March 19, 2011

cease and desist letter for serial harassment and unhinged rantings, state of receipt (update 3)

Nada.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 8:48pm
224 comments | Trackback

Comments (224)

  1. I think the good DDA is going with the “dog ate my CDL” precedent. Works in the 9th circuit, anyway.

  2. I’m going to move this down here, because I like a nice clean symmetry to these posts.

    So.

    While we’re waiting…in reviewing the output of one of the other times this Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney tried to “destroy” me and drive me “off the internet,” I came across this bit from Frey, addressed to me, from back when he was (ridiculously) claiming I hadn’t answered certain questions he’d raised about a David Letterman joke. Back in his “Jeff Goldstein defends child rape” or blue stage:

    Little trial secret for ya, Jeff:

    When you ask a question repeatedly and the witness pointedly refuses to answer, that’s BETTER for you than a bullshit answer.

    Shows the jury the witness has no answer.

    Just lettin’ you in on the little tricks of the trade.

    Oh. Well, then let’s try this out, shall we? I’ll ask yet again: to what address was the cease and desist letter sent? When? By what means? Did I have to sign for it? Did it have delivery confirmation? Was it registered mail? Email? If so, from whom was it sent? To what email address? What is the name of the lawyer who is supposed to have contacted me? Why would the lawyer who’d supposedly already been in contact with me be concerned about anonymity? Why is he “Irritated” at you for mentioning it? Was the cease and desist letter supposed to be secret? How does that make sense?

    To whom did I send these “late-night e-mail rants” at “odd hours of the morning”? Why, if this took place, would the recipient not simply block my email rather than take the extraordinary step of contacting a lawyer to craft and send a cease and desist letter? Did this person ever ask me to stop sending emails in advance of contacting an attorney? Did this person ever reply to me at all? When did this harassment take place? Over how long a period? With what as its impetus? Why would I not release the name of the victim?; after all, clearly I would know to whom I sent serial harassing emails — and even if I had no memory (because I was undergoing a pyschotic break during one of my hyperviolent, pseudo-intellectual, child rape-approving episodes, say), the victim’s name would certainly be included on the cease and desist letter, correct? I gave permission for the release of these emails: Why haven’t they been released? Have you seen them yet? Can you confirm they exist? If yes, why not release them? If not, how did you come to characterize them as “unhinged” and “vile” and part of a pattern of serial harassment without having seen them or read them? And if you really do believe they exist — and I have stated publicly and without reservation that they didn’t come from me — won’t you even consider that they came from someone who has taken on my identity? Why are you protecting an identity thief? Why is the victim’s lawyer protecting an identity thief? Why are neither of you — officers of the court both — concerned that, through your willful withholding of information, both I and “my” supposed victim may be subject to future attack?

    These are the questions I’ve asked DDA Frey repeatedly over the past few days. He won’t answer.

    “When you ask a question repeatedly and the witness pointedly refuses to answer, that’s BETTER for you than a bullshit answer.” Someone once told me that. Tell me: is it working?

  3. Meanwhile, an earlier era’s officer of the court ponders “The Case of the Capering Counselor.”

  4. I have had more than one person say they are nervous to go to his site because — due to his history of escalating Internet disagreements into real life in various ways — they are afraid he will use information received from those visits against the visitor. Accordingly, the person who notified me about this sent me a Google cache link of the post in which he speaks of having contacted my employer. You can go to this link and read the post, if you’re so inclined, without actually visiting his site and giving him information he can use against you:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vpbuFWj9rn0J:proteinwisdom.com/%3Fp%3D25770+site:proteinwisdom.com+%22Identity+theft%3F%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

    I clicked on it to verify the link but didn’t read it, preferring to stick to reading the quotes that my correspondent sent me. Clicking that link is too much like actually visiting the site. But if you’re curious to read his rationale for contacting my employer, you can click that link safely, without giving him any information that he can use to escalate his disagreement with you into real life.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/19/2011 @ 4:35 pm

  5. due to his history of escalating Internet disagreements into real life in various ways

    To be completely fair, that pansy has yet to make good his promise.

    As I have said before, I suspected that stepping up to his threat would disarm him. I still think his threat was completely serious, and that my lack of fear doesn’t change that.

    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/19/2011 @ 5:30 pm

    You are getting in their heads now.

  6. I like this, from RSM back in the day:

    Frey has evidently become so accustomed to a prosecutorial role that he now arrogates to himself the duty to arraign me, to unload a dossier of “evidence,” to compel me to defend myself, and to cross-examine me in an effort to catch me in a perjury trap.

    I deny that he has any such authority. Frey is in effect asserting that he is so much my moral and intellectual superior that he has this prosecutorial power as his right by entitlement. To that assertion I respond with three words:
    FUCK YOU, SIR.

    Parse that one, prosecutor.

    The more things change…

    As for Jacobs? A pussy. If he thought for a second I might actually spend the $300 in airfare and whatever it would cost me after I was arrested to show up at his door, he’d shit a boot. I told everyone where I’d be last time I was in Chicago. Several folks met me out for drinks, in fact.

    Tell you what: Scott can come here to CO, and I promise not to call the cops or sue him when he gives me my whuppin. Hell, the guys at Pat’s place can hold a fundraiser and raise the airfare for him. Then he can freely and without legal consequence call me a hausfrau pansy right to my face. Fearlessly! And then whatever happens happens.

  7. But when said head, is up it’s own ass, is that a good thing?

  8. While nearer to now, a current officer of the court ponders a missing case of Amontillado.

  9. Kevin is over there engaging them. They are not digging it.

  10. I posted your #3 over there, but Pat deleted it.

  11. Of course he did, Joe.

    I’m gonna have a drink and relax now.

  12. I have had more than one person say they are nervous to go to his site because — due to his history of escalating Internet disagreements into real life in various ways

    Hey, Patrick, I’ve got a clue by four for you: The anonymity of the internet is not a license for people to be assholes and say things they wouldn’t dare say face to face.

    …if you’re curious to read his rationale for contacting my employer…

    Yeah, Frey, Jeff is out of line asking for you to prove the charges you’ve made.

    So, Patrick, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Kids?

  13. Guins,

    But did he wall the damned beast in with the body?

  14. My “rationale”? My rationale is that I believe Frey is telling the truth — that someone sent harassing emails using my name. Knowing it wasn’t me, I want to find out who it is — particularly if a cease and desist letter has been sent. Frey has already said if the victim is contacted again, further action will be taken. And yet, I don’t know who the victim is — though clearly someone who is using my name does. Which means that person could contact the victim again (and frankly, I’m stunned s/he hasn’t, given the heat all this has generated) — and then the cease and desist letter could conceivably be turned into a cease and desist order and a summary judgment, levied against me.

    I’ve asked Frey for the information I need to stop this crime against me, and to prevent further harassment of the original victim. Instead of honoring his ethical obligations as an officer of the court, he’s in the blog comments at night worried about my contacting the LA County DA’s office to see what recourse I have to get that information.

    I’m taking other measures, as well.

    Is Frey’s position really that I have no claim to protect my own identity? Or is he taking this stance because he knows I have nothing to worry about? I honestly don’t know. But I’m not taking chances. And I’m also done with being publicly accused of crimes where no evidence (or fabricated, misleading evidence) is presented to substantiate those accusations.

    A DDA accusing people of crimes in public is taking things into real life, by the way. Just so’s you know.

  15. I posted #15, and it was quickly deleted by Patterico. No surprise. It messes with Frey’s narrative.

    I am leaning with Pablo. While someone may have in passing told Patterico that a C+D letter went out, the reality is he knows there is no letter now and he is absolutely lying.

  16. I like the lastest spin: Simply visiting PW means that Jeff will know where you live. And he will steal your dreams and devour your very soul.

  17. He turned me into a basset hound, the fiend!

  18. Apparently Jeff’s powers exceed those of Chuck Norris.

  19. You guys crack me up.

    When I’m drunk, mostly. But still.

  20. Now, that particular sword cuts both ways. Visiting Patterco’s site means that Frey knows where you live too. Think about that next time you think about looking over there. But don’t fear, he’s honorable.

  21. I mean, it’s not like Frey is going to threaten you with divulging your personal information on the internet if you disagree with him. Isn’t that right Pablo?

    So, you know, caveat emptor, Patterco visitors.

    Caveat Emptor.

  22. I mean, it’s not like Frey is going to threaten you with divulging your personal information on the internet if you disagree with him. Isn’t that right Pablo?

    Oh, sure. He’s very honorable like that. Reminds me of Hitler.

    Hey, sooner or later, somebody was going to say it.

  23. It’s fair to say that both of you have a certain level of egotistical idea shaping. There is nothing unusual about that in the bloggosphere. The difference is your ability to turn your feeling for yourself into a comic parody at moments, clever and chuckle raising. It’s one of those important things that makes reading you so enjoyable.

    Maybe not perfect but who is? Moments of chortles and outright laughter contained within the pithy and deeply thought ideas. Bottom line is I laugh far more than I cringe (once in a while.)

    Not so with Frey. His ego expands bigger than the largest weather balloon on the planet. As the expansion continues within arguments shaped and mutated, comments deleted and snarky statements made, well snarkier and crueler as someone or someones refuse to simply nod their heads and agree with his attitude, those like Scott and others, the computer obstacles are increased to the point of non-reply and useless, laborious reflection.

    Why bother printing any of that? Because the huge difference from the beginning of this tirade back before the 2008 election was Jeff’s willingness to face the music and answer the Frey song call. In every circumstance and condition, Jeff’s been willing to debate cleverly, sometimes “snarkily” while Frey simply refuses to accept anyone’s position that does not cow tow to his DA awesomeness.

    Patterico used to be a favored site for me. Not any more. Bah Bye!

  24. I clicked on it to verify the link but didn’t read it, preferring to stick to reading the quotes that my correspondent sent me. Clicking that link is too much like actually visiting the site.

    I’d be willing to bet a dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steak House that Patrick Frey is reading every comment posted here, without visiting the site. You think he’s still not gathering ‘evidence’? I’ll bet he’s spent more time gathering ‘evidence’ here than he spent researching the last case he tried for the long-suffering taxpayers of California, who once again aren’t getting their money’s worth from an under-performing public utilitarian.

