01 July 2014

Threats from Atty. Teddie Randall and Steven Fuller

On Monday, June 30, 2014 3:01 PM, Randall T wrote:


June 30, 2014

Mr. Steven Fuller has directed  me to disparaging comments that you have make regarding me in your blog.   You have been constantly  besieging me by various internet accusations in which you outlining me in a negative or condescending manner.  I believe that your conduct is undertaken to  foster negative reactions against me in an attempt to promote your mother’s  positions in various court actions. 

 I  successfully represented your mother in  in a trust matter.   Recovering for her an interest whereby she was disinherited.  Since your conduct is in her name via a  power of attorney she gave you, I view your activity as an extension of her.  Such continuous internet activities by you is emotional and professionally disruptive to me personally and professional life.  

As you may or may not be aware the state of California has enacted various laws regarding internet harassment, calculated to inflict emotional or physical harm.

Black's Law Dictionary, defines such internet harassment as:

    "A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another person." 

Cyberstalking is defined as: The use of the Internet, email or other electronic communications to stalk, and generally refers to a pattern of threatening or malicious behaviors.. Sanctions range from misdemeanors to felonies.

Cyberharassment  generally is  defined as not involving a credible threat. Cyberharassment usually pertains to threatening or harassing email messages, instant messages, or to blog entries or websites dedicated solely to tormenting an individual.

SECTION 1708-1725

1708.  Every person is bound, without contract, to abstain from injuring the person or property of another, or infringing upon any of his or her rights.

1708.7.  (a) A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort:

       (1) The defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to follow, alarm, or harass the plaintiff. In order to establish this element, the plaintiff shall be required to support his or her allegations with independent corroborating evidence.

       (2) As a result of that pattern of conduct, the plaintiff reasonably feared for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member. For purposes of this paragraph, "immediate family" means a spouse, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any person who regularly resides, or, within the six months preceding any portion of the pattern of conduct, regularly resided, in the plaintiff's household.

       (3) One of the following:

       (A) The defendant, as a part of the pattern of conduct specified in paragraph (1), made a credible threat with the intent to place the plaintiff in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of an immediate family member and, on at least one occasion, the plaintiff clearly and definitively demanded that the defendant cease and abate his or her pattern of conduct and the defendant persisted in his or her pattern of conduct.
       (b) For the purposes of this section:

           (1) "Pattern of conduct" means conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "pattern of conduct."

              (2) "Credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that communicated by means of an electronic communication device, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal, written, or electronically communicated statements and conduct, made with the intent and apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family.

              (3) "Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, 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.
             (4) "Harass" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional  distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person.
               (c) A person who commits the tort of stalking upon another is liable to that person for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages pursuant to
Section 3294.

    I am not outlining  internet law to you simply to be verbose.  If necessary I will take what ever action necessary against you and the principal (i.e. person making you their “attorney-in-Fact”) to protect myself or my professional representation.  Such actions can be long and expensive.

Attorney Teddie J Randall

Steven Fuller Jun 30 at 5:02 PM
To Me, Randall T

I saw your smear campaign on your blog.  I spoke with your mother, about her request to stay in my home while her apartment is renovated.  I informed her that I do not think it wise - not because I do not wish for her to be in my home, but because of your constant internet harassment.  The devil comes to destroy long established relationships, indeed - relationships that preexisted your birth.  While you do his bidding, I can only imagine if your mother fell or something happened to her while in my home - what a terrible campaign of smear and threats against me there would be.  However, there are legal ramifications that may result against you, in that I know my sister does not, in fact, approve of your behavior.   You are acting outside of the scope of your responsibilities and should be dealt with accordingly. 

Steven Fuller 

Journalism is a method of inquiry and literary style that aims to provide a service to the public by the dissemination and analysis of news and other information. Journalistic integrity is based on the principles of truth, disclosure, and editorial independence. Journalistic mediums can vary diversely, from print publishing to electronic broadcasting, and from newspaper to television channels, as well as to the web, and to digital technology.

In modern society, the news media is the chief purveyor of information and opinion about public affairs. Journalism, however, is not always confined to the news media or to news itself, as journalistic communication may find its way into broader forms of expression, including literature and cinema. In some nations, the news media is still controlled by government intervention, and is not fully an independent body.

In a democratic society, however, access to free information plays a central role in creating a system of checks and balance, and in distributing power equally amongst governments, businesses, individuals, and other social entities. Access to verifiable information gathered by independent media sources, which adhere to journalistic standards, can also be of service to ordinary citizens, by empowering them with the tools they need in order to participate in the political process.


  1. Kind of like "Nineteen Eighty-Four" by George Orwell. Fighting the thought police is hopeless.

  2. Not for a minute. I filed a detailed complaint with the Bar against Teddie J. Randall, he's pulled all sort of shenanigans . My blog has been in existence since 2008. I won't be intimidated. I'm glad they made the threat, I will be forwarding it to the Bar. Randall has not done any of the heavy lifting in this case, that was done by Atty. Burrell. However, he has his hands into everything... each and every case. To spare all the long details, my mother has nothing to do with this blog. That said, my blog is a journalistic public service dedicated to elder abuse, financial elder abuse. The court cases are in the public domain.

    As a journalist, I can not, will not run scared.


All comments are reviewed before posting.