Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

an open letter to anyone I may have emailed

17 March, 2011

Dear people I may have emailed:

If you have received unsolicited emails from me that you found threatening, stalker-ish, unhinged, etc.,-- and instead of contacting me directly or blocking my email address you had a lawyer craft and send a cease and desist letter -- please be aware that I never received such a letter, either in hard copy or in my email. (Of course, to be absolutely certain about the latter, I'd need to know the name of the attorney who sent me the letter so I can check that it hasn't gone to spam; I searched my trash for "attorney" and all I got were attorneys for various tribal chieftans and deposed world dignitaries offering me what it turns out are some pretty sweet deals).

Therefore, I request that all of you people I may have emailed threatening, stalker-ish, unhinged missives please re-send (or have your attorney re-send) the cease and desist letter to the email address listed on my contact page, along with a copy of the original letter, including its destination address.

Or just send me the attorney's contact information, and I'll do the rest myself.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
The guy who may have emailed you, and whose emails so upset you with their unhinged serial stalker-ness that you were driven to hide your wife and collect counsel.

cc: everyone I may have emailed

127 Replies to “an open letter to anyone I may have emailed”

  1. Joe says:

    444.“Frey said I was sent a cease and desist order.” No, I never said “order” and, more importantly, I never said I knew it was sent. Just that I was TOLD it was and I believed it. Still do.

    Overstating my claim is a tactic designed to make my inability to prove it look like evidence I am lying. I am telling the truth. This is what I have been told. Do not misrepresent what I said as a rhetorical game.

    By the way, the person in question is not on that list he published of people he said he has e-mailed.

    I was told the story by someone I believe. He does not want to get involved because the e-mails he got before had his wife on edge to the point where he turned to a lawyer. The fact that I cannot produce e-mail I never saw and never claimed to have seen does not mean that I was not told what I was told. All Jeff’s bluster and overstatements notwithstanding.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/16/2011 @ 9:52 pm

    463.Jeff now moves from saying I either lied or was punked to simply saying I lied. And tells me to “own” the allegation.

    I’m owning it, son. I was told what I was told. I’m only owning the part I said, though, and not the exaggerated version you made up, wherein I am holding all the emails and could release them if I want.

    I’m dead convinced you know exactly who told me all this; you sent him those e-mails; and edited his name off the list of recipients.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/17/2011 @ 5:50 am

    To the “guy” who spoke to Patterico, Patterico’s honor is at stake! Save him.

  2. Joe says:

    Pablo posted on 3/17 @ 9:59 am
    “…it’s my fault for saying something without having obtained permission to release the proof.”

    Tell me: does that not suggest that he’s at least seen the proof?

    Seems that way. Why would you even consider obtaining permission to release something you don’t have and have never seen? What would you release?

    As for Mr. Secret Victim, if he’s already sent you a C&D, what’s he worried about? Should you victimize him again, he can just walk his happy ass down to the courthouse and follow through on the C&D threat.

    I call bullshit, top to bottom. Frey is lying, period. Again, period.

  3. Jeff G. says:

    So now we’re at this: Frey heard something from someone and used it to level accusations against me publicly. He had no knowledge that a letter was sent. He was merely told it was sent, and he accepted that testimony as truth and reported it. Blamelessly. Because information needs to be free!

    Similarly, he said threatening, unhinged, serial-stalker-ish emails were sent by me. He hasn’t seen these emails. Hasn’t asked to see them, so far as we know. Instead, he is merely being told they exist, and he has accepted that testimony as truth and is simply reporting on it. Blamelessly. For freedom!

    Except I’d need to see if the source used “unhinged” “serial-harassment” etc. Or were those Frey’s characterizations? Based on having not seen any emails? Because I have to wonder from where he gathered the information to make such a characterization?

    Blamelessly, of course. But still.

    DON’T GO SUGGESTING HE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS! HIS ONLY CRIME IS THAT HE CARES TOO MUCH ABOUT HIS SOURCE AND HIS SOURCE’S POOR HARASSED WIFE!

    Sadly, I bet both he and Eric PWJohnson believe this.

  4. RoyceD57 says:

    You once sent me a threatening email to “thank” me for a small contribution I made last year. Sure, what you wrote was “thank you”, but what I interpreted was threatening. Not only that, the negative intensity of your so called “thank you” was so great that I felt stalked.

  5. Jeff G. says:

    I apologize, Royce, and will hereafter cease and desist thanking you for your kindnesses. So as not to wound you or your significant other.

    Incidentally, I’m going to keep a running tab on days I haven’t received a cease and desist letter. Anyone know how to make one of them cool meters or counters that I can put on the sidebar?

  6. Seth says:

    Well, that should just about cover it, Jeff.

  7. antillious says:

    This must be why Frey is such an awesome DDA.

    “Your honour, this man is guilty.”
    “How do you know?”
    “A person I know told me.”
    “Any evidence? Proof?”
    “They TOLD me, and I belive them.”
    “Very well, that’s enough for me. Guilty as charged.”

    Slam dunk case every time.

  8. JHoward says:

    Hurry up and move to Canada, RoyceD57. Depending on extradition laws up there, you may yet have grounds for action.

  9. RoyceD57 says:

    I’m going to move to Venezuela. Show Trial!

  10. alppuccino says:

    No, I never said “order” and, more importantly, I never said I knew it was sent. Just that I was TOLD it was and I believed it. Still do.

    This is incredible. But it might be helpful legal advice. It seems someone would be in clear if they posted that someone had told them that they had to hire an anonymous attorney to take out a restraining “instrument” on someone, because of some sort of “inappropriate touching”. Something about balls. I can’t quite remember, but I believed him then, and I still do.

