Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

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

Archives

sigh, redux [note: this post answers charges made publicly that I am in receipt of a cease and desist letter, sent me because I (knowingly) "serially" "harassed" someone by email. Feel free to skip it if it doesn't interest you. Lord knows it doesn't interest me.]

Frey’s attempts to bullshit readers continues:

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

To recap:

Frey said I was sent a cease and desist order letter.* I said I never got one and asked that it be released, with proof shown that it was sent and that I’d received it. Then I asked a number of questions that have gone conspicuously unanswered. To wit: I asked 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? I asked the name of the lawyer who supposedly contacted me. Why would the lawyer who had supposedly already been in contact with me be concerned about anonymity, I wanted to know? How does that make sense?

I asked to whom I had supposedly sent “late-night e-mail rants.” I asked why, if this took place, would the recipient not simply block my email rather than take the rather aggressive step of contacting a lawyer to craft a cease and desist letter? Did this person ever ask me to stop sending emails in advance of contacting an attorney? When did this harassment take place? Over how long a period? With what as its impetus? I asked why I would not myself simply release the name; 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, say), that name would certainly be on the cease and desist letter, yes? I gave permission for the release of these emails.

And I did so because, though somebody may have received late night email rants with my name attached, they didn’t come from me.

For Frey’s part, since he was so eager to make these accusations in public, I asked what these supposed serial harassing “unhinged” emails contained. Frey claims he spoke to the recipient by email and over the phone. Surely they spoke of what kinds of horrible, harassing things I’d supposedly said? But Frey gives no specifics. Why is that? Frey said last evening he’d never seen the emails. Has he seen them yet?

He says tonight that should I “e-mail anyone he e-mailed about me this year […] everything gets published.” I don’t have any idea what that means. So is Frey saying he now has the emails, and he’s trying to blackmail me with them? Or is he saying that should I email whomever is the supposed recipient of my previous rants, that person and his or her lawyer will then relent and release the text of my serial harassment?

Is he serious? He makes a bunch of false claims, offers no proof, and then has the audacity to try to bully me into watching whom I email?

How anyone takes this clown seriously is beyond me.

Again, if these emails exist, I want them released. Because though somebody may have received serial rantings with my signature on them, they didn’t come from me. And I never received a cease and desist order letter. If one was sent, I didn’t get it.

Here’s a fact: Frey knows a troll once took on my identity and posted as me in the comments of my site (I was away for the day), telling people my son had cancer. And I know Frey knows this because what he took away from the incident was the DEATH THREAT I unleashed in response. Which he decided to excerpt and post on RSM’s site to show just how DANGEROUS I am. Threatening violence. Against an identity thief who was going after my family. Does my menace know no bounds?

Yet it never occurred to him — or to the supposed victim of my serial harassment (should such a person even exist) — that perhaps someone has been punking him (or them)?

Frey wants you all to think that, out of consideration for the victim (and, evidently, the victim’s attorney? WTF?), he is going to hold back this clear and vivid evidence of my perfidy and treachery. Bullshit. This is just another one of his oblique broadsides at my reputation. Part of his long-term plan, which he himself laid out in private email exchanges that have actually been published, to drive me off the internet, to “destroy” me.

It’s revolting. But sadly, it is no longer surprising.

As to my email exchanges with RSM (darkly alluded to by Frey). Here is my sent text from our last couple email exchanges:

1) To Stacy’s query about my entering the fray on the feminism debate:

fought this battle with the leftist feminists a few years back. These links might prove useful to give you a background on my thinking.

A question for “feminists” from an “anti-feminist” (UPDATED and UPDATED AGAIN.  AND AGAIN!)

A follow-up question for “feminists” from an “anti-feminist” (UPDATED)

Defining the terms:  racism, feminism, and the problem of identity politics

Defining feminism:  another perspective (UPDATED)

I haven’t been following the back and forth this time, but I’ll check it out now.

I just don’t think I can afford to alienate anyone else. It’s already to the point that I’m more likely to get a link from the NYT blog than I am many of the “prominent” rightwing blogs.

Other than yours, of course. Which, thanks.

Jeff

2. A follow up to that same query, in which I mention Frey. You decide for yourself how seriously I was attacking his character:

Here you go. New post.

In which I respond to a skirmish going on elsewhere by way of linking to my archives, quietly, without offering anything new, and without ostensibly taking sides — save my own, which is nearly always the side to take, given my demonstrative genius

Just keep Frey off of my uterus.

There you go. Bottom line? More lies.

Next time when I say publicly that I didn’t receive a cease and desist order, and that I haven’t been serially harassing anyone (that I know of), maybe it would be best to bet on my word.