    A transfer to a juvenile court and ‘freeway therapy’ might be in Frey’s future, deservedly so.

  25. Considering everything that has gone down ever since the “Obama is a good man” thing the blog war pairing over this particular subject is interesting. Or not since I don’t plan on reading any of it.

  26. If only there was some way to cause this to “cease and desist“.

  27. “I’ll bet he’s spent more time gathering ‘evidence’ here than he spent researching the last case he tried for the long-suffering taxpayers of California…”

    That’s what gets me. Doesn’t this guy have better things to do? Y’know, more important stuff?

  28. I’d be willing to bet a dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steak House that Patrick Frey is reading every comment posted here

    I’m counting on it. I believe that when he comes home from a day of stamping the DA’s signature on parking ticket filings, he sweats off the daily medication that makes him functional in a heavily supervised office environment, lights up the crack pipe, and reads what we’re saying about him.

    This comment alone will convince him we have full and unfiltered access to his personal information.

  29. I believe that when he comes home from a day of stamping the DA’s signature on parking ticket filings, he sweats off the daily medication that makes him functional in a heavily supervised office environment, lights up the crack pipe, and reads what we’re saying about him.

    I have him, Captain Queeg, all clackety clackety in his pockets, eyes nervously flitting side to side.

  30. Why, the very image!

  31. That’s during the sweating-off-the -medication phase, SW. Didn’t you read the dossier Jeff circulated?

  32. Oh, yes, that dossier. Must remember to hit my marks and not fluff my lines. Sorry, chaps.

  33. It’s kind of unbelievable that this…

    …due to his history of escalating Internet disagreements into real life in various ways…

    …is Fried talking about Jeff.

    Let’s all remember where this whole C&D letter thing started: with Fried attacking Jeff over whether a Guardian headline about a meltdown was Jeff’s responsibility.

    At least, it would be kind of unbelievable if it weren’t Patrick Frey.

  34. In the nice screenplay, powers-that-be take pity on m’learned friend, kindly grant him a leave of absence, and Inspector Dreyfuss-like he is last seen taking his meds in a padded room, getting better every day in every way.

  35. I have had more than one person say they are nervous to go to his site because — due to his history of escalating Internet disagreements into real life in various ways — they are afraid he will use information received from those visits against the visitor. Accordingly, the person who notified me about this sent me a Google cache link of the post in which he speaks of having contacted my employer.

    Oh.Good.Lord. what a bunch of bovine excrement. Mr. “IP” Frey knows how the “internets” works and he’s going to push a “oh wow, visit PW and JeffG will TRACK YOU DOWN!!! OoooooOOOooOOO!!” mendacity?

    And, Pat? You know exactly why the LA DA office has been contacted. If you are to be believed you are now participating after the fact in refusing to give material facts in a possible criminal case.

    Again, your ethics are certainly convenient, good man.

  36. I think that’s as close to a happily-ever-after as this bird’s likely to get, if he keeps on his present course.

  37. My #37 is for SW’s #35.

  38. Patterico, why do you delete any cut and pastes comments from Protein Wisdom and Jeff G? Are you afraid to debate this issue?

    Comment by Joe — 3/20/2011 @ 7:51 am

  39. Of course, we all know that in the real screenplay, m’learned friend escapes from the loony bin, sends out hit men to remove his nemesis, develops a weapon of doom that threatens the globe, and ends up in utter madness and destruction.

    The time for self-reflection was long ago for this one.

  40. Patterico, Is the law firm who sent the C+D letter Dewey, Cheetham & Howe?

    Comment by Joe — 3/20/2011 @ 8:00 am

  41. Patterico: You need to adjust your comment timer for Daylight Savings Time.

    Comment by Joe — 3/20/2011 @ 8:02 am

  42. I just checked and the scrubbed comments I did last night are back up. I need to see if Patterico messed with them, but I assume he will say the delay was just moderation. Of course they were up, he was on line, and then they were gone. Now they are back.

  43. Anyone can end up facing a prosecutor at some point. Supposedly the innocent will go free – after leaving a pubic record and spending thousands of dollars. How un-comforting to know that at least one LA County prosecutor is an arrogant, obsessive, pettifogging crank who can never admit a shortcoming or error.

    What would it take for this individual to become a matter of concern to his management? Why isn’t this a minor scandal? A reasonable supposition is that management can’t acknowledge shortcomings or errors either.

    How ‘Japanese nuclear industry’ of them.

    I hear a hollow ringing sound:

    ———————————————————————————————-
    http://da.co.la.ca.us/pid.htm

    The citizens of Los Angeles County have the right to expect that their elected and appointed officials will carry out their duties in a lawful, ethical and professional manner. They also have the right to expect that administrators, supervisors and the immediate subordinates of elected and appointed officials, who play an integral role in achieving the mission of the officeholder, will discharge their duties and obligations in the same lawful, ethical and professional manner.

    The District Attorney’s Public Integrity Division ensures that public and appointed officials – and their subordinates – fulfill their legally mandated duties. To this end, the District Attorney’s Office will use all resources at its disposal to detect, investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct at all levels of public service.

    The Public Integrity Division’s ultimate goal is to increase the public’s level of confidence in its elected and appointed officials.

  44. He just restored the ones today. Last night postings are no longer there. Still, Jeff’s #15 comment is back up.

  45. I just posted Darleen’s #36. That is too truthful, too much information, for Patterico’s Pontifications readers. They need concepts in simple small spoonfuls fed to them by Pat. I suspect the Patterico comments will be getting scrubbed again soon.

  46. 40. Silver Whistle posted on 3/20 @ 10:00 am

    Well then, maybe this is all Jeff’s fault after all.

    If his and Fried’s parents hadn’t both launched them into space at the same time before their planets fell into black holes, and if Jeff hadn’t deliberately bumped Fried’s spaceship aside just before he would have landed under the Christmas tree menorah at the palatial estate of a couple of rich moneygrubbers, forcing Fried to grow up in law school, maybe none of this would have been necessary.

    I’ll bet when Fried looks in the mirror he even sees himself with a giant blue head.

    It would explain why EricPW is a talking piranha in a gorilla suit too.

  47. You forgot Jeff bonking Lesley-Anne Down nekkid in a fur coat, but I can see your point, McGehee.

  48. When I check PP my recent posts are there, but the other commentators do not seem able to read them and they are not showing up in recent comments. Still, Patterico is reading them.

  49. Sliver Whistle, why is Jeff wearing a fur coat?

  50. Because there was an elephant in his pajamas?

  51. You forgot Jeff bonking Lesley-Anne Down nekkid in a fur coat

    I most certainly did not. I simply had to leave it out because that page of the screenplay got… dirty.

  52. Oh, Kevin was banned here before? It takes a hell of a lot to get banned here.

    I guess that explains his dishonest arguments. He pretended to be a disinterested guy just accidentally skewing everything, and now I see he’s trying to instigate.

    Thanks again for noting it is “horrible” to accuse someone of antisemitism out of thin air and google bomb that accusation, linked to their professional name and employer in a transparent attempt to harm their career.

    It’s thus hilarious to see Kevin demand an apology from Patterico repeating what his friend told him because the claim can’t be proven one way or the other. He doesn’t seem to think making obviously wrong and far more hostile accusations is so bad if it’s against the blogger who banned him.

    What a kook.

    Comment by Dustin — 3/20/2011 @ 8:30 am

  53. What on earth keeps Dustin’s ears from meeting in the middle and kissing?

  54. What on earth keeps Dustin’s ears from meeting in the middle and kissing?

    Straw.

  55. I realise none of us can control whether we are born intellectual gallopers, sprinters, or in il deficiente’s case, perambulators, but I have seldom seen someone make such a public virtue of stupidity. Apart from that midget lute player from Tennessee whose breath smells of cat litter. And that idiot in the White House.

  56. Silver Whistle posted on 3/20 @ 11:15 am

    That is a thing of beauty. I’m all tingly …

  57. That is a thing of beauty. I’m all tingly …

    My life, dear lady, is now complete :-)

  58. Okay. Looks like I’m going to have to spend part of the day pulling together proof that I never called Frey antisemitic. To put to rest the now ubiquitous suggestion that I did.

    I guess I’ll have to point out, as well, that to believe I called Frey antisemitic, one must also believe that Frey called Stacy McCain a racist. Which he vehemently denied. Over and over and over.

    Can’t have it both ways. If Frey’s posts about McCain were fair and honorable and instructive, why are mine about Frey somehow now being framed as invidious?

    I’ll tell you why: Frey framed them that way — even though it was obvious to everyone at the time that I was parodying his intellectually incoherent justifications for his Stacy McCain posts. Because he’s a dishonest and dishonorable prick.

  59. I guess I’ll have to point out, as well, that to believe I called Frey antisemitic [..]

    Apart from you, repeatedly, pointing out that you weren’t calling him antisemitic…

  60. Because he’s a dishonest and dishonorable prick.

    But, just to be clear, you’re not saying he’s an anti-semetic dishonest and dishonorable prick.

  61. Pat deleted it.

    Wait…I thought that was the worst transgression evarrr.

    Maybe not.

    He turned me into a basset hound, the fiend!

    He nailed me wife’s head to the telly! Not that she didn’t have it coming!

    See, we’re all just terrified that Jeff might fly into our various locales and kick our asses. That’s the reason – the only reason – why we give him any support at all. JKTYT.

  62. But, just to be clear, you’re not saying he’s an anti-semetic dishonest and dishonorable prick.

    He may or may not be. I don’t know. But I CAN tell you that some of the things he said had some people thinking that he had at least uttered things that some might find antisemitic sounding. To some. And so we need to carefully examine and vet him. Through reader polls.

  63. It’s all kind of an intellectual blackmail thingie. Thank God that guys like Scott Jacobs can defend themselves, at a distance, in blog comments. It’s brave. Very brave, indeed.

  64. Incidentally, where is this battle currently being fought, over at Patterico’s? I’ve seen cut-and-paste comments but few links.