  11. Ernst Schreiber says:

    444.[Rénaud quoting Jeff] “Frey said I was sent a cease and desist order.” No, I never said “order” and, more importantly, I never said I knew[emph. add.] it was sent. Just that I was TOLD it was and I believed it. Still do.

    Overstating my claim is a tactic designed to make my inability to prove it look like evidence I am lying. I am telling the truth. This is what I have been told. Do not misrepresent what I said as a rhetorical game.

    [….]

    Comment by Patterico — 3/16/2011 @ 9:52 pm

    Oh, and I’m a stalker! That said, nobody has sent *me* any cease and desist letters lately. I’m told Jeff can’t say the same. [which, btw is saying that Jeff’s been sent a cease and desist letter E.S.]

    Comment by Patterico — 3/15/2011 @ 7:02 am

    There’s a rhetorical game going on here, but it doesn’t seem to me that it’s a game of Jeff’s design.

  12. McGehee says:

    Jeff, your use of boldface type in your open letter? That looks kind of threatening. Perhaps you should replace that with some nice comic sans, maybe on a faded pink background?

    For the fuzzy bunnies.

  13. cranky-d says:

    So, according to PF, Jeff is deliberately lying quite publicly about something that could easily be proven to be a lie if one person who may or may not exist would just come forward. He is basing his whole attack on that assertion.

    Pretty weak, counselor. Pretty weak.

  14. Jeff G. says:

    Wait, who else is it that thinks that because someone is evil, he is therefore guilty of anything he is accused of? And “evil” is defined as “doesn’t agree with me”. I recognize that line of thinking, but I’m having a hard time putting my finger on it…

  15. McGehee says:

    …nobody has sent *me* any cease and desist letters lately.

    Aw. He’s feeling neglected.

  16. antillious says:

    RoyceD57, I’d still suggest Canada, the human rights commission IS a showtrial. Plus you wouldn’t have to travel as far. And unlike Chavez we DON’T have a problem with breastacular modifications.

  17. antillious says:

    I’ve said it before, but I’m pretty sure that at the end of the day, you’ll find that the recipient of this mysterious C+D, is the same person that Jeff had to send a C+D to as well.

  18. Jeff G. says:

    Depends on when it happened, antillious. She was incarcerated and kept off the intertubes for a spell.

    Of course, we don’t know when this all supposedly happened. The dates and times wish remain anonymous, I guess. To protect themselves from my wrath.

  19. LBascom says:

    This one time, I sent Jeff a contribution, and he didn’t send me a thank you note.

    I’m pretty sure Wickard v. Filburn plainly lays out the implied threat of this inaction.

    HARASSMENT!!

  20. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Of course, we don’t know when this all supposedly happened.

    That all depends on what the definition of “lately” is.

  21. Ella says:

    Isn’t there a simple resolution for this? Just send Frey a C&D letter against mentioning you or linking to you on his blog and from emailing you privately.

  22. Ella says:

    It knocks him off the moral high ground and lays the groundwork for a slander suit, which I (as a non-lawyer) think you may have.

  23. JHoward says:

    It occurs to me that if Frey were the keen legal mind surely the official California legal community depends on to triumph over injustice, he might have thought this through a little better.

    I mean, if I, but a meager citizen, were to find myself eyewitness to such an event as Mr. Goldstein is said to have caused by way of his Thoroughly Unrestrained Evil, I’d be thinking I might best clam up well before my making what certainly would end up looking like unsupportable claims about the man in public.

    As said meager citizen even I know to anticipate a bit here and there. Don’t lawyers get paid to do this?

  24. Squid says:

    Isn’t there a simple resolution for this?

    Aaron Burr comes to mind, though that was the sort of thing gentlemen did, and it’s damned difficult to find a real gentleman these days.

  25. Jeff G. says:

    If I had access to a lawyer, Ella, perhaps.

  26. antillious says:

    I like how his new refrain is “I was told”. That worked out real well for Colin Powell’s reputation too.

  27. Squid says:

    Surely the armadillo has Lionel Hutz on speed dial.

  28. Jeff G. says:

    OT: I just tried swinging a 20 lb mace and it about killed me. Different kind of strength. Not real familiar with the movement.

    I’m going to like working with this thing, I think.

  29. Jeff G. says:

    I like how his new refrain is “I was told”.

    By a person he can’t identify, who won’t identify himself and has an attorney who likewise can’t be identified, won’t identify himself or herself, and has not as of yet re-sent the cease and desist letter — despite the fact that we know Frey (and my presumptive victims) are closely monitoring every post and comment over here.

    Frey takes screen shots of all my comments and the comments of several of the regulars here and keeps them in a special file. I’m told.

  30. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Aaron Burr comes to mind

    Interestingly enough, the end result of that particular incident came about because Mr. Hamilton was also too smart for his own good.

  31. Joe says:

    468.Thanks Happyfeet for the effort to remember what’s important.

    Joe, no one is going to PW for obvious reasons.

    Jeff, I guess you’re reading the thread. Put your ego on pause and consider that the reason you are able to play this ‘prove I did that’ game is because someone’s family is scared of your harassment resuming, and a man is pressed between the needs of his family vs the needs of blog drama (and you have calculated this man is not an idiot, so you can play ‘prove it!’ all day).

    Just a few weeks ago, Aaron emailed to mention he thought perhaps you were burying the hatchet and moving on. I replied that I was not hopeful, but that would be great. The folks here do not want a blog war, and it’s not because we’re ‘losing’. It’s because this is ugly for everyone.