****
ps. Here are the people whom Frey and I might both know who I’ve emailed (or responded to) this year. Taken from my sent mail folder going back to the beginning of the year. I will leave out emails I sent as thank you notes:

Joe
THein
Carin
Geoff B
Dan C
Danger Dave
John B
Joy McCann
LMC
Blake
David Thompson
a fine scotch
Randall S
JHo
BRD
RSM
Gene A
Dan K
Andy J
Terry H
Bacon Ninja
bh
McGehee
Darleen
Sarah W
Michelle Malkin
Greg B
Marklevinshow
MC
OI
Slart
sinner
Pip Squeak
Sdferr
TSI
Sarah R
SDN
Fred B
Donald B
Blitz
Squid
BJTex
Strabo
LTC John
Andrew D
dicentra
Tim O’D
Ronnie S
Dana
Shaitan [just added]
Lloyd [just added – Feb 23]

That takes me back to Thanksgiving of last year. If I missed anyone, please let me know. Since Frey intimated that my behavior supposedly took place this year, go on and pick the stalking victim from the crop.

If Frey had a shred of integrity he’d retract and apologize. Because none of this ever happened. But I won’t hold my breath waiting.

****
update: Frey, who does the lawyer thing for a living, breaks out the semantic fine-tuner and doubles to try to bring home a conviction:

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.

First, as I noted last night (and will note again here tonight), I am not a lawyer. I used “letter” and not “order” in the majority of instances in the post. Frey seizes on a technical legal term to try to score a point, ignoring every other instance where I used “letter.” But be that as it may. Is anybody honestly buying that I was “overstating” the claim in order “to make” his “inability to prove it look like evidence” he’s “lying”? Or is it more likely that, not being a lawyer myself, I’m just not as careful about making the legal distinctions. 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.

Second, if the person in question is not on the list, I didn’t email the person in question. I went through my sent emails, in order, going back to Nov 25 of 2010. I’d make screen caps of my sent items, but honestly, why bother? I’ll just be accused of deleting records, etc., — just another part of my convoluted conspiracy to be able to harass people with unhinged rants and not have that information come to light.

— Well, except that I invited the aggrieved parties to release everything I’m supposed to have written. But now we’re just nitpicking. Which is a form of death threat.

Third, once again, Frey wants us all to believe that he — champion of all that is good and pure! — is merely protecting this unnamed, lawyered-up, traumatized individual (even worse, his long-suffering and distraught wife!) from the poison of my unwanted emails, which somehow defy all rules of cyberspace and can in no way be blocked, written as they are in TIGER BLOOD and infused as they are with WINNING! So it’s EVIL mastermind versus traumatized wife who just wants to be left alone to be a good conservative woman who makes delicious biscuits and homemade lasagna for her good conservative man (who no doubt is gainfully employed).

Finally, we now know Frey never saw or even claimed to see the emails or the cease and desist letter. But we DO know that reliable testimony of their existence comes from a very distraught, very unnamed someone whom Frey, out of his deep ethical convictions (like, for instance, the ones that led him to post these accusations without having seen a shred of evidence), will protect to the end times even if it means he’s forced to take the hit. After all, what’s a little short-term embarrassment when what you’re really doing is taking the hit so that a a long-suffering, biscuit baking good Christian women and her equally good husband aren’t yet again confronted by my words.

Is that about it?

Yet I’m being accused of “bluster” and “overstatement.” Whereas the guy who made the accusations he can’t prove? Kind of a hero, if you think about it, the way he’s protecting these abused victims of my late night “unhinged” haranguing…

Christ, what a fucking fraud. And yet some people who still refuse to see it.

Sucks to be them, I guess.

126 Replies to “sigh, redux [note: this post answers charges made publicly that I am in receipt of a cease and desist letter, sent me because I (knowingly) "serially" "harassed" someone by email. Feel free to skip it if it doesn't interest you. Lord knows it doesn't interest me.]”

  1. maybe it would be best to bet on my word.

    oh, what’s the fun in that?

    BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!

    heh.

  2. Squid says:

    Stuck on stupid. Somebody needs to send this asshole a cease-and-desist order on defaming you.

  3. McGehee says:

    Frankly, I never expected Jeff to deny it

    This guy gets paid to prosecute criminals?

    Hey, idiot prosecutor: Everybody denies it.

    The guilty deny it because they don’t want to be punished for what they did. But even more to the point, the innocent deny it because THEY’RE FUCKING INNOCENT.

  4. McGehee says:

    Oh, and I’m pretty sure if I ever get an email from Patrick Frey I’ll tell him to cease and desist. I don’t suffer shitheads.

  5. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    I think Patty’s in love. He can’t quit you, Jeff.

  6. Benedick says:

    Not on the list, ’cause I don’t consort with Frey.

  7. bh says:

    This started as some sort of tedious nonsense about Japan’s nuclear reactors and it’s now, suddenly, about how Jeff is a violent, unstable maniac.

    Last time it was about some tedious nonsense and then, suddenly, it was about how Jeff reacted to RD’s extreme provocation.

    Time before that (or a few times before that, I’m losing track) it was about some tedious nonsense and then, suddenly, it was about how Jeff would hang himself rhetorically. Or, you know, death threat!

    Funny how this keeps happening.

    I am now willing to boldly predict that at some point in the future there will be some more tedious nonsense and then, suddenly, it will be all about Jeff, the violent, unstable maniac.

