Deputy Ira Peskowitz's 3rd email to me:
"When I find you and I will, your going to understand what it's like to be a fish out of water. God help you and your family. I tracked your IP address and I'm coming for you......you don't know when to stop and when you do it will be too late for you to start ever again."
UNITED STATES FEDERAL LAW
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE>
PART I - CRIMES>
CHAPTER 41 - EXTORTION AND THREATS>
§ 875. INTERSTATE COMMUNICATIONS>
(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. [LINK]
FLORIDA STATE LAWThe 2008 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI - CRIMES
Chapter 784> ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE> 784.011 Assault.--
(1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
CHAPTER 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE
784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.--
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "HARASS" MEANS to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "COURSE OF CONDUCT" MEANS a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose...
(c) "CREDIBLE THREAT" MEANS a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(d) "CYBERSTALK" MEANS to engage 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.
(2) ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY, MALICIOUSLY, AND REPEATEDLY FOLLOWS, HARASSES, OR CYBERSTALKS ANOTHER PERSON COMMITS THE OFFENSE OF STALKING...
(3) ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY, MALICIOUSLY, AND REPEATEDLY FOLLOWS, HARASSES, OR CYBERSTALKS ANOTHER PERSON, AND MAKES A CREDIBLE THREAT WITH THE INTENT TO PLACE THAT PERSON IN REASONABLE FEAR OF DEATH OR BODILY INJURY OF THE PERSON, OR THE PERSON'S CHILD, SIBLING, SPOUSE, PARENT, OR DEPENDENT, COMMITS THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED STALKING, A FELONY OF THE THIRD DEGREE...
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section....
WASHINGTON STATE LAW
REVISED CODE OF WASHINTON
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS - 9 RCW
RCW 9.61 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF - INJURY TO PROPERTY> RCW 9.61.260 CYBERSTALKING
(1) A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment, or embarrass any other person, and under circumstances not constituting telephone harassment, makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party...
(b) Anonymously or repeatedly whether or not conversation occurs; or
(c) Threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the person called or any member of his or her family or household.
(2) Cyberstalking is a gross misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.
(3) CYBERSTALKING IS A CLASS C FELONY IF EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES...
(b) The perpetrator engages in the behavior prohibited under subsection (1)(c) of this section by threatening to kill the person threatened or any other person.
(4) ANY OFFENSE COMMITTED UNDER THIS SECTION MAY BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED EITHER AT THE PLACE FROM WHICH THE COMMUNICATION WAS MADE OR AT THE PLACE WHERE THE COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED.
(5) For purposes of this section... "Electronic communication" includes, but is not limited to, electronic mail, internet-based communications, pager service, and electronic text messaging.
CRIMINAL CODE - TITLE 9A RCW
RCW 9A.36 ASSAULT - PHYSICAL HARM> RCW 9A.36.070 COERSION (TO REMOVE BLOG POST)
(1) A person is guilty of coercion if by use of a threat he compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct which he has a legal right to engage in.
(2) "Threat" as used in this section means:
(a) To communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time...
REVISED CODE OF WASHINTON
CRIMINAL CODE - TITLE 9A RCW
RCW 9A.46 HARASSMENT> RCW 9A.46.030 PLACE COMMITTED
Any harassment offense committed as set forth in RCW 9A.46.020 or 9A.46.110 may be deemed to have been committed where the conduct occurred or at the place from which the threat or threats were made or at the place where the threats were received.
RCW 9A.46 HARASSMENT> RCW 9A.46.020 HARASSMENT DEFINITION - PENALTIES
(1) A person is guilty of harassment if:
(a) Without lawful authority, the person knowingly threatens:
(i) To cause bodily injury immediately or in the future to the person threatened or to any other person...
(iv) Maliciously to do any other act which is intended to substantially harm the person threatened or another with respect to his or her physical or mental health or safety; and
(b) The person by words or conduct places the person threatened in reasonable fear that the threat will be carried out. "Words or conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication...
(3) The penalties provided in this section for harassment do not preclude the victim from seeking any other remedy otherwise available under law...
RCW 9A.46 HARASSMENT> RCW 9A.46.060 CRIMES INCLUDED IN HARASSMENT
As used in this chapter, "harassment" may include but is not limited to any of the following crimes:
(1) Harassment (RCW 9A.46.020);
(12) Coercion (RCW 9A.36.070);
(33) Stalking (RCW 9A.46.110);
(34) Cyberstalking (RCW 9.61.260);
RCW 9A.46 HARASSMENT> RCW 9A.46.110 STALKING
(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...