  65. Oh. Found it. Nevermind.

    Geniuses are still arguing over how anything Patrick Frey ever said could be taken to be anti-semitic.

    They’ve failed their collective IQ tests.

  66. I’m told by a friend, though, that Patrick Frey is actually a neo-Nazi. True story.

  67. Geniuses are still arguing over how anything Patrick Frey ever said could be taken to be anti-semitic.

    Only a reader poll can settle such a question.

  68. I’m told by a friend, though, that Patrick Frey is actually a neo-Nazi. True story.

    It’s not true just because you were told, Slart. That’s dishonest. Now, if you are told and you believe your friend, then it’s true. And you should probably run with it.

  69. He swore. Swore swore, actually. So I believe him.

  70. I’ve even had my attorney send Patterico a C&D letter, and he still will not desist with the antisemiticness.

    Bastard

  71. There’s really only one thing that makes sense of Frey’s animosity: he thinks “Jeff” is somehow derived from “Emmanuel.”

  72. Patrick, if you see this, understand the person writing to you about his unhappy experience receiving email from Jeff, might really have been your friend receiving spoofed email.
    Spoofed email is NOT RARE, and can consist of not only original material, but blog posts and comments from a blog, and hybrid conncoctions.
    It can be very distressing to recipients – there are such things as spoof “insult” letters… I’m sure you must have heard of them.

    Your friend can be utterly sincere, and yet never actually received any correspondence from the real Jeff at all. There are no shortage of axe-to-grind disgruntled
    former commenters, lunatics and trolls capable of doing this as a kind of game, or revenge. Your friend, if he contacted the perpetrator himself or through a lawyer, may have written to the spoofer and be none the wiser that he was duped.

    You admit you had no trouble believing Jeff capable of sending such mails, and hadn’t the least idea that he would deny it. That’s a bias, a prejudice, and you won’t have been the first person to be suckered by himself. You know full well that bias can change how readily we accept an unvetted truth. Well, vet it now, since you didn’t before.

  73. There is still the issue of someone having drafted and sent a cease and desist letter in response to these suspected ‘spoofs.’

    There is, ostensibly, nothing spoofed about that act.

    Yet the lawyer who purportedly did so, is irritated by the mere mention of the topic.

    Beyond curious.

  74. SarahW

    Pat is no dummy and he’s been in the legal game long enough to know that by this time Jeff’s denial, coupled with this “trusted friend”s claims can only mean that someone has committed identity theft.

    Pat is unethically refusing to reveal facts that could lead to the identification of the person who has engaged in the ID theft. It doesn’t matter why he is withholding such facts, he is still acting unethically.

    It has now gone long enough to either chalk up Pat’s behavior to one of two things: he’d has no interest in solving crime committed when the victim is someone he has a personal grudge against OR this “friend” and his lawyer are fictions Pat created in the first place in a fit of pique and he is trying like crazy to get it to die away.

    Pat has forgotten the first rule of holes. OCD will do that to people.

  75. …he is trying like crazy to get it to die away.

    And all because he didn’t expect Jeff to deny it.

    Seriously, a crack addiction seems a lot less farfetched than it ought to, at this point.

  76. Can somebody please post for me the actual links to the posts where Frey began (and continued) making these claims against me? Joe cut and pasted them here but he didn’t include the links.

    Thanks.

  77. So… Mr. P. has repeatedly characterized as our esteemed host as an unhinged, potentially-violent lunatic.

    He then makes public accusations against Jeff that he can’t actually back up or anything, and his game-plan seems to be “I hope Jeff doesn’t call me on this and demand proof or anything. But hey, JG’s a notoriously easy-going, non-confrontational guy, I’m sure he’ll just let it slide.”

    (It’s like the knock on the Truthers: if they actually believed the govt. killed thousands of US Citizens for shits, they’d be hiding, not hopping up and down in the public square denouncing said govt.)

    Clearly even the good prosecutor doesn’t believe his own narrative.

  78. The slander spoofing I was talking about before is, coincidentally, called a “Joe Job.” All are vulnerable. I wish Patrick would take note.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job

  79. That’s interesting, Sarah. I hadn’t heard the term before.

  80. Sadly, it is far too easy to forge the From: address in an email. If you’re operating your own mail server, you can even fake up most of the headers necessary to make it look legit. But you can’t fake the headers added by the receiving mail server unless you control it (as its administrator or by cracking it), or you modify them after you download the email.

    Because email servers may not necessarily retain a copy of the message for more than a limited time after the recipient’s MUA (Mail User Agent) requests deletion from his Inbox, it may be impossible to establish a definitive chain-of-custody for the messages. Every hour that ADA Patrick Frey delays in responding to the request for this evidence, the chance that it will no longer be usable goes down. It may already be too late to establish with any certainty the provenance of the messages in question.

    Note that this is true whether the full messages and server logs could have proven that Jeff sent them, or the evidence instead points to identity theft. In either case, ADA Patrick Frey is risking the deterioration of the evidence chain by dithering and delaying, much like President Obama may have waited long enough to engage US force against Libya for it to do any good.

    Anyone with experience in computer forensics knows this. Like, say, the LAPD Fraud Section’s Computer Crimes Unit. One might ASS|U|
    ME that ADA Patrick Frey has had some contact with them professionally.

  81. Exactly, Monster.

    Which is why I’ve been asking repeatedly, and have taken even more dramatic steps to get this information.

  82. Sadly, it is far too easy to forge the From: address in an email.

    Only someone who has never gotten a spam email would be taken aback by this notion.

    Meanwhile: Patrick Frey is an idiot. A trusted friend told me so!

  83. Angry lawyers are even harder to forge. Most folks wouldn’t even attempt it.

  84. Angry lawyers are even harder to forge. Most folks wouldn’t even attempt it.

    It’s really quite easy, assuming you have access to a volcanic mountain of malevolent doom.

  85. A ‘Joe job’, huh? But from the linked definition, those are now somewhat random events, mostly from virus infections or known spammers, and all are characterized by the attacker sending out spoofed emails to many random recipients. Frey claims this particular ‘incident’ was a flurry of emails sent from Jeff to one single recipient, whom both knew. Frey, of course, didn’t bother asking his buddy if the context of the emails was consistent with Jeff’s published style. Or if he could see the emails. Or if anyone else saw the emails. Or if the emails were even saved, or anything else that has anything to do with emails that Frey has the proven expertise to know to ask.

    But it’s all bullshit, and by now everyone knows it. Patrick Frey invented the entire episode for use as a nasty off-the-cuff barb, a barb that boomeranged and he now finds pitchforked in his ass.

  86. Angry lawyers are even harder to forge. Most folks wouldn’t even attempt it.

    You just have to get your lawyer really really hot, and then strike it repeatedly with a hammer until it assumes the desired shape. Not that hard to do, but it does annoy the lawyer quite a bit in the process. He might even feel compelled to send you a cease and desist letter if you persist.

    But then again, at the end of the forging process you’ll find that you’ve now got a hardened, well-nigh indestructable lawyer — and it’s annoyed with you.

    So really… not worth the trouble. Just buy cheap stamped-out lawyers from the Chinese and replace them as needed. Not as durable, but cheaper in the long run.

  87. Jeff, those cut and pastes were done on the same day they were made. From Patterico’s site. It is distasteful to go there, but somebody has to do it.

  88. And how did that spamming thing get the name Joe job? I am NOT doing that.

  89. Do you have the original links, Joe?

  90. He didn’t accuse you of being an anti-Semite. He parodied your takedown of RSM on racism (but not really) grounds.

    I don’t think he really believes you’re an anti-Semite, nor do his readers for the most part. His point was to defend McCain.

    Christoph, if you’re going to comment on this, try to show you’re paying attention. I will not reprint the relevant parts of the comment I left for Kevin above, which you did not bother to read and click the links for, which show that the initial accusation of antisemitism which I was talking to Kevin about happened months before. But since you’re insistent on expressing an opinion without doing the work, I’ll make it easy on you by linking the comment.

    Again, the “money grubbing Jew opportunist” line (in which Jeff accused me of saying that about him) was uttered by Jeff about me months before the McCain kerfuffle. I just didn’t bother to post about it until Jeff did the Googlebomb related to McCain. Do the reading before commenting again. Follow the links and establish your own timeline or don’t comment again.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/20/2011 @ 4:35 pm

    This post was really at 5:35 (PST). Patterico’s clock is an hour off (I assume he is on PST being in LA).

  91. It would take a bit, but going back to PP is what it would take. It is all on the reactor thread which is now 600+ posts and counting.

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-766580

    There is the link for the post above. Go up that thread and all the rest of them should be there.

  92. Somewhere in there I missed Kevin’s acknowledgement that Jeff falsely labeled me anti-Semitic, and that said labeling pre-dated the McCain kerfuffle.

    Which just illustrates why it’s useless to write a grand post. I just offered evidence on one issue and was met with the textual equivalent of a blank stare.
    Simon, it appears, was right. Kevin is a griefer, absent evidence to the contrary. Specifically, until a forthright and unqualified acknowledgement of Jeff’s unprovoked and indefensible accusation of antisemitism is forthcoming from Kevin — which acknowledgement might establish some modicum of good faith on Kevin’s part — it’s time to totally ignore what does appear to be nothing but a guy trying to waste my time, due to pique over a years-old banning.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/20/2011 @ 2:33 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-766507

  93. Please, guys. Kevin is just a disinterested truth seeker. Who got banned here for repeatedly calling Allahpundit a closeted homosexual and is upset at me as a result. And who has concluded that the cease and desist letter was “made up.” But he’s not a partisan trying to stir things up. No, he’s just a detective, impartially seeking out facts wherever they might be found.

    So I’ll give this Internet Columbo what he wants: the post where I documented — months before the RS McCain controversy — Goldstein eagerly donning the mantle of victimhood and falsely accusing me of anti-Semitism. Because, you know, Kevin asked.

    If you read the post, you will see me complaining about Goldstein’s repeated distortions of my position and wondering why Goldstein was doing this. I speculated it might have something to do with his endless fundraisers. Goldstein then responded:

    It’s not like a lot of the lefty blogs haven’t accused me of being a money-grubbing Jew opportunist with no real ideological core. Hearing it come from a true conservative like Mr Frey makes me aware that I best know my place.