    For the record, below are all the emails Jeff sent me about Frey during this latest episode:

  8. serr8d says:

    Frankly, I never expected Jeff to deny it [DAMN, HE CALLED MY BLUFF!], and consequently had no idea he would make such a federal case out of it [DAMN, HE’S GOT ME FAIR AND SQUARE!!], which puts my friend in an awkward position [DAMN, I BETTER THINK FASTER THIS TIME!], since he wasn’t looking to re-escalate the situation […HOPE THIS BULLSHIT WORKS!], and my comment did that [AT LEAST ERIC WILL BELIEVE ME, RIGHT, FRIEND? …ERIC ? ].

    A guilty conscience is the mother of invention.
    …Carolyn Wells

  9. McGehee says:

    Not on the list, ’cause I don’t consort with Frey.

    I’m on there because I used to have Fried’s blog on my blogroll and even used to read it and even linked to it a couple of times — though those were mostly linkfests (remember those?).

    I recently posted a comment there too, in a thread where Darleen was trying to reason with Fried (“Forget it, Darleen. It’s Pattericotown.”) and the last time I looked it was still there. I was a little surprised it went up, considering that I once taunted Fried about whether his boss would approve of his antics against Jeff, leading Mr. Paranoia to accuse me of wanting to get him fired.

    Seriously, I wonder what’s he’s washing down with that cheap rotgut he must be slamming as he sits at his computer.

  10. Benedick says:

    Mostly cock, McGehee. Mostly cock.

  11. Squid says:

    Betcha a dollar that Patty’s unnamed correspondent goes by the name of “Ellison.”

  12. Squid says:

    Or maybe “Tom Ellers.” Or maybe “Fat Prey.”

  13. Roddy Boyd says:

    There has to be an intentionalism joke in here somewhere.
    As in, “What was the intentionalism of Frey in making an accusation for which he has a post-modern level of proof for?”

    Blog wars are ok if they have a reason to be.
    I have no earthly idea what Frey is on about.
    None.

  14. Benedick says:

    Mostly cock, Roddy. Mostly cock.

  15. cranky-d says:

    I think Squid’s on the right track. Though it could be Richard Ellers instead. Those guys hang out together, you know.

  16. Bacon Ninja says:

    Yeah, it wasn’t me. If anything, I was stalking Jeff. And I doubt I’ve ever posted at Frey’s place, because, well, they’re all just so much better than I am.

    But the important thing is this: OMG Jeff mentioned my (pseudo)name in a post! Now if I could just get Bill Simmons and Jessica Alba to do the same, I could die a happy man.

  17. Danger says:

    C’mon Jeff,

    Admit it, those deceptively brief e-mail responses you’re sending are really coded tirades disguised to make you look like you’re too cool for school; but covertly meant to direct all of us Anti-Frey forces in a well coordinated cyber-flanking maneuver.

    Hey, I KNOW PSYOPS WHEN I SEE IT!!!

  18. Darleen says:

    whoops… I see the thread moved here. This is what I posted after seeing the Pat comment on the “sigh again” thread

    Wow, that is some world class lying. Pat may think it gives him an out to claim he is honoring a request not to reveal a cease and desist letter, but any shred of credibility is forever gone.

    I know you’re reading this, Pat, and I gotta say I didn’t think you could ever surprise me again.

    I was wrong. I didn’t think even you would stoop so low.

    How shameful. How pitiful. How immoral.

    … and creepy. I forgot to add how utterly creepy this transparent Patti-ploy is.

  19. cranky-d says:

    I don’t know the man at all, but it sure seems like he’s used to having people back down from him, and is surprised when they don’t. That sure makes him look like some kind of bully. Just thinking out loud here, I could be wrong.

  20. McGehee says:

    I don’t know that I’ve ever been stalked. Except by a cat. And no cat has ever done it twice. Something about flying end-over-end across the entire house, they just check that experience off their bucket list and move on.

  21. Danger says:

    “This started as some sort of tedious nonsense about Japan’s nuclear reactors and it’s now, suddenly, about how Jeff is a violent, unstable maniac.”

    bh,

    Serves him right! Rushing out and jumping to a wait and see conclusion like that. Somebody could get hurt that way.
    Why, it’s almost as bad as the time Jeff whispered “hey who farted” in a crowded theatre. (spelling intentional tribute to SW;^)

  22. serr8d says:

    Not a bully, just a losing playah. Tip your king, Pat, be a man about it.

    wait…

  23. bh says:

    Something I’m somewhat baffled over is the idea that a C&D letter would actually mean something anyways. There are shitty office complexes near highways all across the country filled with struggling lawyers sending out C&D letters every single work day.

    I’ve never gotten one personally but companies I’ve worked for have probably gotten several dozen during my working years.

    My client developed this proprietary method before you… My client is being materially harmed but will settle for $10k… [I’m so cheap that it actually only cost my client $60 to send this scary sounding letter to threaten you on the flimsiest pretext.]

    A cease and desist letter from a lawyer doesn’t actually mean anything. We once got one because we shot down a useless but temporarily popular metric from some newsletter scammer in a white paper. Our response? We sent a letter back saying they should look somewhere else for a shakedown because we had a fully staffed legal department who frankly needed something to do for entertainment.