    I just wanted to say that if you actually do know who sent you this c/d, you need to write him right now and ask him to forward your apology to his family for this BS.

    You got the meltdown headline wrong, should have noted the error. People will disagree with your opinions. You can respond sanely or ignore it. If you can’t blog like that, you probably need some perspective on life.

    Again, my apologies to the people, like Happyfeet, who would rather talk about something more significant.

    Comment by Dustin — 3/17/2011 @ 10:28 am

  32. dicentra says:

    Frey takes screen shots of all my comments and the comments of several of the regulars here and keeps them in a special file. I’m told.

    You weren’t “told”: Frey himself boasted that he was doing so to “protect himself.”

    Typical Paranoid Personality Disorder response: “Everyone has it out for me! I have to do these insane things to protect myself!”

  33. Squid says:

    You got the meltdown headline wrongaccused a man of stalking and harassment without any proof, should have noted the error. People will disagree with your opinionsbaseless lies and slander. You can respond sanely or ignore it. If you can’t blog like that, you probably need some perspective on life.

    Fixed.

  34. dicentra says:

    the reason you are able to play this ‘prove I did that’ game is because someone’s family is scared of your harassment resuming, and a man is pressed between the needs of his family vs the needs of blog drama (and you have calculated this man is not an idiot, so you can play ‘prove it!’ all day).

    Wow.

    We’re going to level this accusation against you in public but we’re not going to offer any proof in public or private or any other venue because if we do so you’ll continue to injure the injured party, which is right there is proof that you’re guilty.

    Not even the NKVD was that twisted.

  35. LBascom says:

    Put your ego on pause and consider that the reason you are able to play this ‘prove I did that’ game is because someone’s family is scared

    You have got to be shitting me. ‘prove I did that’ game?

    Dustin, buddy, the reason he HAS to play the ‘prove I did that’ game is because someone first played the ‘you did that’ game.

    The reason he is ABLE to play the ‘prove I did that’ game is because he is innocent.

    Is the lawyer of the family scared too?

  36. Jeff G. says:

    Jeff, I guess you’re reading the thread.

    No, I’m not. Haven’t been over there. Not even sure what thread it is. Just seeing what Joe posts here.

    Put your ego on pause and consider that the reason you are able to play this ‘prove I did that’ game is because someone’s family is scared of your harassment resuming, and a man is pressed between the needs of his family vs the needs of blog drama (and you have calculated this man is not an idiot, so you can play ‘prove it!’ all day).

    Bullshit. If there’s a cease and desist letter and I violated it, my victim can get an order against me if I lapse and scare this anonymous person and his long-suffering wife anew. So he has nothing to fear. Except that he’ll be exposed as either a liar or someone who got punked — and allowed Frey to launch false accusations against me, and is allowing this to keep going when he can simply re-send the letter, release the emails, or at least show someone the “proof”. But it never happened.

    I just wanted to say that if you actually do know who sent you this c/d, you need to write him right now and ask him to forward your apology to his family for this BS.

    No one sent me a cease and desist letter that I received. As I’ve said over and over. I’ve even asked it be re-sent because I never got it. Are you now saying that you know such a letter was indeed sent, Dustin? Are you saying that you know such harassment took place? Have you seen these emails? That is, are you taking a harder line on this than the ever-backpeddling internet hall monitor?

    This person, if he exists, Frey, you, and anyone else who keeps repeating these false accusations owe ME the apology. But I won’t except it. We’re beyond that.

    I also didn’t excise any names from my sent file. I deny that completely and unreservedly, as well.

    You got the meltdown headline wrong, should have noted the error. People will disagree with your opinions. You can respond sanely or ignore it. If you can’t blog like that, you probably need some perspective on life.

    The headline was taken directly from the story and a link to the story was provided. I myself made no comment one way or the other about any partial meltdown of a fuel rod. And I certainly didn’t “rush”
    “in advance of the facts” to pretend everything was peachy in Japan.

    So fuck yourself. You’re another liar who tries to present himself as level-headed and erudite. And your opinion is worthless here.

  37. McGehee says:

    Seems to me if there was any reason to be afraid of Jeff, the most idiotic thing anyone could ever contemplate doing is to tell Blabbermouth Fried about it.

    We can be damn sure that’ll never happen again. Obviously Fried can’t be trusted.

    But then, we over here already knew that. Fried’s imaginary informant has had to find out the hard way, and if he does exist, and if he truly is afraid of Jeff, and if Jeff does know who he is, he has even more reason to be afraid — because of Fried.

    I’d say Fried’s informant has cause for a complaint against Fried.

    I’d like to see that.

  38. Jeff G. says:

    I need a lawyer to contact me asap. Please.

  39. Pablo says:

    “Hey, I had my lawyer send Jeff a C&D letter. But don’t let him know I did it. He might get mad.”

    Yeah, right.

  40. antillious says:

    Occam’s razor time: (I apologize for the length)

    Given what we have been told by various people there are 4 possibilities that I can come up with.

    1) Frey and Mr. X are telling the truth and Jeff is lying.
    2) Frey is lying (ie no Mr. X exists) and Jeff is telling the truth.
    3) Mr. X is lying, Frey is telling the truth (as far as he has been told), and Jeff is telling the truth.
    4) Mr. X is telling the truth, Frey is repeating what he was told, and Jeff is telling the truth.

    In scenario 1, it is required that Jeff have sent repeated unhinged emails and is lying about send them, as well as possibly lying about receiving a C+D (can’t rule out mis-delivery).

    In scenario 2, Frey would have to be completely off his rocker and basically totally make up a Mr. X.