(b) A PERSON WHO STALKS ANOTHER IS GUILTY OF A CLASS C FELONY IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING APPLIES...
(iv) the stalker was armed with a deadly weapon, as defined in RCW 9.94A.602, 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; 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...
(6) As used in this section...
(e) "Repeatedly" means on two or more separate occasions...
[TAGS: POLICE OFFICER INVOLVED PERPETRATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TEFLON LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPUTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT NETWORK]
Police personnel at odds over conductReplyDelete
Hometown News, Palm Beach County
By Sarah Stover Stover@hometownnewsol.com
Posted: 2007 Jan 12 - 01:14
NORTH PALM BEACH - The problem traveled with him.
A former North Palm Beach police officer, who says he is being harassed by a former employee, recently resigned his position as chief of the Snohomish, Wash., police force because of the harassment.
Gordon Wiborg Jr. resigned on Dec. 28 as a result of pending legal matters with the officer he supervised in North Palm Beach.
"I have enjoyed the two years working for the City of Snohomish. Unfortunately, the litigation issues I am involved in from North Palm Beach have become so distracting that I believe my energies and attention are better placed elsewhere," Chief Wiborg wrote in his resignation letter.
"It is with sadness that I accept Gordon Wiborg's resignation. His dedication as police chief was extraordinary, and I have great appreciation for the commitment he demonstrated to our community," said Snohomish city manager Larry Bauman in a press release.
Mr. Bauman refused to comment further when he was contacted.
Prior to resigning, Mr. Wiborg requested a restraining order against an officer he supervised when he worked as the administrative/special services captain for the North Palm Beach Police Department. A Snohomish County judge granted the temporary restraining order on Dec. 19.
During his time as operations commander for the Village, from 2001-04, Mr. Wiborg supervised Ira Peskowitz, who is now an officer with Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office in West Palm Beach. Mr. Wiborg claims that after Officer Peskowitz resigned from the Village Police Department in 2004 due to mental health issues, he began harassing his former supervisor, said a statement from Mr. Wiborg in his petition for a restraining order, submitted on Dec. 18.
The harassment has only been verbal, but Officer Peskowitz had stated his intent to fly to Snohomish, Wash., to make harassing statements at the town's council meeting on Dec. 19, the restraining order request said.
"I believe he also intends to cause physical harm to me. Because of Mr. Peskowitz's police and firearms training, I believe he needs to be restrained from within rifle range (1,500 feet) of me," Mr. Wiborg wrote in the petition for the order.
According to court documents, the temporary order mandated a 500-foot distance. A hearing was set for Jan. 2, in which Officer Peskowitz had the right to defend himself and prove the petition was unnecessary. But Officer Peskowitz did not show up, since he had not been served with the restraining order, said a Snohomish clerk, who did not want to be named.
At press time, the clerk said Officer Peskowitz had been served with the restraining order, and a hearing is scheduled for Jan. 16. If Officer Peskowitz does not show at that time, the order will go into effect for a year, court documents said.
Mr. Peskowitz's attorney, Isidro Garcia, was not sure the Washington court could go through with the order since, to his knowledge, his client had not been served.
"Ira does not intend to file anything because it's completely fraudulent claims from Mr. Wiborg," said Mr. Garcia.
Villager manager Mark Bates did not know the men, so he could not comment, he said.
Current Village police Chief Jimmy Knight also did not know Mr. Wiborg or Officer Peskowitz since they were gone from the department before he became chief, he said.
However, he was made aware there is pending litigation, he said.
Mr. Peskowitz has filed lawsuits against both Mr. Wiborg and the Village.
"Essentially what happened is, Mr. Peskowitz made complaints about his colleagues making false driving under the influence arrests and also made some complaints against Mr. Wiborg focusing on sexual harassment," said Mr. Garcia.
Village officials turned the tables, Mr. Garcia said, and instead of investigating Mr. Peskowitz's complaints, they charged him with making false complaints. Then they would not let him work and interfered with his attempt to work at the Sheriff's Office, he said.
Mr. Peskowitz's lawsuit is pending in Palm Beach County circuit court. It is on the trial docket to be called, said Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Wiborg could not be reached for comment.
Wash. police chief quits over ex-colleague's lawsuitReplyDelete
Palm Beach Post
By Larry Keller email@example.com
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
From his low-profile job as a community policing deputy with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, Ira Peskowitz has toppled a police chief 3,300 miles away.
In the latest, perhaps strangest twist in a seamy saga extending from the Village of North Palm Beach to Snohomish, Wash., Gordon Wiborg Jr. resigned Dec. 28 as the police chief of Snohomish. The town of about 8,900 is 26 miles northeast of Seattle.