  24. Bacon Ninja says:

    I was once stalked by a turkey club sandwich. And then I ate it. It was a harrowing experience.

  25. Pablo says:

    I think Dustin has a good point that, not having cleared the release of this information with the recipient, I should have said nothing.

    Yeah, well, too late, dumbass. Next time, talk to Dustin first. Now, you’ve made an allegation that you have no foundation to support.

    Court is in session, Counselor. You’re up.

  26. Jeff G. says:

    Exactly, bh.

    Everyone here knows what I’d do if I got one of these letters. I’d do what I’ve always done: I’d post the fucking thing.

  27. Bacon Ninja says:

    I should point out that I only ate the sandwich as a last resort. I sent the deli a C&D letter but they just laughed at me. Maybe I should have typed it up rather than writing it on the back of a King Soopers bag in crayon, but hindsight makes fools of us all, right?

    Eh, I guess either way, eating the sandwich was a dangerously violent act and you guys should just shun me. FOR THE CIVILITY!!!1!

  28. dicentra says:

    Fine! I confess: It was me.

    Now what was it I was involved in again?

  29. Joe says:

    I thought he was being played by a reader. An incredibly stupid thing to do on his part, but I gave him the benefit of doubt on that. Now I am leaning to he just made it up.

    There is a small chance he just got played and is doubling down so as not to admit he got played.

  30. Pablo says:

    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.

    OK, so pick a name from Jeff’s outbox, and let’s get it on. Or, you’re full of shit, again. You know, it’s the 97% of lawyers like you that give the other 3% a bad name.

  31. Benedick says:

    Mostly cock, dicentra. Mostly cock.

  32. Danger says:

    “I’d post the fucking thing.”

    Jeff,

    That’s why they couldn’t send it cus that would be entrapment and Patterico knows the law.
    Are you trying to say you didn’t know his intent, Mr Intentionalist? (/s just in case)

  33. Benedick says:

    Aaaaaand I ban myself.

  34. Pablo says:

    There is a small chance he just got played and is doubling down so as not to admit he got played.

    There’s a big chance he’s just full of shit.

  35. Pablo says:

    ps. Here are the people whom Frey and I might both know who I’ve emailed (or responded to) this year. Taken from my sent mail folder going back to the beginning of the year. I will leave out emails I sent as thank you notes:

    Joe
    THein
    Carin
    Geoff B
    Dan C
    Danger Dave
    John B
    Joy McCann
    LMC
    Blake
    David Thompson
    a fine scotch
    Randall S
    JHo
    BRD
    RSM
    Gene A
    Dan K
    Andy J
    Terry H
    Bacon Ninja
    bh
    McGehee
    Darleen
    Sarah W
    Michelle Malkin
    Greg B
    Marklevinshow
    MC
    OI
    Slart
    sinner
    Pip Squeak
    Sdferr
    TSI
    Sarah R
    SDN
    Fred B
    Donald B
    Blitz
    Squid
    BJTex
    Strabo
    LTC John
    Andrew D
    dicentra
    Tim O’D
    Ronnie S
    Dana

    That takes me back to Thanksgiving of last year. If I missed anyone, please let me know. Since Frey intimated that my behavior supposedly took place this year, go on and pick the stalking victim from the crop.

    That does it. I’m leaving.

    You never write.

  36. bh says:

    I suppose the other thing I’m baffled over is the suggestion from Frey that Jeff should start… re-harrassing some random person so that he might then confirm his original accusation. Well, maybe.

    Sorry, but shouldn’t he prefer Jeff didn’t — as a violent maniac — start re-harrassing some random person? Shouldn’t it be more important to him that this innocent third party continued on in peace rather than actually suggesting that Jeff did further mental harm to them?

    That’s just bizarre.

    Priorities, I suppose. Even in this strange scenario, it’s more important that Jeff is a terrible person. Much more important than this innocent third party’s concerns apparently.

    And, remember, this is all from him. This is how he’s presenting this.

    WTF.

  37. McGehee says:

    Aaaaaand I ban myself.

    Stop that or you’ll go blind.

  38. Jeff G. says:

    I think Dustin has a good point that, not having cleared the release of this information with the recipient, I should have said nothing.

    Well, there’s that, and your admission that you hadn’t even seen them when you made a public accusation regarding both their existence and a characterization of their content.

    Then of course there’s the little matter that they don’t exist — and, if they do, they didn’t come from me.

    My immediate reaction was to give whomever permission to release all the documents. Since then, nothing but stalling, dithering, walking back claims, etc.

    I’ll say this: if after all the time that’s gone by Frey is suddenly! joyously! surprisingly! granted permission to post whatever documents supposedly exist, he (and my poor, put-upon victim) had better be absolutely sure they came from me. Because no weasely-worded “reader poll” will give them plausible deniability this time.

  39. McGehee says:

    …say they will release everything if Jeff writes him again, in violation of the cease and desist.

    I wonder what they’ll do if Fried writes them again, in violation of the restraining order.

  40. McGehee says:

    Jeff, I believe the word you want is unexpectedly!