    He said I accused him of being a “money-grubbing Jew opportunist,” when I had said nothing whatsoever about his Jewish heritage. Indeed, he even wrote a post about it. But he quickly deleted it after a commenter of mine went into the comments noting the irony that he would play the race card after denouncing such behavior. As Icy Texan later put it:

    It comes down to this: Patterico said “You’re full of crap, Goldstein,” and Goldstein — whose ego obviously cannot absorb such a blow — played the card in defense: “You’re an anti-Semite, Patterico; therefore, your opinion of me being ‘full of crap’ is invalid”.

    PatHMV concurred, telling Jeff:

    Patrick accused you of acting in a particular way because you needed to stir up a way to make some money, after you were dropped by Pajamas Media. You responded to that, at least initially, by saying that he had called you a “money-grubbing Jew opportunist with no real ideological core.”

    To me, that does indeed sound exactly like something Al Sharpton would say. In the words of RS McCain and his fans, you were calling RAAAAAACIST on Patterico, simply because he criticized your motives. You attempt to immunize yourself against any criticism of inappropriate pecuniary motives by attacking anybody who suggests such as an anti-semite.

    Goldstein later tried to portray his “money-grubbing Jew opportunist” comment as ironic or something, rather than the angry lashing out that it was. I then challenged him to put back up the post he had deleted. He responded that he had deleted the post — contradicting his statements at the time, in which he claimed that one post had been lost in some kind of server move. This is all here.

    So there you have it: a false accusation of anti-Semitism, pre-dating the RS McCain affair by months. I bet disinterested Internet detective Kevin will soon be back to apologize for failing to lift a finger to find that himself.

    You know, Kevin, I once contemplated writing up every single episode like this, something like a year or two ago. It’s back when I thought facts actually meant something to people, and I thought: if I actually take the time to fully tell the truth about this guy, his reputation will suffer horribly. I have since realized that the facts don’t really matter in disputes like this. What matters is loyalty. You’re pissed off because you were banned here — and it was a righteous banning, I might add — and so I believe that the facts don’t really matter to you. You just pretend they do. And that’s how 99% of people are. It’s all about personality and nothing about what really happened. You choose your side and you stick with it.

    But let’s say that my sarcasm about you is misplaced, and you really do want to know the truth. I don’t believe it, but we’ll make believe for a moment.

    The stuff I just told you about, is here on my site. I have a search box. It’s not hard to find. And when I am working my ass off all weekend, and I have some guy wanting me to recount 2 1/2 years of a feud with some guy, when it takes me 15 minutes just to recount a single event like this one — and there are dozens more — I have to respectfully decline.

    It doesn’t mean the stuff isn’t there. If you really, really care, go looking. It’s all there.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/20/2011 @ 9:47 am

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-766414

  94. I am just moving up the thread on Patterico’s comments, these are just today’s. This thread started a couple of days ago.

    Eric:

    I understand what you’re saying, and in a sense you’re right, but in a very real and more important sense, I have one of the best jobs on the planet.

    I get to do the right thing all the time.

    In my current assignment, I prosecute nothing but murders committed by gang members (with very rare exceptions). Yes, it is an emotional rollercoaster, but it’s a great and satisfying job. It had better be — I work at it all the time.

    We can’t see the dang moon here because of all the clouds. Walked in the front and back yards both. No go.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/20/2011 @ 12:17 am

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-766285

  95. Also, Patterico, you are wise to do your best to ignore Jeff G and his site as much as you can.

    I think we can all see that Jeff G is angry that you’re not engaging him. His blog has mentioned your “good man” post from 2008 thousands of times, and now Jeff is disputing that you’re fulfilling your obligations as an officer of the court, contacting your boss, and, to be frank, harassing you in a way that is probably similar to how he harassed whoever sent the C/D.

    We’ve seen a lot of jerks react terribly to Jeff, but sometimes I wonder what the other side of that story was. That’s not to forgive that one former lady professor at all for her harassment, but she was mentally ill, and I wonder if Jeff somehow instigated behind the scenes. It’s clear he doesn’t want peace with you, no matter how you ignore him, or how many times you welcome him back to comment, or how many times you simply offer an overt truce.

    I have no idea how effective you are in your job, but I do know that putting murderers behind bars is of great value to society, and that Jeff G has crossed the line by screwing with your professional career again.

    Comment by Dustin — 3/19/2011 @ 6:44 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-766217

  96. Kevin, I’m done explaining this to someone who hasn’t bothered to learn the history, including Goldstein’s playing the antisemite victim card months before I said a word about Robert Stacy McCain. It would be interesting to learn what my “racist claim against McCain” is in your mind (in other words, 1) did I call McCain a racist? 2) what was the quote of his that I criticized? 3) did he post contradictory statements regarding the ownership of that quote? etc. etc. etc.); my guess is you’re taking yet another set of misrepresentations as Gospel truth. But again, I have neither the time, patience, or inclination to re-explain it to someone who is ignorant of Jeff’s past. I’m in the middle of a murder trial and have better things to do than to re-explain 2 1/2 years of history to the guy who repeatedly claimed I had outed Allahpundit as a closeted homosexual.

    If someone else wants to, they’re welcome to … but I kinda doubt you’re going to find any takers.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/19/2011 @ 6:33 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-766211

  97. I have had more than one person say they are nervous to go to his site because — due to his history of escalating Internet disagreements into real life in various ways — they are afraid he will use information received from those visits against the visitor. Accordingly, the person who notified me about this sent me a Google cache link of the post in which he speaks of having contacted my employer. You can go to this link and read the post, if you’re so inclined, without actually visiting his site and giving him information he can use against you:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vpbuFWj9rn0J:proteinwisdom.com/%3Fp%3D25770+site:proteinwisdom.com+%22Identity+theft%3F%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

    I clicked on it to verify the link but didn’t read it, preferring to stick to reading the quotes that my correspondent sent me. Clicking that link is too much like actually visiting the site. But if you’re curious to read his rationale for contacting my employer, you can click that link safely, without giving him any information that he can use to escalate his disagreement with you into real life.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/19/2011 @ 4:35 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-766175

  98. Someone e-mailed me to say Jeff Goldstein has contacted my employer over all this. He is in fine company, sharing that distinction with convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin, the lawyer for convicted wiretapper Anthony Pellicano, and a handful of other unsavory characters.

    The quotes I received by e-mail showed him alleging that his identity has been stolen, putting fraud alerts on his identity, etc. — because (he says) someone has been sending out e-mails under his name. Whether the allegation that his identity has been stolen is sincere (meaning he no longer alleges me to be a liar) or feigned (as an excuse to contact my employer) I do not know and don’t much care.

    Anyway, I decided on my dad’s birthday that I was a happier person not reading his site. I simply can’t concern myself with the dishonest ravings of every unstable Internet tough guy who wants to misrepresent my writings. Life is too short.

    Meaning that I never would have heard about him contacting my office, had someone not e-mailed me. If there are further major developments I need to hear about, hopefully one of the regulars will notify me.

    I just have one question at this point. Jeff alleges it is identity theft to write things and attribute them to someone else, as he claims someone has done here. If so, is it identity theft to alter comments made by someone, without notice, while leaving their name at the head of the comment?

    Jeff might want to consider how his arguments might apply to his own behavior.

    In any event: contacting employers! It’s not just for the left any more!

    Comment by Patterico — 3/19/2011 @ 3:30 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-766152

  99. Kevin, here’s proof that Jeff G acts in a way you descrbed as “horrible”.

    I cannot prove anything about this c/d. All I know is that Patterico is honest and he says his friend claims he sent one. It’s clear to me this is a minor issue in comparison to Jeff’s long record of acting like a jerk.

    You say you haven’t seen evidence, but the link I just posted is easy to find if you google the issue, and since I was noting a google bomb effort, that is not unreasonable to expect you to do. You’re expressing curiosity about it, after all, and I think it would be better if you had looked into it.

    A lot more on Jeff is covered in this thread.

    Here’s a good example of Jeff trying to intimidate someone he disagrees with, but there are so many examples and I somewhat resent being asked to prove them to someone who says the past doesn’t matter.

    Patterico doesn’t owe Jeff an apology, Kevin, unless he did something to Jeff that was wrong. Since Patterico honestly related a story that is probably true…

    Comment by Dustin — 3/17/2011 @ 6:43 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765370

  100. Kevin,

    This isn’t about who looks worse. This is about being decent human beings. Jeff acts like a jerk quite often, altering comments (not like Ace satire, but like Let’s Fake Their Argument Into Something I Can Win), threatening to break ankles, etc. Patterico’s friend claims that Jeff harassed him to the point where the friend sent a C/D.

    I have a hard time seeing why Patterico would lie about that. You claim he has to prove it happened, but Patterico never said he had proof. He simply related a story he believes without deception.

    But to you, this is all about whether or not Jeff looks good. I think that’s bizarre, even without the fact that Jeff threatens people he disagrees with and is proven extremely dishonest. He looks terrible, pal.

    Yes, the next 150 PW kooks who point out Patterico cannot prove this story is accurate will all be correct, but it’s actually a very weak story compared to what’s already proven about this obsessed weirdo.

    If you think it’s unacceptable to relate stories you cannot prove, then surely you are furious with Jeff G. After all, he posted Patterico’s professional name and job next to an accusation of antisemitism. He has never attempted to prove this charge is accurate, but instead altered countless posts (the ones with higher google ratings) to google bomb the accusation about Patterico.

    He did this in order to intimidate Patterico. He is obviously an internet crank who behaves in an awful fashion. I totally believe the story Patterico has related from his friend, and I suspect you idiots are falling for a rope a dope.

    Comment by Dustin — 3/17/2011 @ 4:22 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765331

  101. As Patterico noted, it’s amazing indeed that Jeff doesn’t read these threads, given his ability to react instantly to them, whether or not Joe is wearing out his ctrl+V.

    Jeff asked me a question, but Jeff knows I cannot answer it at PW because of Jeff’s bizarre behavior with those who don’t agree with Jeff.