Wiborg said he relinquished his $93,108-a-year job because, even at the other end of the country, he can't escape nagging accusations by Peskowitz - and maybe Peskowitz himself.
Wiborg, 52, was a police captain in North Palm Beach before taking the chief's job two years ago. He is a defendant in a 2-year-old whistle-blower lawsuit filed by Peskowitz, a former North Palm Beach police officer. The litigation has triggered allegations of police corruption, sexual harassment, suicide and death threats and extramarital affairs.
"Unfortunately, the litigation issues I am involved in from North Palm Beach have become so distracting that I believe my energies and attention are better placed elsewhere," Wiborg said in his resignation letter.
Wiborg quit just days after he took the extraordinary step of obtaining a restraining order prohibiting Peskowitz, 38, from coming within 500 yards of him, his home or the Snohomish Police Department.
"Within the last two weeks, Mr. Peskowitz has stated his intention of flying here from Florida to make harassing statements at the Dec. 19 Snohomish City Council meeting," Wiborg wrote on Dec. 18 in explaining why he sought a restraining order. "I believe he also intends to cause physical harm to me and/or my residence."
Wiborg also says Peskowitz threatened to kill him in September 2004. He and a co-defendant, former North Palm Beach Police Chief Earl "Duke" Johnson, profess to be so scared that they asked a judge to allow them to participate in mediation by telephone so they wouldn't have to be in the same room with Peskowitz.
Peskowitz contends that he became the target of internal affairs investigations for making allegedly false reports, was put on indefinite leave and was sabotaged when he applied for another job after he complained of, and refused to participate in, mismanagement, malfeasance and wasteful spending.
But the bare-knuckles litigation has revealed that Peskowitz has a closet full of his own skeletons: an allegation that he threatened to kill two Miami Beach police officers and their families; a protracted paternity case; and assertions by that woman that he threatened to kill her, their child and himself.
Sexual harassment claimed
Peskowitz joined North Palm Beach police in 1997. He quit to go to the Miami Beach Police Department. He returned to the North Palm Beach force in October 2001, where, among other things, he was the K-9 handler.
His return didn't go well. After less than two years, he was suspended indefinitely, finally resigning after several months. He sued the town, Wiborg and Johnson in 2004.
He contended that Wiborg sexually harassed him late in 2002. Among the captain's purported comments: "When you put your hands in your pockets, are you thinking about me?"
Peskowitz also claimed that Wiborg called him into his office and proceeded to change clothes "down to his underwear" while offering no explanation.
Among the other purported events that Peskowitz said he objected to in vain were:
• Use of excessive force by a fellow officer who he said pistol-whipped a handcuffed man.
• Racially motivated stops of motorists by a sergeant in the department.
• Wiborg's refusal to give him time off for the birth of his daughter in 2003 in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
• Wiborg's sending of a lengthy, harsh and possibly defamatory assessment of him in an e-mail to a psychologist who was to evaluate Peskowitz for employment at the sheriff's office.
The defendants' attorney, Anthony Gonzales, denies Peskowitz's allegations. His claim, for example, that he asked in February 2003 for time off the following month for the expected birth of his daughter is a fraud, he says in court documents.
Scathing mental evaluation
As for the e-mail Wiborg sent the sheriff's psychologist, Gonzales says in court filings that the same man was retained by North Palm Beach to evaluate Peskowitz's fitness to return to duty. He maintains that his clients were unaware that Peskowitz was trying to get a job with the sheriff's office at the time the e-mail was sent.
Whatever the case, Wiborg's Sept. 2, 2003 e-mail about Peskowitz was scathing.
"Since his hiring here, we have observed a consistent pattern of adverse stress reactions and depressed emotional affect which is markedly deteriorating," Wiborg wrote.
The psychologist diagnosed Peskowitz as having a "paranoia adjustment disorder," Wiborg wrote in his petition for the restraining order.
Peskowitz says he had to hire mental health professionals to clear him of Wiborg's allegations.
Peskowitz was hired by the sheriff's department in March 2004. He met or exceeded requirements in every category in his most recent job appraisal.
"Makes a positive first impression and has an excellent attitude toward co-workers and supervisors," his evaluator wrote.
The only complaint internal affairs has probed against Peskowitz was Wiborg's death threat allegation in September 2004. The investigation concluded that the complaint was unfounded.
Wiborg also informed the psychologist in his e-mail of Peskowitz's tumultuous home life with Barbara Bergoli, who had been a reserve officer with the department.