  41. Pablo says:

    Keep in mind that he’s got lawyerly “ethical” reasons he can’t back anything up. He’s a Good Man, you see. Who just made a little boo-boo in a moment of passion. Anybody coulda done it. And there’s even another lawyer who’s angry so….shhhhhh.

    Jackhole.

  42. Jeff G. says:

    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.

    There was no cease and desist.

    When was it sent? How? Where to? From whom?

    And isn’t it convenient that this unnamed victim — whose identity I must clearly know, if I’m emailing at all hours and harassing him or her — will only release these things if I once again harass him or her, this poor unnamed victim. Who is unnamed.

    Therefore, it follows that a non-release of all this incriminating documentation actually proves — PROVES! I say! — that I knew better than to make a big deal out of this and email this unnamed person yet again. Which itself proves — PROVES, I say! — my guilt. Because otherwise I would have emailed this person again, daring him to release the documents. Which I’ve already given him permission to release, but still —

    QED.

    Honestly. He wins in court with gambits like this?

  43. Bacon Ninja says:

    You’d think that if these emails were as damning as it sounds he wouldn’t hesitate to at least quote from them or provide some kind of detail in order to back up his story. That’s what I’d do if I had embarrassing information on someone I despised. Otherwise it might look like I was talking out of my ass in a semi-transparent attempt to impress a group of people who believe everything I say without reservation.

    But I’m a violent sandwich murderer, so…yeah.

  44. Jeff G. says:

    I think later I might send out a group email to everyone on that list I posted. For now, though, I have to hit the treadmill.

  45. Pellegri says:

    Mostly cock, dicentra. Mostly cock.

    ?

  46. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Jesus Christ Jeff! Why are you making a FEDERAL CASE out of this?

    You’d think someone was out to destroy your reputation with the way you’ve been defending yourself. (/sarc)

    I like how at the end of the day, this is all about Féraud, stuff you’ve been harrassing an alleged third party with about Féraud; and if you do it just one more time to anyone (not even the alleged victim!) Féraud is going to pull the trigger that the alleged victim, it is claimed, doesn’t want pulled.

    But your the stalkery one.

    GO FIGURE

  47. LBascom says:

    I’ve received a couple of replies from Jeff when I emailed him. The last time was last month when I was poking around in the archives and came across some late night drunken patterico spamming in a thread from 2008.

    Jeffs reply went on, and on, and on. And on.

    That’s right…four whole words.

  48. Joe says:

    Here is an appropriate Patterico musical interlude.

    I posted it over there too. They might enjoy it (well at least happy might).

  49. Pablo says:

    And isn’t it convenient that this unnamed victim — whose identity I must clearly know, if I’m emailing at all hours and harassing him or her — will only release these things if I once again harass him or her, this poor unnamed victim.

    Let’s also keep in mind that “all of this” is an imaginary cease and desist that demands that you stop doing…something. Of which we’re not quite sure. Because of the ethics of it all.

  50. Blake says:

    Any chance I can get my name at the top of the list? I’d like to be first in something for a change.

    I once called Frey Batshit crazy on a thread he was posting to.

    Nice to know my quaint observation was accurate.

  51. Pablo says:

    Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a major record company, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense!

  52. serr8d says:

    Damn, Joe, that vid’s worse than an alarm clock.

    Patrick Frey, you’ll be taunted and mocked for this massive indecency until you finally come clean.

    Remember Gleens Greenwald(s)? He’s a near-forgotten has-been; you’ve succeeded him as a liar, a fraud par excellence, a ‘Good Man®™©’.

  53. Shaitan says:

    Hey, I’m not on the list! But it was just a correspondence about Yelverton, and a query as to a beer get-together. Offer still stands, though. Anytime you need a brew, Jeff, just drop me a line and name the pub.

  54. serr8d says:

    I once called Frey Batshit crazy on a thread he was posting to.

    Heh. He’s banned me from that shithole he terms a blog, from the Twitter; if he could get permission from Chas. Johnson, he’d ban me from the internets. All for trying to help him help himself realize his personal shortcomings, and work to overcome ’em.

    See what I get for being so damned honest?

  55. Joe says:

    And this for all at Patterico’s. For the letter that probably never got drafted, let alone sent.

  56. Pablo says:

    Remember Gleens Greenwald(s)? He’s a near-forgotten has-been; you’ve succeeded him as a liar, a fraud par excellence, a ‘Good Man®™©’.

    Remember Glen Greenwald?

    That may still be my favorite hat tip ever.

  57. Jeff G. says:

    I’ll add you to the list, Shaitan. All I have in my outbox are emails to eBay sellers, online stores, thank-you notes, etc. I must not have recognized the email address as belonging to a reader. Apologies.

  58. Shaitan says:

    No problem. I’ve changed my name a few times here, too. This is the sock I like!

  59. Stephanie says:

    Pat’s just embarrassed because the ‘lawyer’ in question signed his emails:

    Barrister Richard Arroya
    Nigeria

  60. serr8d says:

    Anyone ever hear from Spies?

  61. bh says:

    Simple fact of the matter is that Jeff is about as talkative by email as I am.