    In scenario 3, Mr. X has either fabricated their story wholecloth (eg no emails from Jeff) or has exaggerated elements of it (eg, got an email from Jeff once, no unhinged ones, never actually sent C+D, etc). Frey is simply parroting what he’s heard (beliving it 100% because he is Khan to Jeff’s Kirk). And Jeff is telling the truth about not sending emails or recieving a C+D.

    In scenario 4, all that is required is that a third party sent out unhinged emails using Jeff’s name. Mr. X thinks Jeff sent them, sent out a C+D to someone. Frey parrots and believes what he’s been told (because he burns with the hatred of a 1000 suns) and Jeff is also telling the truth as he’s not recieved the C+D nor sent the original emails.

    While Jeff and Frey may be crazy mofos, they’re not CRAZY. So I’m ruling out 1 and 2. 3 is would require Mr. X to be the CRAZY one, but we don’t know anything about them (only Frey does, and he’s not telling). Mr. X also has a lawyer involved in all of this, so scenario 3 is very unlikely.

    That leaves scenario 4 as the likely candidate in my eyes. Unfortunately it leaves the ball squarely in Frey and Mr. X’s court as they hold all the paperwork (or in Frey’s case, he has names at least and a possible time frame).

    So in conclusion: Frey is being a dick because he likes the unanswered/unanswerable question.

  41. Pablo says:

    Someone’s been reading Kafka.

  42. Jeff G. says:

    Seems to me if there was any reason to be afraid of Jeff, the most idiotic thing anyone could ever contemplate doing is to tell Blabbermouth Fried about it.

    It seems to me I wouldn’t email a friend of Frey’s a series of unhinged rants, either. Knowing as I must that Frey would try to turn it into an attack on me. But then there’s lots about Frey’s brave “reporting” — Frey’s blog, recall, is “committed to accuracy” — that is implausible.

  43. antillious says:

    Ok, how about this. Can Frey release the email address that Jeff supposedly used (to Jeff and not the internet at large)? He’s not giving away the name of Mr. X, or Mr. X’s attorney. But rather something that Jeff should already have and be completely aware of.

  44. LBascom says:

    The folks here do not want a blog war, and it’s not because we’re ‘losing’. It’s because this is ugly for everyone.

    Dude, the only “ugliness” I see here is unsupported accusations. Until you prove the accusations, you lose.

    Unless of course, the DDA thinks hearsay is good enough evidence to convict a person.

    In that case, I heard Frey is an anti-Semite.

    GUILTY!

  45. Shaitan says:

    Someone said Balls, so now I have to link to this.

  46. antillious says:

    I still don’t get why Mr. X’s attorney can’t be identified. At this point there has been some serious legal bumbling. If a C+D has gone out, and Jeff hasn’t received it, you would think Mr. X’s attorney would be all over that in making sure that the recipient of the letter, you know, acutally GET THE FUCKING THING?

    And shouldn’t MR. X be totally pissed right now with their attorney. They payed a pretty penny to get that C+D drafted and delivered, and Jeff HASN’T received it? What exactly were you paying your attorney for if that’s the case? You’d think Mr. X would also be demanding proof that Jeff got the C+D otherwise what was the point of the exercise in the first place.

    At the most banal level, it’s a misdirected letter. Resend the blighted thing, registered mail. Although they might want to check with Jeff first, in order to get his actual address this time. And if they did send it to the wrong place the first time, where did they send it? Hmmm, that would certainly be interesting to know.

  47. Jeff G. says:

    How does revealing to what address the letter was sent — and the dates and times any of this supposedly occurred — put the “victims” of my evil in any new jeopardy?

    Perhaps Dustin can answer that for us.

  48. Blitz says:

    Well, y’all DID call me “Edward’ once, I took that as a frightening and posibly libelous comment. Scared the crap out of my cat too.

  49. Jeff G. says:

    antillious —

    One of the things Frisch was arrested for was — wait for it! — impersonating a public official via email.

  50. Jeff G. says:

    UPDATE: Still no letter.

  51. DarthLevin says:

    Jeff, you will become so enraged (because of teh crayzeh you embody) at the public release of that information that you will ignore the C and D letter. This letter, which has up to this point restrained you from sending any other eeeeevil emails to poor poor Mr. X, will no longer be a bar to your bestial nature, such is the force and nature of your unjust, UNJUST I say, anger.

    Or something to that effect. Who knows what those idjits are thinking.

  52. antillious says:

    Now, Jeff

    You know Frey can’t possibly post the address to which the C+D was sent. He can’t in good concience post someones acutal address on the interwebs. Just think of what horrible things could happen. He’s an honourable man and he wants to make sure that nothing happens to you. He cares. For you. Even though you don’t deserve it.

  53. Jeff G. says:

    This casual mention of my harassment and stalking and a cease and desist letter certainly hasn’t escalated things, Darth. I believe we have Patrick Frey’s sober, strong judgment to thank for that.

  54. DarthLevin says:

    Exactly, Jeff. You are rational and controlled enough to respect a C and D letter, but at the same time deranged and unbalanced enough that the slightest! provocation! ever! (like publishing the C and D letter) would push you over the edge.

    Otherwise intelligent people at Frey’s place buy that juxtaposition of personalities existing in you.

    But then they thought Obama was a *good man* too.

