. If the victim then states 'I am alarmed and annoyed by your arrows pointed in my direction which are serving no legitimate purpose' and then the arrows keep coming toward the hated man, intent to injure or harass has been established.
Case B) An HOA has been respectfully asked by letter not to put religious type seasonal lighting adjacent to her home at Lot 1 not only because of the concern of spreading a particular mental disease known as 'manic-type wasteful spending' or 'lukewarm view of Christianity' but also because the lights affect her household and lot 66 more than any other household. The owner of lot 66 does not object to exterior religious sectarian lighting very close to his home so is not annoyed nor alarmed when the lights are near his home on commonly shared ground. Because I advised the HOA board months ago and have now sent them a second notice identifying the fact that their course of action annoys and alarms me, when they continue in the course of their action they PROVE the intent of the heart is not good. The fact that the excessive lights serve no legitimate purpose is easily established, as 'Christmas' celebrations usually is immature amusement or total state of disbelief in the the entirety of the Bible. Removal of the unnecessary lighting which serves no legitimate purpose is the only to establish that their intent is proper rather than to harass those like me who, for good reason, agree with General George Washington's position in the late 1700's.
Case C) A person places a symbol of Santa Claus on lot 66, which might annoy the neighbors on lot 62 who sides with the more logical 'manger scenes'. In both cases, the displays on private property do have a legitimate purpose, namely to identify them and the area of their faith, culture and their landscaping style. It could be argued that the 2 parties might wish to make a peaceful agreemen and remove their outdoor displays, keeping signs of their belief system on the inside rather than annoy each other, or agree both have the right to display similar but very different signs on their provate property. In either case, it is either mutual harassment or mutual understanding that causes a stalemate and both continue in their course of action that does not annoy nor alarm the owner of lot 1, even though she can see their lights on their private property.
Case D) The person from lot 1 decided to try the 'Street Justice' method after her local deputies did not realize that my HOA board's intent to harass me will be proved. I could start a 'flashlight religion', where I go to park in a public place and shine the light of the municipality instead of the light of the world toward lot 5's windows, since the owner of Lot 5 pushed many more lights near my house to push their religion onto common ground. I do not trespass on his property in the progress and do not loiter because I move around. My intent is not to annoy or alarm them, just to start a new 'flashlight religion course of action'. My actions also will have de-stressing benefits as well as getting me to walk through my neighborhood more often to see just how many people still think like me and George Washington, and who have refrained from costly and ugly light pollution. If the owner of Lot 5 complains, I can just claim that my intent is to get away from my house for periods of time because my area has been attacked by his gang; I also establish that I am not afraid of his gang but still am annoyed by their course of action with my HOA funds and with misuse of common space to push a religious agenda. Getting 'even' after a person launched an electrical power play in my area against me first is only self-defense against Nazi-style dictatorship that is controlling my HOA funds.
Corrupt or bribed public officials often will defend a guilty party, namely my HOA, for less money than an attorney could represent them in court if the harassment complaint was allowed to get before a judge as it should be. Once I get a printout of this and pass it onto my local government officials that are not tied to the Democratic party anti-Christ movement, I might get the results that I desired by next autumn. I suppose I must prepare myself for another legitimate battle that only angels of HVHY have the courage to engage in if so moved by the Holy Spirit of James Menger and other experienced 3rd shift coppers.
No comments:
Post a Comment