    Unless, of course, something really bad happens. Then he’s talking to you on the phone to make sure you have family to be with during the holidays… while he’s in the weeds trying to finish up cooking a turkey for the family.

    You know, like a giant dick. The kind who makes sure you’re actually okay in real life even though you’re just kinda sorta internet friends.

    Yeah. He’s a giant asshole. All the fucked up things you hear about him are probably true.

    I’m sure every accusation I’m hearing is dead on the money.

  62. Danger says:

    Ok,

    G’night all,

    If you guys get bored their is a bigger fish to fr(e)y over here:

    Imagine a transparent black messiah committed to saving us from ourselves creating peace and harmony and ridding us of our paranoid and racially motivated fear of black panthers and ex-nba players turned mayors.

    If that can’t generate some love then Patrick Frey will win. Is that what you outlaws want?

  63. geoffb says:

    So the story consists of an assertion that Jeff G. emailed someone (unknown), something (unknown), at some time (unknown), somewhere (unknown), for some reason (unknown).

    Damn fine reporting. Top blogger quality indeed. But watch out for those unknown-unknown-unknown-unknown unknowns. They bite.

  64. bh says:

    Nah, Geoff. This is all about Japan’s nuclear reactors.

    Right?

  65. bh says:

    Wait, I’m confused. Jeff’s inherent violence isn’t what powers those reactors?

    I’m starting to think we’ve been drawn off topic.

  66. geoffb says:

    Godzilla is never OT.

  67. bh says:

    Heh. Point taken.

  68. Joe says:

    “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

    And with that, Patterico then went into the backyard to howl at the moon. The end.

  69. Jeff G. says:

    Shit. I keep meaning to write “letter,” not “order,” so Frey can’t keep seizing on that to weasel out of what is a ton of bullshit. And in fact I’m pretty sure I used “letter” every other time. I’ll make the correction, while noting he seized on the one instance and ignored the many (and further note that I’m not a lawyer).

  70. Joe says:

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/17/fukushima-redux-design-basis-godzilla/#more-4096

    FYI If you didn’t get your potassium iodide, don’t freak. Oh wait, wrong meltdown…

    Right, Simon. And when he writes RSM:

    Here you go. New post.
    https://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

    Awwwoooooooooooo Howl at the moon.

  71. Jeff G. says:

    I don’t read him. And he was mentioned there (in a joking way) because it was an extension of the first email exchange asking me if I’d like to get involved with an interblog quarrel.

    Now, let’s see. If I were going to make a reference to an interblog quarrel and why I might want to avoid one, where might I go to find such a reference…?

    But do thank Mr Frey for pointing up that I was looking NOT to get dragged in to another one of these dramas. It took my saying that Japan wouldn’t be seeing a Godzilla v Mothra battle to REALLY overstep my rhetorical bounds and throw down the gauntlet at the feet of this brave, bold, proud warrior of the intertwebs.

    I have nothing to hide. Frey can go through and try to find a kind of obsession in me that mirrors his own toward me, but it ain’t there.

    To me, he’s a punchline.

    I should think that was obvious, given that I used him as one in the bit he quotes.

  72. gebrauchshund says:

    “How anyone takes this clown seriously is beyond me.”

    Well, there’s your problem right there. Thinking that someone, somewhere takes him seriously.

  73. gebrauchshund says:

    Oh crap. Did I broke the blog?

  74. antillious says:

    The more I read, the more it seems like She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named sending out stuff using Jeff’s name.

  75. John Bradley says:

    And now the place is overrun with italics.

    Hmm. “Patterico” — sort of has a certain Mediterranean sound to it, y’know.

    GUILT BY ASSOCIATION!

  76. Patrick Chester says:

    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.

    Oh yes, people just let little things like being accused of e-mail harassment and getting a “cease and desist” letter slide.

    Perhaps Frey should avoid things like this in the future, and stop playing the victim when his attempts at smearing someone fall back because his target dared to dispute his claim and demanded proof.

    You already spilled it, Frey. So it’s too late to go try a lame claim of “privacy” from your conveniently unnamed source. Put up or shut-up.

  77. Pellegri says:

    Oops, stray italic tag running loose.

  78. Since I found out it was just an ingrown hair, I haven’t emailed anyone else. I promise. . Seriously.

  79. B. Moe says:

    Dear Mr. Goldstein,

    Please don’t mention to Mr. Frey, Esq. about how I found out he was a alien form outer space and confronted him with the facts. He then sent space worms out after me and caused me to over sleep and get fired from my job. My friend told him to knock it off, and so he did, for now.

    Don’t say nothing though because I don’t want him to send them again.

    Thank you,
    B. Moe

  80. B. Moe says:

    Fuck. That was supposed to be a top secret email.

  81. Mueller says:

    I didn’t make the list because I didn’t pass the course.
    Or my dog ate it.
    I was absent that day.
    Was there a quiz?
    Who is frey?

  82. Sinner says:

    Dear Mr. Wisdom,

    Please remove my name from your list of people you have emailed in the past year that may have also had contact with Mr. Frey. It is an outrage that you would besmirch my good name as possibly being in the same circle as Mr. Frey. Of all people you should know better than to associate me with that sort of person.