  55. LBascom says:

    “In scenario 3, Mr. X has either fabricated their story wholecloth (eg no emails from Jeff) or has exaggerated elements of it (eg, got an email from Jeff once, no unhinged ones, never actually sent C+D, etc). Frey is simply parroting what he’s heard (beliving it 100% because he is Khan to Jeff’s Kirk). And Jeff is telling the truth about not sending emails or recieving a C+D. […]

    3 is would require Mr. X to be the CRAZY one, but we don’t know anything about them (only Frey does, and he’s not telling). Mr. X also has a lawyer involved in all of this, so scenario 3 is very unlikely.”

    I don’t think you can rule out 3 so easily. Mr X doesn’t have to be crazy, perhaps he just embellished a story to ingrate himself with Frey. There was no harassment, no C & D, and no lawyer, just a tall tale told for titillation. A liar in other words.

    And then Frey got over titillated.

  56. McGehee says:

    Even if we assume Scenario 4, that leaves us with a lawyer who sent a C&D letter without making sure of the offender’s identity, or without following up to make sure the real Jeff Goldstein received it.

    And then we have a Mr. X who told the notoriously discreet and levelheaded Fried Blabbermouth about it without taking into account the possibility that Blabby might mention it on his blog.

    And then we have Blabby failing to consider the possibility that Jeff might, like, oh I dunno, deny the accusation.

    So in Scenario 4 we have Mr. X exhibiting poor judgment at least twice, Mr. X’s lawyer failing to properly serve his client, and the Fried Blabbermouth assuming somehow that Jeff Goldstein wouldn’t do what every intelligent human would do when publicly accused: demand proof.

    If Scenario 4 is the truth, it tells us all some very uncomplimentary things about Mr. X and his lawyer, but nothing at all new or surprising about the Fried Blabbermouth.

  57. antillious says:

    I dunno, LBascom, scenario 3 requires Mr. X and a lawyer to collude on this, as Frey has mentioned both of them. Unless of course “sending a C+D” is the lawyerese equivalent of “having a girlfriend in Canada, you don’t know her. But she’s hot” and is just BS they use amongst themselves.

    Incidentally, In Canada, our equivalent “American girlfriends” usually came from California.

  58. antillious says:

    Scenario 4 really does look bad for Mr. X’s lawyer. Not so much for Mr. X. They payed their lawyer to draft and send a C+D. The lawyer says they did it, end of story as far as Mr. X is concerned. Now the laywer could have successfully tracked down whoever was actually sending the emails and sent them the C+D, which makes sense. It’s just that that person isn’t Jeff.

    But it would certainly explain why Mr. X’s attorney doesn’t want to say anything to anyone about it. And perhaps why Frey won’t say anything about it either (to protect the attorney).

  59. LBascom says:

    If 4 is the case, Mr. X must be someone notable enough to draw the perpetrators interest in sending him the harassing emails. I mean, for our purposes, say it’s the crazy woman in Eugene that sent them in Jeffs name. Why pick Mr. X?

  60. LBascom says:

    “scenario 3 requires Mr. X and a lawyer to collude on this, as Frey has mentioned both of them.”

    Frey is just the gossip girl in this story. Why does the lawyer part have to be true? Jeff never got the letter, Frey says he hasn’t actually seen any of the evidence himself, and the part about the lawyer being miffed at Frey for revealing the existence of a C&D letter doesn’t make sense.

    Has Frey said anything about talking to this lawyer himself, or is he just passing along what Mr. X has told him?

  61. Ernst Schreiber says:

    This:

    I think Dustin has a good point that, not having cleared the release of this information with the recipient, I should have said nothing. It was prompted by anger over the incredible situation of being called a stalker by someone who (I was told) had engaged in his own pattern of e-mail harassment. But 1) actions taken out of anger are never a good idea, and 2) I messed up by mentioning something I had not been given the green light to mention.

    [….]

    Comment by Patterico — 3/16/2011 @ 5:04 pm

    was precipitated by this:

    Oh, and I’m a stalker! That said, nobody has sent *me* any cease and desist letters lately. I’m told Jeff can’t say the same.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/15/2011 @ 7:02 am

    [emphases added]

    What we have here is an “allegation” that consists solely of innuendo. Féraud needs to put up, own up, or shut up. If he can’t put up, which I don’t believe he can, and he won’t own up, which I know he won’t, he ought to shut up then, and take his knocks in dignified silence.

    Frankly, if he’d retract it, my opinion of him would go up. Not that’s saying much, because it’s not like my opinion of him has anywhere else to go.

  62. Zoyclem says:

    The email messages I received from you were polite and friendly.

  63. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Again, “I should have said nothing. [….] I messed up by mentioning something that I had not been given [permission] to mention[,] [my emphasis]” is dispositive given the absence of evidence.

  64. McGehee says:

    Scenario 4 really does look bad for Mr. X’s lawyer. Not so much for Mr. X.

    I disagree. Mr. X could have gone to some small effort to ascertain whether his harasser was indeed who he claimed to be.

    I once had a troll post a nasty comment on my blog many years ago, using the handle of a blogger who has been blogging until very recently (his domain appears to have expired now) and who has commented here in recent months. I went to the guy’s blog and looked around, saw nothing that sounded like the comment I’d received, so I emailed the blogger a link to the comment and said I wasn’t convinced he had posted it.

    He hadn’t. End of problem, and we blogrolled each other.

  65. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Also, Féraud has a habit of trying to insinuate other people into his feud.

    Pablo can provide the link (again) if he so cares.

  66. McGehee says:

    Of course, by handling that in such a simplistic and reasonable manner, I probably cost several lawyers an untold number of billable hours.

    Icing on the cake.