    So I’ll answer it here. Some people do not want to be harassed by internet cranks. Some people interpret Jeff’s “I will break your ankles.” “I will leave you mewling on the ground.” “Let’s argue in person… I’ll bring a rope.” comments to be intimidating and threatening.

    If someone has managed to get an internet crank quiet, they may not want to resume that harassment by interacting in any way with Jeff G, whom we have all seen harass and threaten people (frankly, making his defense very pathetic… he is well known to be much worse than the extremely mild ‘I got a letter telling me to stop’ would prove, anyway).

    Jeff can pretend he hasn’t already harmed people, but threatening people, harassing them, obsessing… some people think that alone is itself a harm.

    Personally, I don’t know if the C/D is real. I don’t know who told Patterico they sent Jeff one, so I don’t know if he’s been duped. I do know Patterico is honest.

    Does that answer the question for egomanical Jeff G? Of course not. Even releasing the letter wouldn’t. He’d deny it was authentic. Proving it was authentic wouldn’t, because he’d pretend it was wrong to send the letter in the first place in reaction to emails (or whatever).

    It is easy to win an argument with Jeff G. I’ve seen it many times, especially with reference to intentionalism, which Jeff’s boastful lashing out is always in proportion to his faulty reasoning about a simple concept.

    Jeff, if you really have never received a C/D from someone you sent a bunch of emails to, I apologize (as I do assume you did). If you did get one, understand that you are simply another version of the sort of internet slimeball that gave your family grief. Even if in your mind your internet drama screaming is nothing to be alarmed about, you may have caused someone’s spouse a lot of worry, and a gentleman would apologize to them (not in some dramatic blog post, but in a humble email to whoever the hell this is about).

    And finally: this is a lame way to react to the fact you got the meltdown story wrong. I’m sure you will be screaming about it for years, too, while also acting bemused that anyone like me would pay attention to you.

    This is an ugly way to handle blogging, Jeff. Patterico has made a lot of people mad with minor or serious corrections. You are not a serious aspect of his blog, but he seems to shadow over your entire existence, and that is a waste of your talents.

    Comment by Dustin — 3/17/2011 @ 1:45 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765297

  102. 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

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765216

  103. The guy who told me all this, for what it’s worth, says he is torn between the desire to prove Jeff a liar and the imperative not to re-engage and upset his wife and others. Frustratingly for me, he is going with the latter, which is understandable.

    If he published them it would probably make no difference to anyone anyway. Jeff would just deny that he sent them, and not one person over there would change their mind.

    I’d still release them anyway if I could. But I can’t. And, his lying aside, I never said I could.

    There’s really nothing more to be said.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/17/2011 @ 5:19 am

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765066

  104. Besides: I’m SAYING he’s lying — or being punked — and I thought I was quite upfront about that. So this suggestion of dark machinations on my part to suggest he’s lying would be redundant on my part, and so is just Frey’s lame attempt to get you to take your eye off the face card.

    Is Goldstein this dumb or this dishonest? I’m going with the latter. I never said Goldstein overstated my claim to “suggest” I’m lying. I’m saying, having alleged that I may be lying, he seeks to trump up evidence of my dishonesty — by suggesting I have the ability to release something I have no ability to release.

    There’s all this “put up or shut up” talk there, as if my failure to publish what I don’t have is somehow evidence that I wasn’t told what I was told. That argument is facilitated by his dishonest overstatement of my original claim.

    All I ever said is that I was told the story and believed it. Which I was — and did, and do.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/17/2011 @ 5:12 am

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765064

  105. Jeff sez he’ll correct on it being a letter and not an order that I was told was sent. And adds:

    And in fact I’m pretty sure I used “letter” every other time

    I’m more than “pretty sure” you have said order before this post. I’m positive.

    One of your commenters even counted up the relative number of times you used each word. Because I had already called you on this.

    “I don’t send many unsolicited emails and I have not received any cease and desist orders.”

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765027

    And

    “Well, I’ve got a DDA suggesting in public that I’m under some sort of cease and desist order …”

    I’m “pretty sure” you’re full of it. Again, overstating the claim to make it easier to falsely debunk it. Your M.O.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/16/2011 @ 10:37 pm

  106. Right, Simon. And when he writes RSM:

    Here you go. New post.
    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=25487

    Just keep Frey off of my uterus.

    You can tell he never thinks about me! According to his post tonight, that’s a quote from an e-mail he sent RSM. It relates to an exchange Little Miss Attila and RSM had about feminism.

    An exchange about which I said NOT ONE WORD.

    Yet he never reads me or thinks about me.

    Trying to convince himself, you think?

    Me too.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/16/2011 @ 10:24 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765024

  107. Ugggh, stinky links. But from this…

    Follow the links and establish your own timeline or don’t comment again.

    …it seems Mr. Frey is getting a bit frayed around the edges.

    Just wait until he’s reassigned to the Juvvie court in Mission Junction. Plenty of freeway time to ponder what it takes to truly be a ‘Good Man’.

  108. “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

    It’s quite amazing that a guy who claims he never reads my site writes thousands of words every time I mention him in a comment here.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/16/2011 @ 9:58 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765017

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-765019

  109. 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.

    Frankly, I never expected Jeff to deny it, and consequently had no idea he would make such a federal case out of it, which puts my friend in an awkward position, since he wasn’t looking to re-escalate the situation, and my comment did that.

    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.

    It’s quite frustrating to me, but then again, it’s my fault for saying something without having obtained permission to release the proof.

    All I can say is I believe the person who told me this, an I suspect Jeff knows exactly what I’m talking about when I reference his late night rants. At least some of named me, I’m told. Since Jeff doesn’t care about me and doesn’t e-mail anyone about me (does anyone believe that? What did you e-mail RSM about recently? OK then), that should narrow it right down.

    All he has to do is e-mail anyone he e-mailed about me this year and everything gets published. Or, since he has the e-mails, he can publish them himself.

    That’s all I can do.

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

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-764952

  110. Also, I seem to recall Jeff G being compared with Charles Johnson.

    That’s the perfect comparison. Who the hell bans Happyfeet? He was a loyal fan of Jeff’s.

    Comment by Dustin — 3/16/2011 @ 9:07 am

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-764762

  111. Some of my best friends are Japanese.

    Also, they banned happyfeet? He never attacks anyone he is arguing with personally. He pushes the envelope and I’m sure he gets under lots of folks’ skin (as he has mine a few times), but no blog that bans him is worth my time.

    Why is it that we get racism charges and generally uglier and nuttier trolls, people freaking about the Liberty or truthers or whatever, every single time there’s a Jeff G flareup? I think his blog attracts a lot of weirdos. JD got ticked off last time I mentioned it, but why is it that Yelverton, or whatshernamefromOregon, or Christoph all found this blog via PW?

    Rupert, you come across as a bigot, and you need to reevaluate your presumptions, which I believe are insincere attempts to divert attention from other topics.

    Comment by Dustin — 3/15/2011 @ 10:38 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-764672

  112. I hadn’t seen that last Dustin comment, Joe. Breathtaking in its pretend superiority. Astonishing in its superficial understanding of events and concepts. Delightfully displays a tone of self-satisfaction, while evincing to those reading it the workings of a blazingly average intellect.

    I laughed. I cried. I watched Dustin project like I’ve never seen anyone but Frey project. Those two are a match made in heaven!

  113. To be clear: I have not seen the e-mails in question. I was merely told there were many of them, written at odd hours of the morning, they were rants, a letter was sent threatening action if they didn’t stop, they continued, but (i hear today for the first time) stopped soon after.

    Not making it up. That’s what I was told. Some on the phone and some in e-mails.

    One of Jeff’s commenters is now wishing my e-mails could be hacked, to prove his theories about what he believes they would contain. This crowd, as always, has no morals — plus he is flat wrong. I am trying to persuade the person to release the e-mails and the cease and desist letter. The lawyer who sent it is apparently not thrilled about being dragged into this and is upset at me for having said anything. No decision will be made until after consultation with the lawyer tomorrow.

    That’s about all I can say. Didn’t make it up and I think Jeff knows it.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/15/2011 @ 7:51 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-764620

    Holey Moley, I am only at #323. I feel like that scene in the Shawshank Redention where he is escaping through the sewer line (and I am only halfway there!). I have to take a break, please tell me that is enough.

  114. And naturally, turning trollish comments into things like “gee, I really like ham!” isn’t at all satirical. Like at Ace’s!

    Plus, DEATH THREATS! And CHARGES of ANTISEMITISM!

  115. Also, they banned happyfeet? He never attacks anyone he is arguing with personally.

    Darleen could not be reached for comment… :)

  116. I just have one question at this point. Jeff alleges it is identity theft to write things and attribute them to someone else, as he claims someone has done here. If so, is it identity theft to alter comments made by someone, without notice, while leaving their name at the head of the comment?

    The Ghost of Leo Tolstoy should probably send me a cease and desist letter.

  117. Also, they banned happyfeet? He never attacks anyone he is arguing with personally. He pushes the envelope and I’m sure he gets under lots of folks’ skin (as he has mine a few times), but no blog that bans him is worth my time.

    [emphasis mine] Bullshit. He tore into Darleen on several occasions, vicious attacks. Not as bad as did that thor creature, but still heinous and uncalled for. I guess no one’s mentioned Sarah Palin over there as of yet.

    And I think Frey banned ‘feets once, didn’t he? I seem to recall that being mentioned. Someone tell Dustin that allahpundit also banned ‘feets, so he should stay away from Hot Air too.

  118. Oh, didn’t refresh. GMTA, JB. )

  119. Wait… so the Ghost of Leo Tolstoy doesn’t really like ham?

    You tricked me, you, you… trickster! *

    (*) Which may or may not be an anti-semetic slur. We’ll have to consult a panel of Reasonable Men to determine that. Just as long as there’s no jews on the panel. You know how they are…

  120. Just wanted the link to the thread, Joe, but I appreciate the effort. My, but they’ve been busy!

    Dustin in particular seems to really have it in for me.

  121. Perhaps Dustin isn’t especially fond of ham.

    HAMIST!