    Good day sir.

  83. JHoward says:

    Aren’t C&D letters sent registered mail? Aren’t C&D orders in the public record at the issuing judge’s court?

    Stand and deliver, I believe is the term I want here.

  84. Pellegri says:

    Dear Mr. Wisdom,

    Are you there? It’s me, Margaret.

  85. Joe says:

    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.”

    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

    And you suggest, Jeff, I’m claiming that I’m “holding back” these emails. Absurd. I never said I had them. I never said I saw them. Your dishonest suggestion otherwise is in keeping with your distortion of this whole matter, and indeed, is sadly chaacteristic of your longstanding pattern of dishonesty.

    Comment by Patterico — 3/16/2011 @ 10:42 pm

  86. Joe says:

    Pellegri, thankfully I was not drinking coffee when I read that!

  87. McGehee says:

    I never said I had them. I never said I saw them.

    No, you merely asserted they exist — without any evidence that would have stood up before an adversary in any kind of forum. But you never expected there to be an adversary, because you thought Jeff would simply stand by and let you accuse him of something you had no real evidence for.

    And to think, the people of Los Angeles County pay this shithead to put people behind bars. I can’t believe he’s ever actually had to prove a case in front of a jury. From the looks of things, he’s relegated to signing the paperwork for traffic court.

  88. Jeff G. says:

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

    Hey. Counselor. You falsely accused me in public. Again. You should be begging my forgiveness, not keeping it up.

    But you can’t. Your pride is so hurt that you just can’t do it. You LIED about me. And you’re hiding behind some unnamed person to protect yourself. Because not only are you a liar, but you are a weasel and a coward.

    I’ve been more than patient with your bullshit. No more.

  89. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Joe posted on 3/17 @ 7:07 am:

    Comment by Patterico — 3/16/2011 @ 10:42 pm

    In other words, Rénaud is trading in second-hand gossip.

  90. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I’ve been more than patient with your bullshit. No more.

    OMYGOD! WAS THAT A THREAT!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!

  91. Jeff G. says:

    And you suggest, Jeff, I’m claiming that I’m “holding back” these emails. Absurd. I never said I had them. I never said I saw them. Your dishonest suggestion otherwise is in keeping with your distortion of this whole matter, and indeed, is sadly chaacteristic of your longstanding pattern of dishonesty.

    Unbelievable.

    You lied. You accused me of something, and not only can’t you produce proof to back up the accusation, you claim that you haven’t even seen proof. And of course, you will protect the identity of the accuser. The unnamed accuser’s word is good enough for you, and we all know that you are an unbiased participant in any adjudication against me.

    Fact: you publicly accused me of something. Fact: you did so without having seen any evidence. Face: I gave permission for any and all documents pertaining to me to be released, knowing that I hadn’t sent anything nor received anything. Fact: not only could you not release them, but you won’t even say who supposedly has them, or who supposedly sent me a cease and desist letter.

    And now, because I called you on it, you want to try to talk about MY pattern of dishonesty?

    What a piece of work. Just because you’re Twitter buddies with a bunch of bigshots doesn’t mean you aren’t a huge steaming pile of dishonest, would-be bullying fail.

    Own it.

    And do us all a favor from now on: stop trolling my site looking for ways you can “destroy” me or “drive me off the internet.” Or I will take it personally.

  92. LTC John says:

    Does my menace know no bounds?

    Not that I can find.

    Mr. F should have stuck to hammering the LAT, this odd obsession of his does not exactly cover him in glory.

  93. serr8d says:

    Put up or shut up, Frey. Even with a vault full of photos of Los Angeles functionaries and dignitaries in compromising positions with goats, your job security isn’t looking promising. And future promotions? Forget it. You’ve damaged your own credibility beyond repair.

  94. Joe says:

    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

    Ernst, this may be fresher but fresher shit smells even worse.

  95. Jeff G. says:

    Does anyone know if state prosecutors have an ethics code that speaks to making false accusations about people in public? Because this one does it quite a lot and I’m not going to sit by and let it happen anymore.

    You don’t get to just publish “A trusted source tells me that Patrick Frey shouldn’t be making jokes about Catholic priests, given his own ‘problems’ with little boys. My understanding is that a private settlement is the only thing that prevented certain info from going public.

    “But let me be clear: I haven’t seen the paperwork, I have no first hand knowledge of the little boys my trusted source told me about, nor will I reveal the name of my trusted source because s/he has a little boy, and they don’t want any ‘problems’ to befall him.”

    Or do you?

    Because that is essential what Frey does to people all the fucking time.

  96. Jeff G. says:

    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.

    Liar.

    Hey, here’s a question, counselor: HAVE YOU SEEN THESE ALLEGED EMAILS AND ALLEGED CEASE AND DESIST LETTER YET? Surely your curiosity must be piqued by now, no?

    Have you seen them? Has your trusted source forwarded them along to you?

    You are libeling me. And having called out on it, you are doubling down. If there is a source, I suspect he is now wondering if HE was punked. But rather than letting the light shine in, you have both chosen to pretend to taking the higher ground, just so long as you can pass the stink on to me.