  67. antillious says:

    From Patterco:

    “The bottom line is that my correspondent and his lawyer are both irritated with me, with some justification, and say they will release everything if Jeff writes him again, in violation of the cease and desist. Otherwise, all they care about is that the harassment not resume, which means not releasing anything as long as he doesn’t contact the person again.”

    Made it seem to me that there was a lawyer in the discussion. It might not be that Frey talked to him directly, so it’s possible the lawyer does’t exist either. I’m just running from the viewpoint that you have to be pretty crazy to fully fabricate lawyer stuff like this while talking to a DDA (even one with grindable axes that wants to belive every word). It’s just more plausable that everyone’s telling the truth (well, except Frey, as he has nothing to add and is just being a gossipy old bitty). I’m just waiting for the sitcom wah wah horns to sound, Jeff and Mr. X shake hands at the end and have a good laugh, and then they both spit on Frey. Fade to black, run commercial.

  68. LBascom says:

    Hell, I haven’t even ruled out that Mr. X doesn’t exist.

    I guess you missed the Nights of Manic Patterico Spamming a couple years back.

  69. antillious says:

    No, I saw those crazy postings (long time lurker). I just didn’t think making up people with C+D letters was somthing that a DDA with any hope of remaining employed might think was a great idea. Those things are verifiable. And if anyone higher up on his food chain decides that they want to confirm this, and it’s not real, bye bye job. Hell, anyone looking to usurp his position might want to check in on this.

  70. antillious says:

    Plus, this isn’t just a case does Mr. X exist and if so where did they send the C+D. This is also a case of possible identity theft. Something which Jeff can contact the police over and pass Frey/Mr. X’s names over to them to check it out.

    “Dear Police, it has come to my attention that I may have been the vicitm of identity theft. Someone was using my email and name to stalk and harass an individual, to the extent that the victim felt the need to request a C+D. One DDA Patric Frey has the details of the victim. Please contact him at X.”

    Not a smart move if Frey is making it up. I’m sure the police love it when people make stuff up like harassment.

  71. McGehee says:

    Not a smart move if Frey is making it up.

    It wasn’t a smart move for Fried to not expect Jeff to deny the accusation either.

    We’re dealing with a man whose smart moves, where our Jeff is concerned, are almost entirely hypothetical.

  72. LBascom says:

    I didn’t say I thought it likely, I’m just not ready to rule it out.

    Frey needs to prove is claim for me to do that.

    After all Mr. DDA, if Jeff is lying about all this, and you can prove it, I think you have a responsibility to do so.

    SAVE ME FROM BEING USED BY A (potentially) VIOLENT, (possibly) GREEDY, LIAR!

  73. Jeff G. says:

    Update 2: still no letter.

  74. Jeff G. says:

    I like the identity theft angle.

  75. McGehee says:

    As far as I’m concerned, this is just one more false accusation from an obviously incompetent prosecutor who is undoubtedly being kept on the payroll out of pity.

  76. antillious says:

    Just thinking that if he wont tell you any details about someone who’s stolen your identity, he just might have to tell the police. You have it on very good authority, a DDA no less, that there is out there a C+D letter addressed to you about a series of harrowing unhinged harassing emails that you never sent. The only possiblity is that someone has stolen your identity.

    Why wouldn’t a DDA help you get to the bottom of this? Unless he thinks identity theft isn’t a crime? If that’s the case, he might need to do a bit more reading, or look for another job.

  77. antillious says:

    Let’s just say that, having been a victim of identity theft (and mail tampering). Identity theft is serious business. At this point you should be worried about credit cards being ordered in your name and such. Contact equifax to check on it.

    Face it, it’s not just about nasty emails and Frey preening. An actual crime may have taken place. That’s serious business, one a DDA should not take lightly.

  78. McGehee says:

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again here and now: The only person injuring Patterico’s reputation is Patterico.

  79. Jeff G. says:

    Question: if I call the LA police and report an identity theft — and let them know that Frey has information on the possible theft (the name of those in receipt of items purportedly from me but that I did not send, items that he has declared publicly are part of a “serial harassment,” and so a crime — will Frey as an officer of the court be compelled to turn that info over?

  80. Squid says:

    I still think the DA’s office should be informed about what their DDA is up to in his spare time. Seems to me that slandering citizens in a fairly conspicuous public forum should be on the department’s list of no-nos. It ain’t gonna get the bully fired, or even reprimanded, but a little visit from the Big Boss Man saying “Grow the fuck up already, Frey” might do some good.

    And because I know you’re reading, Pat: I understand that it’s not legally slander if you use the phrasing “I’ve been told that Mr. Frei makes his underage harem write fake C&D letters when they don’t meet his depraved demands.” Trust me, I’m gonna be using that loophole a hell of a lot in the coming days. Now go back to your bottle and try not to look in any mirrors, you pathetic hack.

  81. John Bradley says:

    actions taken out of anger are never a good idea

    Wise advice indeed. But it begs the question “what in blazes was the good counsellor angry about in the first place?”

    Some idiot PW commentor mocks the (as he saw it) “breaking news: the situation has changed though we’re not sure what it was, nor what it is now!” histrionics of those other conservoblogs (quote: “BigHotAcearico”). Jeff says “yeah, same thing happened with Katrina”.

    And that was it. A sane person would have just ignored this perceived slight on their infallibility — you run a big blog, you’re going to get criticized. Hell, Ace has half of his commentors telling him he’s a fucking moron on any number of threads over at his place.

    But no, that weak tea was enough to send Mr. Prosecutor off on his latest “filthy lying Goldsteinsses… we hates them!” spree. Almost as if he was waiting for the flimsiest of excuses…

  82. LBascom says:

    “Why wouldn’t a DDA help you get to the bottom of this?”