  122. Dustin is a gay enough name on its own without him further sullying it by having his tongue constantly on Frey’s shriveled balls.

  123. Also, they banned happyfeet? He never attacks anyone he is arguing with personally.

    Right. Tell that to Darleen.

  124. To be clear: I have not seen the e-mails in question.

    I missed that one. I had seen where he wrote he’d never said he had them or seen them. I wonder how long it took to go from “never said” to “To be clear: I have not seen” them.

    And who are the other commenters who are causing this evolution of what Frey is willing to say?

  125. I should have finished reading the thread before posting #125.

  126. “As to why we’ve not already transfered every working helicopter the US has from Korea, Guam, Hawaii, etc. I don’t know.”

    SPQR – They are circling Jeff G.’s house as we speak. Doesn’t anybody tell you anything?

    Comment by daleyrocks — 3/15/2011 @ 6:44 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-764581

  127. Joe didn’t cut and paste the whole comment– I guess he figured it would hurt Jeff’s feelings to be reminded of all the times he threatened to quit to get some praise, or to have quoted back to him that pitiful comment he made on February 14. Everyone over here saw the comment though.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/15/2011 @ 6:09 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-764559

  128. If I were Frey, I’d be spending time figuring out how to spin Jeff’s email to LA County DA office as an INTERNET DEATH THREAT!!!!!

  129. I am trying to persuade the person to release the e-mails and the cease and desist letter. The lawyer who sent it is apparently not thrilled about being dragged into this and is upset at me for having said anything. No decision will be made until after consultation with the lawyer tomorrow.

    Try persuading them to re-send it to Jeff, you damn fool. And the lawyer who is “not thrilled about being dragged into” shit should damn well quit the bar and get a real estate license. Being involved in shit is the legal profession’s whole raison d’etre.

    And it says a lot about Frey’s discretion that he couldn’t keep his mouth shut about what he claims to have been told. If he ever quits the public sector I foresee a short and humiliating career for him in private practice.

  130. JD

    Are you still supporting Jeff’s efforts financially? Are you still spreadinf disinformation knowingly and willingly like Jeff?

    Comment by EricPWJohnson — 3/15/2011 @ 6:04 pm

    I do not think JD is on this tread, but EricPWJohnson is calling him out in a rather East German style purge.

  131. New update says my “new line of attack” is his repeating the headline.

    Which is of course quite dishonest, since that was always my line of “attack” (although it wasn’t really an attack but an observation). When Darleen came over screeching about my three word link, I explained that the factually false headline was the problem.

    Always. From the very beginning.

    So the “new line of attack” argument is either a lie, or he didn’t bother to understand what the problem was after writing hundreds of words defending himself.

    Has anyone ever made such a fuss over being mildly called on a simple error?

    Lord.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/15/2011 @ 6:00 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-764553

  132. I’m sorry, what disinformation am I spreadinf?

  133. And who are the other commenters who are causing this evolution of what Frey is willing to say?

    Dunno about the commenters, but Frey’s spin is evolving faster than a Maytag (somewhat supported by this image, but I’m now thinking that it may be hilariously sexist).

  134. Oh, and this one:

    Comment by Patterico — 3/20/2011 @ 12:17 am

    …where he brags about his current assignment. He’s been reading these threads all right. In between stamping the DA’s signature on those parking ticket filings. It’s only the medication that makes him think he’s prosecuting gangstas.

  135. I can understand if you want to talk to Sarah about that particular assertion but mostly I thought her conclusion was sound:

    Seems like one to let go to me.

    daleyrocks asked Sarah whether she offered that advice at Goldstein’s site, where he appears to have spent the better part of his day agonizing over a comment of mine, writing a lengthy hundreds-words long post, and updating it with hundreds more words. All to show that I am the one obsessed with him.

    I might ask you the same, happy. Did you offer this advice over there?

    Oh, that’s right, you can’t. Because you were banned.

    Anyway, any account of how obsessed I am should take account of this self-pitying comment that Goldstein left on his site on February 14:

    Nearly ten years. And I’ll I got was this lousy t-shirt!

    Only without the shirt.

    You know what? Althouse and others are doing the intentionalism thing now. And there are plenty of newish OUTLAWS out there. Plus, I’ve got Frey badmouthing me to everyone he can surreptitiously email, because he’s a fucking paranoid, self-important whackjob — and my ordinary online “abrasiveness” has caused me nothing but a series of defections among one-time supporters, anyway.

    10 years is about enough. My mark on the blogosphere has been fairly pronounced, I think, but in terms of how it’ll be remembered, I’m a nobody. Ferret country blog @ 185,693. Seems about right.

    Later, all.

    If Darleen and the rest of you guys who can post want to keep this increasingly unimportant and (frankly) despised place alive, have at it. Maybe I’ll post again, maybe not. Honestly, I don’t think many people would care at this point. Turns out I’m more replaceable than I at one time imagined.

    (As an aside, the semi-threat to retire gained mostly yawns over there, mostly because they’re all heard it literally dozens of times before. I still remember the first time I saw one of the famous Threats to Quit years ago. I still liked the site and wrote a friend in a panic. He replied: “Dude, he does that all the time. All. The. Time.” It’s a pathetic scream for validation — and, like a drug, it apparently delivers less satisfaction after repeated uses. But that doesn’t stop the addiction.)

    Anyway, the above rant about me was completely and utterly 100% unprovoked. So the bit about how he doesn’t care about me is him pathetically trying to reassure himself that he doesn’t care. Why else has he spent most of the day obsessing about the fact that someone revealed to me his stalkerish e-mails and his cease and desist letter?

    Anyway, it appears that the recipient of those e-mails will not go public. His lawyer advised him that the best way to de-escalate the situation and stop Jeff’s flood of unhinged e-mails was to simply ignore him. He says the e-mails have stopped lately and he does not want to re-escalate the situation.

    But Jeff’s claim that I might be making this up is a load of horseshit. I wouldn’t have even brought it up, but for the rich irony of the fact that he accused me of being a stalker for a three-word link, while he is issuing unprovoked self-pitying rants like the one quoted above, and sending barrages of e-mails to someone who felt the need to have a lawyer send a cease and desist letter (not an “order” as he dishonestly claims I said; stop lying, Jeff!) but a letter.

    Time for cut-and-paste Joe to get to work! Me, I have better things to do.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/15/2011 @ 5:30 pm

    http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-764542

  136. “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the OUTLAW! party?”

    ANSWER THE QUESTION!

  137. No need to post anymore, Joe. I think we all get the point.

    Well, we here, I mean.

    Someone really should let Frey in on the secret that, when I spent hundreds of words defending myself, it was against some bullshit posted on Ace’s site. I mentioned him only because the douche on Ace’s site took from Frey’s post the suggestion that I had attacked others for their coverage. Which I hadn’t.

    Funny how someone could come up with that reading of Frey’s post all on their own, isn’t it? I mean, without being directed by my sinister disinformation spreadinf campaign to assault Patrick Frey’s honor?

  138. He can’t prove his accusation but he’s going to keep repeating it. That’s the Patrick Frey, Esq. we all know and laugh at behind his back.

  139. VALIDATE ME, MCGEHEE!

  140. AND THAT GOES FOR THE REST OF YOU, TOO!

  141. I need a long hot shower after that experience.

  142. I am seriously not into the kind of tribalism which renders people incapable of rational thought. If Jeff ever put his dick in a chicken I would totally call him a chicken fucker, and it’s somewhat sad to watch the Frey sycophants inability to do likewise. And the saddest part is that what little good he has done over the years stems from the same personality disorder. There’s a fine line, evidently, between a pit bull and a carnival geek.

  143. Aha. Internets sleuth that I am, I found the death threat. It’s cleverly hidden, but the bold letters surrounded by * will reveal all.

    Hello –

    One of the Deputy District Attorneys in LA County has published on his *w*ebsite *a*ccusations that I have committed cyber crimes and am engaging i*n* serial harassment of a *t*hird party of his acquaintance. I have told him I did no such thing, and *t*hat if indeed such a crime is being c*o*mmitted and is being attributed to me, somebody is using my name and identity to commit the crime. The DDA has said (again, publicly on his web site) that I was sent a cease and desist letter. I never received one by way of mail or email, and because the DDA won’t tell me either the address to which the cease and desist letter was supposedly sent or even the name of the attorney who sent it, I have no way of *k*nowing if there *i*s an active cease and desist *l*etter out there directed against me that cou*l*d be turned into a summar*y* judgment against me sh*o*uld the identity thief in question contin*u*e the harassment.

    My question is, I guess, is if the DDA is in receipt of information that can stop *a* crime issued in my name but not being committed by me, is he under any *l*egal or ethica*l* obligation to release that information, either to me or to the police?

    Thank you for your time,

    JG

    Goldstein, you tricksy bastard.

  144. Frey puts away murderers. He told everyone so in a blog comment. Murderers I say!

    VALIDATE HIM, TOO, DAMNIT!

  145. FREE PARKING FOR EVERYBODY!

  146. ABORTIONS FOR SOME, MINIATURE AMERICAN FLAGS FOR OTHERS!

  147. My wife just read over those comments coming from Frey’s place. She says some of what they say about me isn’t at all true.

    So.

    YAHTZEE!

  148. If Jeff ever put his dick in a chicken

    …it would become a recurring series on the blog (“A Citizen Poultry Inspector has a brief conversation with the chicken impaled on his dick, part 5″).

    And it would be awesome.

  149. Ah…The ol’ chicken fucker’s violent rhetoric masking cipher! Masking the usual THREATS!(gasp)…

    But I missed the tree, rope, and noose part.

  150. Anyway, it appears that the recipient of those e-mails will not go public. His lawyer advised him that the best way to de-escalate the situation and stop Jeff’s flood of unhinged e-mails was to simply ignore him. He says the e-mails have stopped lately and he does not want to re-escalate the situation.

    This is what a boomerang-shaped pitchfork looks like. Frey will have to ‘splain to us what it feels like, firmly lodged in his hindquarters.

  151. moore

    chickenwise:
    whatever, wherever, however;
    dibs on the skin.