Bergoli gave birth to a baby girl on March 26, 2003. In July that year, Peskowitz twice held a gun to his head, Bergoli said in court records. And in August he threatened to kill her, their baby and himself, she said in an affidavit.
After Bergoli notified Wiborg and another officer of the threats, Peskowitz was put on leave. Peskowitz denies Bergoli's claims, calling her emotionally unstable. Peskowitz and Bergoli filed petitions seeking injunctions against each other. Bergoli now lives in New York.
More dirty laundry to air
Peskowitz's lawsuit is expected to go to trial early this year. Attorney Gonzales is trying to prohibit him from airing additional dirty laundry that he contends was soiling the North Palm Beach force.
He claims that Wiborg sent sexually harassing instant messages or e-mails to a dispatcher; that Wiborg falsified his credentials on his employment application and on the village's Web site; that Johnson got excessive overtime pay; and that Johnson had extramarital affairs.
Those allegations have nothing to do with the issues over which Peskowitz is suing, Gonzales argues. As for Wiborg's job application, any inaccuracies are trivial, he argues.
The defendants have ammunition to use against Peskowitz, too. They say he left Miami Beach under eerily similar circumstances. Peskowitz made claims of corruption there that were unfounded, Gonzales says. And Wiborg said Peskowitz told him he was sexually harassed at Miami Beach and that he was retaliated against for being a whistle-blower.
A year after Peskowitz left Miami Beach, an officer there named John Pereira said he got a call. He recognized the voice as that of Peskowitz, he said in a report.
"I'm coming for you and (officer) Carulo and your families. You're all (expletive) dead!" Then he hung up.
Two hours later, Pereira said he got another call from Peskowitz. The caller said, "Look behind you. Bang!"
"I never made those phone calls," Peskowitz said. The two officers erroneously thought he initiated an internal affairs investigation against them and they retaliated against him, he said. He was not questioned or charged in the incident, he added.
Peskowitz acknowledges that he contacted the Snohomish city clerk to obtain Wiborg's employment application, and indicated he might attend a city council meeting to find out why he was being thwarted. He says he had no contact with Wiborg and scoffs at his obtaining a restraining order.
"His sole intent was he didn't want me to go to the city council meeting and reveal things about his past," Peskowitz said.
Until Peskowitz resurfaced, Wiborg - who was chosen over three dozen other applicants - seemed to be doing fine as Snohomish's police chief. "In many ways he's done a good job," said City Manager Larry Bauman.
Wiborg and Peskowitz weren't always enemies, Bergoli said in an interview. "Wiborg took a liking to Ira. He really took him under his wing."
Neither feels the love now. Peskowitz said he wants money - and something else.
"I want a name-clearing opportunity," he said. "To show that these allegations were untruthful and ... intended to destroy my reputation and my career."
OMG OMG OMGReplyDelete
Are you going to be okay?ReplyDelete
Can't tell what someone will or won't do, but I'd like to see him for once be held accountable. He shouldn't feel FREE to scare me. This should have been handled before now. I wrote over on Renee's blog that I found myself calculating rifle shot trajectory paths through my residence - to see if my family was out of range.ReplyDelete
That's not acceptable.
INTERNET LAW - Threats Sent via E-mail Constitute a Federal CrimeReplyDelete
Internet Business Law Services Editorial Department
Electronic communications, in particular e-mails, have become a valuable working and social tool in the XXI century. Unfortunately, given its immediate delivery and disguised anonymity, some conflicted souls are increasingly using e-mails to transmit hateful messages. Transmitting threatening messages via e-mail is a federal crime in the United States and carries a penalty of imprisonment of up to five years or a fine, or both. Following, there is information on the federal statute that criminalizes threatening e-mails and a recent case of a man accused of sending racially hateful e-mails...
Noticed FBM made a post about this, I'll do so as well.ReplyDelete
You have my support and let me know if there is anything else I can do to help.
Thank you SO MUCH. I wrote a long piece tonight but hesitate to post it because I have to be careful at this point what I reveal. I'm sure the author of the emails is watching, just as much as the folks I'd like to speak openly to.ReplyDelete
But the support from bloggers has been the BEST YET for my buddy and I in this so far.
You are clearly amazing, brave and strong. I found a link through a link through a link (I think I started from Bust.com) and I am happy to stop by and support you and send you some spare energy. Please get through this okay and fight as much as you want. Best wishes and have a happy and safe New Year!ReplyDelete
This site is full of slander. How can one site possibly have all the facts?ReplyDelete
Substantiated by a PBSO Internal Investigation.ReplyDelete