    To hear him tell it, because he’s protecting Mr. X (and his distraught wife and also possibly other family members). Jeff is such a menace, he not only must protect the privacy of his completely reliable source (and the sources lawyer), but their mental and (possibly) their physical well being.

    And he admitted to messing up by even alluding to the whole nasty business. But he stands by the allusion.

    It’s ‘cuz of the honor.

  83. antillious says:

    I wouldn’t start with LA police. Your best bet is to start local. Be upfront and open with them, let them know that while there might be a blogwar with Frey, this is of actual concern. You’ve been the victim of cyberstalking, you know what it’s like. That’s all on record. You don’t want someone out there doing the same thing to other people in your name.

    Do you have your original contact from your dealings with Frisch? I’d start with that person. They’ll be on the cyber-side of law enforcement, familliar with you and your previous cases. When they ask you for proof, point them at Frey. He’ll have to go crazy, or talk. I don’t know if he’s compelled, but it’s not going to look good for him (or further up the chain) if he doesn’t help the police.

  84. Makewi says:

    FYI. The only time I have contacted an attorney on a matter related to you, was to find out what rights I had to clone you without your permission.

    Turns out even attempting to “collect” your “DNA” could land me in hot water. What a world.

  85. LBascom says:

    I don’t know if it would qualify for criminal identity theft or not, you might have to prove financial loss or something, otherwise it could be classed as class III misdemeanor sock puppetry.

    I find it incredible that someone would call a lawyer over emails. I mean, spam folder? Hello?

    Freys story has more holes than a public restroom.

  86. LBascom says:

    On chili night.

  87. “The bottom line is that my correspondent and his lawyer are both irritated with me, with some justification, and say they will release everything if Jeff writes him again”

    Did he say that? There you go Jeff. Send a mass email to every address in your sent items. apologize for the mass mail (cause that’s polite), but it seems someone sent you something that you didn’t receive and since you don’t know the address of whomever sent it, could you please resend it?

  88. LMC, I think Jeff already did that, hence the email that is the subject of this post.

  89. Jeff G. says:

    LMC —

    He said I edited out the email address from my sent list.

  90. guinsPen says:

    Please feel free to send me an unsolicited e-mail…

  91. Makewi says:

    Look, Frey has spent a lot of time and effort painting you as an violent lunatic what who lies. Ain’t no way he’s gonna start questioning that premise at this point. Thus, you edit and the integrity of the anonymous source is not to be questioned.

    Truth can go fuck itself, it’s the argument that reigns supreme on the interwebs.

  92. Kevin says:

    I’m kiiiiinda starting to think that ‘Joe’ is you, Mr. Goldstein. He seems a little too convenient, reading patterico so you don’t have to. I don’t get to read blogs as much as I like though, so I’m wondering – is this common knowledge? If so, I apologize for being a rube. If it’s not, it should be examined. Sock puppets are weak. Just ask Glenn Greenwald.

    That said, Mr. Goldstein is clearly the victim here, provided that Mr. Frey doesn’t provide proof of a C&E letter. I said as much on the post in question. So in essence, I may get banned on two sites at once :).

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/comment-page-20/#comment-765323 (a href didn’t seem to work here)

  93. Jeff G. says:

    Joe is not me. I am not Joe. I know this because Joe has contributed to me during fundraisers, and his bank account differs from mine.

    Also, it doesn’t matter what Frey produces. It won’t have been from me. And I received no cease and desist letter. That’s all there is to it.

  94. Really, Kevin? Really?

    I guess you’re kind of new here. You should probably be a bit more careful about throwing around those kinds of accusations.

    Or not, whatever. It’s not me you are insulting.

  95. Too little too late.

    Anyway, I’m living up to my self-appointed nick.

  96. guinsPen says:

    I’m kiiiiinda starting to think that…

    Please disabuse yourself of that notion.

    I will cite chapter and verse, for yor edification, should you so desire.

  97. guinsPen says:

    yor

    fuck u

  98. Ernst Schreiber says:

    If I was Jeff, I’d be wishing that Joe would stop tracking mud into my place, but I’m neither Jeff nor Joe.

    And Kevin’s query wasn’t all that insulting, given what it takes to get Jeff to toss someone out of here and on to their ass.

  99. Abe Froman says:

    I’m kiiiiinda starting to think that ‘Joe’ is you, Mr. Goldstein. He seems a little too convenient, reading patterico so you don’t have to.

    Yeah. Because Jeff is terrified of fighting his own battles, he created a drama queen, shit stirring alter ego who writes with the cadence of a robot. Doesn’t everyone do that?

  100. guinsPen says:

    I’m kiiiiinda starting to think that ‘Joe’ is you, Mr. Goldstein. He seems a little too convenient, reading patterico so you don’t have to.

    Wrong.

    I don’t get to read blogs as much as I like though, so I’m wondering – is this common knowledge?

    Strike two.

    If so, I apologize for being a rube. If it’s not, it should be examined. Sock puppets are weak. Just ask Glenn Greenwald.

    What comes after strike two?

  101. guinsPen says:

    As we speak, I’m examining my…

    no, it’s too embarassing.

  102. Kevin says:

    “I guess you’re kind of new here. You should probably be a bit more careful about throwing around those kinds of accusations.”

    As I’ve said before, I’ve been here since just before the 2004 elections. Or possibly just after.

    It wasn’t an accusation. It was a belief. Call it ‘projection’, since I’d do something similar if someone was saying things about me. I certainly can’t back it up though, so don’t think I’m claiming it as fact. And I’m not insulting him. I’m just suspecting him :).