  152. and stop Jeff’s flood of unhinged e-mails

    That sounds pretty much like an accusation to me.

    Surprisingly, the recipient has not gone public despite all my denials. I’m astounded! They were willing to send a cease and desist letter when they believed I was sending these things, but now that I’ve denied it, silence.

    It’s almost as if they aren’t frightened anymore.

  153. It’s almost as if they aren’t frightened anymore.

    It’s exactly like they never existed. At least not on the light side of the moon.

  154. Anyway, it appears that the recipient of those e-mails will not go public. His lawyer advised him that the best way to de-escalate the situation and stop Jeff’s flood of unhinged e-mails was to simply ignore him.

    That was originally and still remains pure nonsense. Resending a C&D letter isn’t going public. It’s making sure you actually delivered an agreed upon service.

    This makes no sense. I can make each of those words an individual sentence for emphasis if that helps.

  155. Perhaps the “flood of unhinged e-mails” stopped on or about February 4th, 2011…

  156. JD

    Are you still supporting Jeff’s efforts financially? Are you still spreadinf disinformation knowingly and willingly like Jeff?

    Comment by EricPWJohnson — 3/15/2011 @ 6:04 pm

    Who is this guy? What’s his deal?

  157. Wouldn’t surprise me, John. But hey — let’s protect (possibly) Frisch because it keeps alive the possibility that Jeff was behind all these horrible harassing emails!

    And that accusation can be made and believed based on Jeff’s long history of … having never sent anyone any harassing and threatening emails. Honestly, you’d think all the other victims of my tirades would have stepped forward by now to help Frey out. Lend more credence to his narrative.

    Nope.

    But that doesn’t faze Dustin. Dustin now wonders if I had something to do — behind the scenes, where all my most dastardly work takes place — to prompt Frisch into her crazed outpourings regarding my family. No word if I’m responsible for the crazed outpourings she’s launched against old professors, Oregon legislators, ex-lovers, etc. Dustin will have to rub his chin and get back to us on that.

    And the only email trail of crazed rantings and paranoia we can actually document? Still belongs to Frey himself.

  158. Eric PWJohnson? He’s one of the dumbest people on the internet. And a brave Frey loyalist.

    Not that I’m describing a pattern.

  159. There’s something that’s just not right about that fellow, bh.

    He, and a few other prominent members of Pat’s commentariat occasionally taunt JD, demanding that he denounce JeffG, or explain why he won’t do so, or assert that it’
    s dishonest that he comment both here and at Pat’s site.

    Of course, you know JD. He doesn’t put up with the BS and tells them where to get off…

    And, whatever differences anyone may have had with our old pal happyfeet, and I know he could be annoying with the Palin/xtianist schtick sometimes, he too has been taunted as well. In fact, several times I suring this episode I saw where they had spoon-fed him a a set-up tailor made as an intro to bad-mouth JeffG and the crew here; talking increduously about how a long-time commenter and ally could be so easily banned, and such.

    To his credit, he never falls for the bait, and will have no bad things to say about anyone here…

    Regardless of what anyone thinks of his opinions or idiosyncracies, that shows character.

  160. Apologoes for the crummy typing

  161. *sigh* Apologies *sigh*

  162. Regardless of what anyone thinks of his opinions or idiosyncracies, that shows character.

    One can only assume that deep down he understands that he earned it. I like the guy – as I’m sure most here do – but you can only talk someone off of the ledge for so long before you just want them to get it over with and jump.

  163. Thanks Jeff and Bob. I have this problem that I sometimes assume morons aren’t morons. That’s the problem with trying to think like the other guy. Sometimes you simply can’t.

  164. I get what you’re saying Abe, it’s a valid point. I just thought while making a point about JD being razzed, and such, I’d take the opportunity to point out that happyfeet wasn’t allowing himself to be goaded into any back-biting or sniping of any sort.

    Unlike others in the past.

  165. Yeah, I do like the guy, Abe. Past, present, and probably future tense.

    Shit was going sideways for a quite awhile but I’ll admit that I wish I could reset everything back many months where ‘feets was the happy go lucky ‘feets and we could trade some crappy pop videos and talk about random dumb crap again.

  166. I liked him very much, Abe. Still do, in fact. But I couldn’t stand the constant threadjackings. And once he started parroting the Frey attacks on me, I knew it was either ban him or leave myself.

    He can post here again if he likes. Provided he’s learned his lesson. The idea that I’m somehow demanding conformity is silly. Unless you think that banning someone after he’s already made thousands of comments here is an attack on his free speech.

    I’m just saddened that it pushed sdferr away. I really liked his perspective on things and thought it added a lot to the mix.

  167. I didn’t mind ‘feet’s agitprop so much, but I’m not around enough to let it get under my skin. I can understand why some of the more regular sorts were getting steamed. His attacks on Darleen were not cool. His vehemence towards Darleen cast a pall on all his other contributions; it’s difficult to read his posts even today remembering their existence. Oh, and his musics sucked, mostly. )

  168. I let thor stick around too long, and eventually he really started going after conservative women (if you are a Frey reader, this allowing a commenter to stay and say his piece, committed as I was back then to an open comment thread? That’s the “shabby treatment I showed Karl,” who wanted thor banned and left when I wouldn’t ban him). Happy was giving me the same vibe as thor by the time I pitched him.

  169. Jeff, Patterico a few days ago was posting something about happy being barred from even looking at PW, he would be diverted to google.

  170. ‘feets was a cherubic mini-saint compared to thor, whom I term the Unibomber of the blogosphere.

  171. Jeff, Patterico a few days ago was posting something about happy being barred from even looking at PW, he would be diverted to google.

    Seems strange. All I did was add him to the non-commenter list. Just reversed that.

  172. When Darleen came over screeching about my three word link, I explained that the factually false headline was the problem.

    Screech? Sorry, theater-trained here, I can raise my voice to all sorts of levels without ever screeching…

    and pointing out to Pat that his argument was with the ever-changing Guardian was never a “screech”. But seeing as it didn’t fit Pat’s dishonest narrative, there you go.

  173. Well, given the Chuck Norris like powers you have to fire up the Patterico Pontification crowd, that particular allegation seemed like one you could cause with a slightly raised eyebrow.

  174. Jeff,
    Are you certain sdferr has “self-banned” himself? Have you spoken to him lately? Has anyone?

  175. I’m sure he gets under lots of folks’ skin (as he has mine a few times), but no blog that bans him is worth my time.

    So when did Pat stop reading HotAir?

  176. OT: Just nailed the vertical bar deadlift of 205# + about 4# in loading pin. Sorry, no vid. Tried it on a whim.

    Go me!

  177. I’m sure this is an idiosyncratic take on it but I often step away from the internet for a few hours or even days when I get frustrated. In that sense, I didn’t — still don’t — think it was bad that ‘feets was separated from a feedback loop that was clearly negative. I’d rather think he’s getting a taco somewhere on Ventura than going at it hammer and tong in the comments here for no reason.

    Here’s a shocking revelation… people here bug me sometimes, too. Often over mundane shit that it’s later impossible to believe I actually became irritated over it in the first place.

    I only realize it’s mundane shit to start with or stupid for me to be upset with regardless after I go read a book, go out, listen to some music or trudge through some work-related paperwork though.

    That’s just the way it works.

  178. Darleen, that was Dustin’s comment. But you’re right, they’re nearly indistinguishable, Dustin and Frey.

  179. This will probably sound like a crazed death threat but I’m starting to think I’d like to fight you, Jeff.

    The preying mantis vs the barrel man. I think we could sell that fight.

  180. serr8d

    I haven’t been back to Pat’s, even to read, since his hypocritical expectation that JeffG is fully responsible for the Guardian’s headline and its changes for all eternity … proving that JeffG really DID “rush to declare everything is ok.”

    Pat is unethical, dishonest and a disgrace. If he said the sun was coming up in the east, I’d feel honor bound to verify it with someone else.

    Shame on him. What an indecent human being.

  181. Pay-per-view… For the money-grubbing :)

    A little bit o’ the ultra-violence, eh?

  182. Here’s a shocking revelation… people here bug me sometimes, too. Often over mundane shit that it’s later impossible to believe I actually became irritated over it in the first place.

    I only realize it’s mundane shit to start with or stupid for me to be upset with regardless after I go read a book, go out, listen to some music or trudge through some work-related paperwork though.

    That’s just the way it works.

    Same here. Only when you blog, it’s difficult just to go away for a few days unnoticed. So sometimes I’ve gotten frustrated and “quit,” knowing that I’d eventually come back. As you all know too. But I always feel compelled to tell you, because some of you I’ve “known” since before my son was born. And I’ve had a couple extended absences, but most times it’s only a few days or a week.

    It can come off as self-pitying or looking for affirmation; but the truth is, I just need to get away from it sometimes. My telling you publicly is obviously seen by some as pathetic. But then, special pleading in private emails with people you don’t know especially well seems even more pathetic. As I realized when I was just reading through Pablo’s old email exchange with Frey.

    I particularly love the part where he notes that so many important bloggers were coming to his side. After he emailed them privately to plead his case.

    Not having me around to fuck up a carefully crafted narrative works wonders for a bitch, doesn’t it?

  183. This will probably sound like a crazed death threat but I’m starting to think I’d like to fight you, Jeff.

    When I hit 300# on the lift we’ll talk.

  184. A little bit o’ the ultra-violence, eh?

    But it’ll have to be in Rome. Cats, optional.

  185. [Happyfeet] can post here again if he likes. Provided he’s learned his lesson.

    All I did was add him to the non-commenter list. Just reversed that.

    Ah shit. Here we go again.

  186. Yeah, I hear that, Jeff. Shit, I’m the asshole who occasionally tells you that quitting the blog from time to time makes sense. For you, that is. Sometimes I think about it in terms of the cycles anyways. No kidding. If the fourth era ends and then the fifth era begins at some later date, who’s to say the fifth era won’t be a new, strange thing with new, strange commenters as well.

    Towards the fight, okay, I agree to that condition. All I have to do is pack on 81 pounds. Then you’re in trouble, mister.

    Can you still get steroids in Mexican pharmacies?

