Printable View
I'm sure there are a few stalker/harrassment laws that he is guilty of. This latest letter that he submitted not only to his loyal followers but posted on the yahoo boards is an admission of guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeboo1
I wonder when he will get his followers to commit mass suicide?
Being in the media biz... as soon as someone tells you not to call that number any more, that means the line is drawn -- and it becomes against the law for that person to do it again. The fact that he not only called again -- but TWO times should be clear indication of what kind of person this Hartleib is. He broke the law TWO TIMES by calling this person again.
Regardless of what Calderone did or didn't do -- or what she knew or didn't know -- this should be a serious red flag to those even thinking of being in Hartleib's camp. I've said this guy is a loose cannon; and now he has shown that he has no problem breaking the law to achieve his objective. Two wrongs don't make a right.
What Hartleib did is wrong - regardless of Calderone. If she says not to call her at home, he cannot do it. Period. He has broken the law.
Remember that, all of you in his camp. What other law is he about to break? Where else is he going to lead you? Have you prepared yourself for the possible legal action against YOU for if/when he does something even worse?
I feel for you if you have not.
-----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriusXMInvestor
Incase you haven't heard the news I believe Sirius slashed nearly 30 percent of their workforce. Redundancy is dominant when two companies merge. Attrition is the result. Reading anymore into this without proof is nothing less than idle gossip and innuendo. Something that could be considered slanderous if you were to elaborate on your point just a bit more. Enlighten me did these two people resign? You are stating they left on their own. You seem very knowledgable on this whole subject I would like to hear all about it if you care to share.
His claim to know more about this, would be admission to possessing insider information if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joeboo1
He has no problem breaking the law by openly admitting to harrassment, so it should be no surprise to see him claim to have insider information too.
----------
We shall soon see. Hartlieb and Michael Moore will be making a documentary on how MEL and co. screwed us all out of billions of dollars. Because remember we never had a chance to close out our positions in this stock.
Oh by the way, sorry If mentioning Michael Moore offends anyone. Everybody sure has been on the rag lately. Sorry I shouldn't have said that either.
Being a resident of California, perhaps Hartleib should familiarize himself with California law:
California Penal Code section 653m
653m. (a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or
makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with
another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene
language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict
injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any
member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in
this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic
contacts made in good faith.
(b) Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes
repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with
intent to annoy another person at his or her residence, is, whether
or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or
electronic contact, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this
subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts
made in good faith.
(c) Every person who makes repeated telephone calls or makes
repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device with
the intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work is
guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail for
not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or
electronic contacts made in good faith. This subdivision applies
only if one or both of the following circumstances exist:
(1) There is a temporary restraining order, an injunction, or any
other court order, or any combination of these court orders, in
effect prohibiting the behavior described in this section.
(2) The person makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated
contact by means of an electronic communication device with the
intent to annoy another person at his or her place of work, totaling
more than 10 times in a 24-hour period, whether or not conversation
ensues from making the telephone call or electronic contact, and the
repeated telephone calls or electronic contacts are made to the
workplace of an adult or fully emancipated minor who is a spouse,
former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the
person has a child or has had a dating or engagement relationship or
is having a dating or engagement relationship.
(d) Any offense committed by use of a telephone may be deemed to
have been committed where the telephone call or calls were made or
received. Any offense committed by use of an electronic
communication device or medium, including the Internet, may be deemed
to have been committed when the electronic communication or
communications were originally sent or first viewed by the recipient.
(e) Subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is violated when the person
acting with intent to annoy makes a telephone call requesting a
return call and performs the acts prohibited under subdivision (a),
(b), or (c) upon receiving the return call.
(f) If probation is granted, or the execution or imposition of
sentence is suspended, for any person convicted under this section,
the court may order as a condition of probation that the person
participate in counseling.
(g) For purposes of this section, the term "electronic
communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones,
cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers.
"Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined
in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States
Code.
-------------
You sound like you're in Hartleib's group... I feel sorry for you...Quote:
Originally Posted by buddylee
--------
Not at all. That was an attempt at sacracsm, apparently I failed miserably.
Sorry, then... as a shareholder, this guy really boils my blood. He deserves everything coming to him.
Likewise. Know that this thread, the YAHOO thread as well as copies of the letters he has sent to Sirius shareholders today have been forwarded to the right people.Quote:
Originally Posted by homer985