    In any event, these happenings are not a good thing. There are so many liberal ideas yet to bash, and yet we have two ostensibly conservative blogs duking it out. Pointless. Hey, how about neither of you talk about the other, ever again? Most of us will assume that the charges laid upon Jeff without an ounce of proof are baseless, and Patrick can go on complaining about how awful the LA Times is. That seems like win-win.

  103. guinsPen says:

    Well then unsuspect. Joe is not Jeff, ever.

    And whether Joe appreciates it or not, he’s reading whatshisnme over there only because no-one else here cares to be bothered.

  104. guinsPen says:

    Although in my book Jeff is jake.

  105. Kevin says:

    It doesn’t matter what I think about this, GuinisPen. I certainly do not want to add another ‘thing’ into this conservative/conservative fight. This kind of stuff really bothers me. We’re losing $6 billion a day, but more importantly, so and so called so and so a such and such! Waaaaaah!

    Resolve this so we can get on to something that matters.

  106. guinsPen says:

    What comes after strike two?

    Hat Trick !!!

  107. Jeff G. says:

    Tell you what, Kevin. When a high profile blogger who also happens to be a deputy district attorney starts accusing you in public of crimes (and not just any crimes; these are crimes that are TERRIFYING GOOD CONSERVATIVE FAMILIES!), you can show me how to go about just ignoring having your name dragged through the mud.

    Deal?

    I don’t relish doing this. I don’t like that this dude trolls my site, copies and catalogs my comments, spends his nights looking for hints that he is being referenced somewhere. I’ve been trying to just bracket him out of my life.

    But alas. He’s like blog herpes.

  108. Kevin says:

    Jeff, Either I misspoke or you misunderstood. I think patterico should either expose the emails, should they exist, or apologize to you. That’s the way to end this. I’m pretty sure that you’re in agreement.

    If your goal is to bring him down because of this (probably) false accusation, you certainly won’t succeed. C&D’s are lame enough, but an accusation of receiving a C&D… Well that’s just silly. I don’t see how winning this argument can help either of you. I can see how it might HURT you, but not help you.

  109. vaguely says:

    moore

    Resolve this so we can get on to something that matters.

    Me? I’ve a hankering for crab cakes.

    Wait, please let me rephrase that,

    CRAB CAKES CUBED !!!

  110. vaguely says:

    I *urrrrrrrp*

  111. Pablo says:

    There are so many liberal ideas yet to bash, and yet we have two ostensibly conservative blogs duking it out. Pointless. Hey, how about neither of you talk about the other, ever again?

    That’s kind of where we were. Until a commenter here, who is not Mr. Goldstein, vaguely alluded to Mr. Frey’s blog in a collective “BigHotAcerico” fashion, and Mr. Frey decided to lose his shit over it. So, you can see that we have a DEATH THREAT/SERIAL HARASSMENT!!!! problem developing. And perhaps some legal issues.

  112. Pablo says:

    He’s like blog herpes.

    I’m reminded of something an extraordinarily wise man once said:

    This guy is a fucking train wreck in progress. I am deeply sorry that he’s descending on you.

    These days, I mostly giggle about it. Life is funny.

  113. Darleen says:

    Kevin

    Joe is not Jeff .. in fact, there have been many times Joe has irked the hell out of people here because some of his political views don’t jibe.

    Imagine that … Joe out of sync with the hive mind here yet still posts …

    whodda thunk it?

  114. Darleen says:

    BTW Kevin

    What makes you think that Jeff and Pat are “conservatives” of the same warp&weave cloth??

  115. guinsPen says:

    Effective immediately, due to fears of radiation contamination, I am ignoringing all incoming e-mails, whether sent advertently and inadvertently.

    For the forseeable future.

    This means you.

  116. guinsPen says:

    Bobby Or !

  117. guinsPen says:

    Solicited or elswise.

  118. Jeff G. says:

    failed at 200. Got it off the ground but couldn’t get it to 2″. In my defense, I’d already done a bunch of other exercises. Happy with the progress. I think fresh I could do 210-220 right now.

    Thing is, I haven’t been a deadlifter. So I have to get that lower back strength up.

  119. guinsPen says:

    They always did say the ees are the first things to go.

  120. antillious says:

    The lower back strength with come, and pretty quick too. Just watch your form, you might be able to move the weight, but if you’ve got bad form, it ain’t helping what needs helping. Keep up the awesome work. I like the lifting/grip posts, they make me want to go kill a bear with my hands and eat it’s heart, for science.

  121. LBascom says:

    “In my defense, I’d already done a bunch of other exercises.”

    I hear ya bro. I drove clear down to the store and back for a pack of smokes, and I’m spent.

  122. I drove clear down to the store and back for a pack of smokes, and I’m spent.

    oh yeah? well, um, someone dropped cheetos on the park trail and I had to hold Sophie back. and eggs. there were eggs smashed in another spot and she really thought that would be tasty. she snorfs stuff up before I see it, so I’m hoping she only gets a little sick.

  123. okay, I’ll admit it, I’m a terrible dog mom. I just hope they’re still alive when RTO gets back.

  124. theOtherKen says:

    I haven’t received any emails. You don’t call, you don’t write…

  125. Kevin says:

    “BTW Kevin, What makes you think that Jeff and Pat are “conservatives” of the same warp&weave cloth??”

    Heh. They’re definitely not of the same cloth :). In AoS terms, one is Lawful Conservative, and the other is Chaotic Classic Liberal.

  126. guinsPen says:

    In penguin lingo, “AoS” translates as “EaZ.”

Comments are closed.