  187. Provided he’s learned his lesson.

    We’ll have to greet him with a wall of Palin – Tebow 2012 text, just to be sure.

  188. No, Ernst. I won’t put up with the same crap. My sanity (such as it is. HI, PATRICK!) matters to me.

  189. Can you still get steroids in Mexican pharmacies?

    Not worth the trouble. But I know where you can get a taser.

  190. We’ll have to greet him with a wall of Palin – Tebow 2012 text, just to be sure.

    Maybe 1 or 2 “Mitch Daniels is a compromised compromiser” comments as well.

  191. Your house, your party, your rules Jeff. I’m just another self-invited guest.

    And if having ‘feets around is the price to be paid to get sdferr back, so be it.

  192. Heh, I want you for a corner man, Pablo.

    Any way that we can fit a taser into a regulation glove?

  193. Pat is unethical, dishonest and a disgrace. If he said the sun was coming up in the east, I’d feel honor bound to verify it with someone else.

    Shame on him. What an indecent human being.

    Right. And like you, I was once rather fond of him, until I got to know him better.

  194. I guess RSMcC is still a bit peeved about that whole crimethink misunderstanding questions-just-asking.

  195. I’m sure there is, bh. And if there isn’t, we’ll get it in your shorts. Just be careful with that trigger.

  196. he too has been taunted as well

    Your old pal taunted?

    I shan’t be able to carry on anymore even.

    Goodbye, cruel blogosphere.

  197. One thing I think I should note out of fairness: in a conversation with the recipient of the e-mails yesterday, I asked (in light of Jeff’s denial of receipt of a cease and desist letter) where it was sent. I was told that it was to a home address that the recipient had for Jeff. (If I said more about the precise nature of how the recipient had this address it would probably reveal his identity, so that’s all I can say.) I asked: this was your address for him in what year? I forget the exact year I was told, but it was before 2005. As someone who used to read Jeff’s blog, I know he moved in the last few years, almost certainly after 2005.

    The recipient of the e-mails seems to think the letter was forwarded to Jeff, because the e-mails have stopped, and to his knowledge the letter was never returned as undeliverable. But I think it’s important, out of fairness, for me to pass along the information that the letter (I now learn) was probably sent to an old address.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/21/2011 @ 6:19 am

    Out of fairness? Liar. http://patterico.com/2011/03/14/three-reactors-in-meltdown/#comment-766721

  198. Patterico:

    Y U NO understand 1st Rule of Holes???

  199. You send a C&D letter without so much as a delivery confirmation? Uh, no.

  200. Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit

  201. Doesn’t the Post Office stop forwarding mail after a year? At least that’s the way I remember how it works. Maybe you can go down to the Post Office and fill out a forwarding request for another year, I don’t know. Damn You Goldstein! for not continuing to get your mail forwarded in perpetuity! It’s all your fault!

  202. Someone is getting creative.

  203. Comment by Patterico — 3/21/2011 @ 6:19 am

    To paraphrase Harriet Johnson, isn’t anybody going to help that poor chicken?

  204. One thing I think I should note out of fairness: in a conversation with the recipient of the e-mails yesterday, I asked (in light of Jeff’s denial of receipt of a cease and desist letter) where it was sent. I was told that it was to a home address that the recipient had for Jeff. (If I said more about the precise nature of how the recipient had this address it would probably reveal his identity, so that’s all I can say.) I asked: this was your address for him in what year? I forget the exact year I was told, but it was before 2005. As someone who used to read Jeff’s blog, I know he moved in the last few years, almost certainly after 2005.

    The recipient of the e-mails seems to think the letter was forwarded to Jeff, because the e-mails have stopped, and to his knowledge the letter was never returned as undeliverable. But I think it’s important, out of fairness, for me to pass along the information that the letter (I now learn) was probably sent to an old address.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/21/2011 @ 6:19 am

    So this cease and desist letter I never received was sent to a (maybe) old address? I take it, then, it wasn’t sent certified or with any kind of delivery confirmation — and that neither the lawyer nor his clients bothered to check if the address was even viable? And why would this person even have an old address for me? I’m certainly not given to passing out my home address — and, and this be the kicker! — I’m not listed in the phone book, and haven’t been for years!

    Whoops!

    And really: it took 5 days to “find out” the (supposed) letter was sent to this (supposed) old address? Let’s see if we can get an answer to these next a bit quicker: when was the letter sent? when were the harassing emails sent? was I ever return emailed by this victim requesting I stop writing? to what email address was that email sent?

    Guess we’ll need to know — out of fairness, of course — precisely to what supposed old address of mine this was sent, too. Perhaps if Frey can just put me in touch with the lawyer, whose JOB it is to deal with me as an intermediary for his clients, we can get all this squared away.

    But then, I guess it’s easier to keep inventing excuses for why I never received a cease and desist letter — and to continue to suggest it was I who sent harassing emails. Which I didn’t. RELEASE THE EMAILS! RELEASE THE LETTER!

    What a fucking slime ball this guy is.

    Incidentally, when I wrote the LA County’s DA Office, I never mentioned Frey by name. But it’s clear to me he is not only NOT going to help find out who is writing this stuff in my name — but that he’s actively going to shield that person.

    So. Okay then. Rules established.

  205. bu…bu…but, the “harrassment” stopped. Ergo PRUFE!

    raspberries on everyone here.

  206. What is especially silly, Ernst, is this pretense that Frey keeps up that he is protecting the victim’s identity from me. All while suggesting that I received the cease and desist letter, as evidenced by the fact the harassing emails stopped.

    Which of course would mean I’d know who my supposed victim is, and I’d be calling bullshit loudly and clearly and using that person’s name, demanding a release of these emails.

    Just as I’ve done from the moment Frey made public this accusation. Which is the first time I heard any of this.

  207. You send a C&D letter without so much as a delivery confirmation? Uh, no.

    Would any lawyer or firm actually bill for such services without some documentation that the letter was actually delivered?

  208. I would have expected a little better than “The dog ate my homework” from a DDA. This maroon can’t even try convincingly.

  209. Here’s a compromise: Frey doesn’t even have to tell me the name of the lawyer involved; all I need is his or her billing rate. Then I can send a check to Frey for one billable hour, which he can forward to the attorney in question. Then the attorney can spend “an hour” (five minutes) digging up the evidence and fax (15 seconds) it to me from Dan Rather’s favorite Kinko’s.

    I don’t give a shit that the lawyer is annoyed at Frey; I just want some damned evidence.

  210. Post that over there, Squid. Or at McCain’s place.

  211. Jeff, any letter yet? My breath is all bated, and I could use some oxygen.

  212. None yet, Pablo, but in fairness I haven’t received mail since Saturday. I’ll update us all on the mysterious case of the missing but definitely sent letter this afternoon. And every afternoon until it arrives.

    I’m sure it’s on its way. The forwarding process can take a bit, especially since we’re now being told that somebody paid a lawyer to send the letter to an address I supposedly had sometime in or before 2005, which address was never publicly listed under my name. And of course, it’s impossible for the lawyer to send it to the email address I’ve provided. Because he’s irritated.

    That’s some fancy lawyerin’!

  213. You know, I’m a little confused here.

    Reading through these threads I get the impression that, at least initially, the assertion was these “unhinged” e-mails, and the ensuing “C&D letter”, were supposedly recieved and sent recently; the implication being that it all happened in the last year or so.

    But now it could be a case where Jeff’s relocating sometime around 2005 is what may have caused problems with the letter’s reciept?

    When were the “unhinged e-mails” supposedly recieved by the person Pat mentions? And when did their attorney supposedly send the “C&D letter”?

  214. OT: Is Dave Grohl the Jeff Goldstein of the music biz? (Or alternatively, is Jeff the Dave Grohl of the conservosphere?)

    Some choice quotes from Mr. G in the linked AoS piece.

    Ace: “It’s a very minor thing, but I like that Grohl is standing up to a silly hysterical bully.”

  215. I’ll post it at Stacy’s, but somebody will have to tell me if my offer is accepted, ‘cuz that’s not one of my usual hangouts. I sure as hell ain’t going back to PortaPatty’s place. When I spilled the beans on exactly what was going on with the whole “Anti-Semitic?” beatdown, Judge Judy and his jurors made it clear that I wasn’t welcome over there.

    I guess they don’t think it appropriate for others to explain the jokes they don’t understand. That’s fine. As a gentleman of manners, I shan’t further impose myself on the Good Man’s hospitality.

  216. He won’t accept, Squid. Don’t you worry.

  217. You know, I should find out if my lawyer got confirmation on all those demand letters I had him send Santa Claus years ago. I just figured the big man was ignoring me. Or, I was naughty.

  218. March 21, 2011
    Minnesota Republicans Seek To Arrest Poor People For Carrying More Than $20 On Their Persons
    —Ace
    Subtitled: How the Left Wing Blogosphere Spreads Ridiculous Political Lies.

    They’re just making stuff up. And more embarrassing, then everyone just links the bloggers making the absurd claims without 1, checking to see if it’s accurate, or 2, anyone’s bullshit meters going off even a little bit.

    Number 2 is important if you’re someone tossing out a lot of links and stuff. A functioning bullshit detector can keep you from saying silly stuff even if you’re (like me) kind of lazy and think reading is for fags.

    And even more important than everyone just playing follow-the-leader and repeating the original false claim — then everyone also doubles-down and claims that it’s all true, even in the face of perfect evidence it’s entirely false.

    Worth reading.

    These are the people feeding stories to the Make Believe Media. This is their junior league.

    That’s Lee Stranahan again, by the way, continuing to endear himself to the leftwing blogosphere.

    Posted by Ace at 05:54 PM New Comments Thingy

    How is what Patterico is doing to Jeff any different?

  219. Link to the Stranahan post, as Ace is sort of ambiguous about the situation.

  220. Jeff, has your domain always been privacy shielded? If not, that might be how someone might once have gotten your address.

    I don’t use a privacy service, but I also never got around to updating the telephone number on my domain listings after we dropped that line. Heh.

  221. It’s privacy shielded. Has been for at least 3 or 4 years. At least.

Leave a Reply