Kathleen Watterson is a TI in Joshua Tree, CA who attempted to get a permanent restraining order against a former neighbor who still lives in her area and is assaulting her with microwave weapons. After many court dates Kathleen was able to get a temporary restraining order. On 9/04/14 the former neighbor petitioned against a permanent restraining order and won. In a previous court date the judge referred to a restraining order against microwave assault “like controlling fog”. But thanks to the judge’s advice, Kathleen is working on a bigger and better case against the defendant. Read the judge’s ruling below.
HONORABLE FRANK GAFKOWSKI, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING
Kathleen Watterson, plaintiff vs. Matti B. Aro, defendant (Mr. Ghan is the defendant’s attorney)
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Ghan. Appreciate that. Okay. The issue before the Court, if we look at the definition of harassment, harassment in the sense in which it is to be dealt with under the Code of Civil Procedure, which is what this — Code of Civil Procedure is applicable. I think it is 527. There is several variations of it. But what I’m suggesting is this. Harassment is a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that puts a person in fear for themselves and serves no legitimate purpose. It’s a course of conduct that annoys, harasses and so forth, causes a person to suffer perhaps emotional distress as well as physical harm. Now, I’m led to believe from Ms. Watterson that she has complained to Mr. Aro about this, and his expert did not see any evidence of the type of equipment that would intentionally allow microwaves to be addressed to her property some distance away. Her expert says it was possible and that, but we do not have evidence of the equipment itself. We’re thinking that it emanates from this one dish, and I’m speculating that it had to do with the microphone that was in the dish or the way the dish was apparently directed that could cause this interference with her lifestyle. I’m very satisfied that she has suffered physical ailment because of these microwaves. There’s no doubt in my mind. It is quite clear and convincing that she has suffered this harm. The question that I have is whether this was the result of negligence on the part of Mr. Aro. He claims to be a self-professed radio amateur buff — that is how I’m going to call him — that didn’t know any better that what he hooked up was causing this harm. Now, whether that transmutes or transfers or transmits into willful, intentional misconduct, clear and convincing, I cannot say
MS. WATTERSON: (Unintelligible.)
THE COURT: Ms. Watterson, I’m speaking. There is no doubt in my mind that he has caused this harm. But what causes me reflection is that we do not have evidence of the actual generator that apparently is necessary to operate this dish in such fashion. Maybe it exists. But I do not take it as an intentional invasion on his part. It was, in my opinion, the result. of his negligence, hooking things up that ultimately have caused harm to a neighbor. This is the subject of a negligence civil suit with substantial damages, but that is another forum. We’re dealing here with what would appear to be a criminal act. It’s atrocious that he doesn’t see his harm. His stubbornness is quite apparent. But his stubbornness and his attitude is such that I do not find it is equivalent of intentionally harassing, intentionally seeking to cause harm. I cannot call it a criminal act, which is the reason for the injunctive relief that Ms. Watterson sought. It is gross negligence on his part, very unwitting that he permitted himself to do that. I’m trusting that Mr. Aro will take it upon himself to change his equipment before Ms. Watterson files a civil suit and causes him real harm, because she has suffered terribly under this. And it is just because of the nature of the section that she chose to bring, trying to represent herself, that she didn’t seek the proper remedy, which is a negligence suit. Not intentionally inflicting harm, but a negligence suit, that his lack of care harmed you just as much as if he had hit you with his car. That’s what we have. But I cannot find clear and convincing that he did such with such a criminal intent, because that’s what we’re dealing with. I do appreciate your sincerity, Ms. Watterson. This is not over. This activity that you are involved in and your pursuit is not over. I suggest you seek proper legal advice, but I —
MS.WATTERSON: I might have a picture of the generator.
MR. GHAN: You’re ruling, your Honor.
THE COURT: I’m ruling. I’m already ruling.
MS. WATTERSON: Okay.
THE COURT: And that may be the generator, but we do not have actual proof of that. Under the circumstances, the Court does not sustain the petition.
THE COURT: Petition is denied.
MR. GHAN: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: That will be the order. Return exhibits to the parties. Ms. Watterson, you want your exhibits back?
MS. WATTERSON: Yeah, but I’d love to have them back. I’d rather you look at them, though.
THE COURT: You may have them back. (No further proceedings on this date.)
**Whole 9/04/14 transcript: http://www.knowing-is-half-the battle.com/TranscriptsKvAroNeg1.pdf
**Kathleen and Levi McCann’s website: http://www.knowing-is-half-the-battle.com/