Second is that all available evidence points to him not having committed sexual assault (as any anglo-saxon would understand it).

Funny that every court in Britain, up to and including the High Court, found that the acts of which he'd been accused would constitute "rape" in the UK, huh...?

Thanks for having the patience to provide so much sense here. It's like King Canute ordering back the tide, though, I'm afraid. People believe what they want to believe, and facts don't seem to be enough to persuade 'em...

Doesn't matter, rape is a criminal charge, not a civil complaint. Once the police have established that the circumstances of rape have occurred, the victim doesn't have the latitude to "not press charges".

He's charged with a variety of crimes, the most serious of which are sexual assault — he allegedly pinned one woman down and tried to force her legs apart so that he wouldn't have to wear the condom she insisted he wear — and rape — he allegedly initiated sex, without a condom, with a sleeping woman who had insisted that he not have unprotected sex with him.

The British High Court agreed that these accusation would certainly constitute crimes in the UK.

That's actually the rape charge.

The sexual assault charge relates to him allegedly pinning a second woman down on her bed, holding her hands down, and attempting to force her legs apart in an effort to keep her from getting the condom she insisted he wear as a condition of having sex.

The Swedish phrase which gets translated as "surprise sex" is apparently a euphemism for rape. Interestingly, they have the same euphemism in Japanese.

"What is "normal," though not in Sweden obviously, is that any interview prior to charges being laid be voluntary."

Except that he's already been ordered arrested in Sweden. His interview is no longer voluntary at this point, and his attendance is required. It's required on Swedish soil, since this formal questioning is — as the British High Court noted — the equivalent of an arraignment, and the next step is that he'd be charged and arrested if the prosecutors agree that the charge is warranted. The court explicitly said that a) the acts he's accused of would indeed be crimes in the UK, and b) that were this case being tried in the UK, he'd be charged if it had progressed to the point the Swedish case has.

So, let's say they (in this one very special case) allow an accused criminal to dictate the terms of his own questioning, and question him by telephone in his hidey-hole in the Ecuadorian Embassy. Based on that, they indeed decide to charge him.

What then? They can't arrest him if he's outside of Swedish jurisdiction (like Britain; or Ecuador). Are they supposed to extradite him a second time?

Let's suppose that you had maintained a presence on a domain for a number of years, call it "stonemirror.net".

Let's further suppose that a "troll" (more accurately, an online stalker and harasser) purchases the domain "stonemirror.org" and puts up a pro-NAMBLA web site with your name on it.

That happened to me, and the person who's harassing Rachel Marone — Jason Christopher Hughes aka Michael Rudra Nath — is the person who did it to me.

Suppose that someone set up a Facebook profile impersonating you, and attempted to get your friends and family to add it. Suppose further that he preemptively blocked your real profile, so you could neither see nor report it yourself.

That also happened to me, and Jason Christopher Hughes aka Michael Rudra Nath is also the person who did that.

What's the collective wisdom of Slashdot on dealing with such things?

And the above comment was written by Jason Christopher Hughes, in yet another attempt to interfere with the employment of yet another one of his stalking victims.

Gee, I'm surprised you haven't initiated a civil lawsuit against me for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I'm not exactly difficult to find... And surely you wouldn't claim I'd done something like this without having a shred of actual evidence to support it...? Right?

Another comment from stalker Jason Christopher Hughes. You can see more of the same in the comments section of this article on The Daily Dot: http://www.dailydot.com/business/kickstarter-cyberstalker-victim-rachel-marone/ This quote is manufactured, and appears nowhere on the web except for places it's been posted as a quote by some sock puppet ID or an "anonymous coward", like Mr. Hughes is right here. Check http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=victor+cypert+%22resident+computer+programmer%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 and see for yourself.

And this is a posting from Jason Christopher Hughes, who's decided to make an appearance in the comments section of this article on The Daily Dot: http://www.dailydot.com/business/kickstarter-cyberstalker-victim-rachel-marone/

I've also been stalked by Jason Christopher Hughes, and I can corroborate that he exists and that he's very difficult to track down. He's changed his name twice since 2004, first in Texas (to Manuel Luis Arsupial) and then in Washington (to Michael Rudra Nath). He's a transient and changes location multiple times a year as well. There have been criminal complaints made against him, by various people, in California, Washington, Texas, New York and other places, but — as people have noted — law enforcement doesn't make this kind of thing any sort of a priority. I had an active criminal complaint against him myself, in Merced County, California, from March 2010 to March 2011. I'm aware of no fewer than twenty different people who've been harassed by this person.