    That’s it. Things are about to get a lot worse for you.

  97. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Joe:

    It seems to me that Rénaud’s “guy” is the liar here. First he hides behind his lawyer and now he’s hiding behind his wife.

  98. Jeff G. says:

    Question: Don’t emails contain all sort of travel and header info? Can that kind of thing be faked? Anyone know?

    And why won’t Frey’s “source” reveal a name. Surely after all this — and my very public denials — I’d be setting myself up for serious trouble should “I” send any other harassing, “unhinged” emails.

  99. Ernst Schreiber says:

    There’s really nothing more to be said.

    No there isn’t. But that won’t stop it from being said, will it?

  100. rho says:

    Question: Don’t emails contain all sort of travel and header info? Can that kind of thing be faked? Anyone know?

    Yes, more or less. An email is just a text file, and one can edit the headers to say anything one wants. Emails alone (shouldn’t) be taken as authoritative proof without some kind of corroborating evidence to prove its origin, such as logs from the mail server(s) backing up the Received: headers.

    The headers in an email will generally show the route by which the email went from the sender to the receiver, with IP addresses. Even this can be spoofed, but it takes a lot more effort than a casual jackoff will engage in just to be a dick. So the headers are more likely to show that the emails DIDN’T come from you. They might show they came from Hotmail or something, in which case it’s DEFINITELY you, because you’re nefarious like that, G.

  101. Joe says:

    Ernst, Pat’s guy may be as immaginary as his guy’s lawyer, his immaginary C&D letter, or the immaginary threating emails.

  102. Joe says:

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

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

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

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

    Doubling down again, because Patterico admitting the truth is too damn hard.

  103. Blake says:

    Great, Frey has gone all Dan Rather on Jeff.

    “Fake But Accurate” coupled with blinding hatred is never a good combination. With a dose of stubbornness tossed in for good measure.

    This ends badly for DDA Frey.

  104. Jeff G. says:

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

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

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

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

    HAVE YOU STOPPED BEATING YOUR WIFE, JEFF! YES OR NO?

    What a piece of work.

    Time to start digging.

    Any lawyers reading, please contact me by email.

  105. Ernst Schreiber says:

    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.

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

    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

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

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

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

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

    Bold emphases are mine. Rénaud may not have “said” he could release them, but he sure left the impression that that’s what would happen. A lot changes in thirteen hours, I guess.

  106. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    I once sent an email to Jeff expressing my gratitude for all his great work and I was shocked at the reply:

    Rob,

    Thanks for the kind words and I’m glad you enjoy the blog.

    Jeff

    I’m not stupid. I can read between the lines. It’s obviously a threat as “thanks” is a well known acronym for T(ake)H(ammer)A(nd)N(ail)K(neecaps)S(hitheadmotherfucker). Don’t even get me started on the acronym “enjoy”. The man is vile!

  107. Squid says:

    Look on the bright side, Jeff: nobody is threatening to suspend you for using the pedophile evidence locker for office decorations. I’m told a certain DDA can’t say the same.

    No, really! This guy told me. Totally trustworthy. I trust him. Trust me.

  108. Squid says:

    Oh, and when settlement time comes, I think you should insist that the public retraction and apology include the following: “I will CEASE AND DESIST from any further attacks on Mr. Goldstein, who doesn’t deserve such treatment, even though he’s a Jew.”

  109. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Jeff G. posted on 3/17 @ 8:21 am

    That’s bound to cause a paroxysm.

  110. […] of which has put me in the awkward position of having to try to prove a negative. None of my questions have been answered. Meanwhile, the accusations just hang there. As I’m sure they are supposed to […]

  111. Jeff G. says:

    The headers in an email will generally show the route by which the email went from the sender to the receiver, with IP addresses. Even this can be spoofed, but it takes a lot more effort than a casual jackoff will engage in just to be a dick. So the headers are more likely to show that the emails DIDN’T come from you. They might show they came from Hotmail or something, in which case it’s DEFINITELY you, because you’re nefarious like that, G.

    I’ve sent Frey emails in the past. Would the header info regarding route change each time? Because I have no doubt that if he and his buddies can fake some emails, they will.

    And this delay in releasing them suggests to me that some such endeavor may be underway. I was IMMEDIATE with my request to make them public. That’s why.

  112. A fine scotch says:

    I’ve received such harrassing and intimidating emails as “No. Will check it out, thanks.” and “Good on you!” His wife once showed up unannounced and left an unrequested package on my front porch filled with presents for my newborn daughter.

  113. Jeff G. says:

    I’ve received such harrassing and intimidating emails as “No. Will check it out, thanks.” and “Good on you!” His wife once showed up unannounced and left an unrequested package on my front porch filled with presents for my newborn daughter.

    You’ve also been to my house and met my wife. You know how sober she is, as a rule.

    Well, she’s pissed now.

  114. dicentra says:

    Would the header info regarding route change each time?

    Not the ultimate send and receive. Your ISP has a mail server (or cluster of servers) that would record the same address (or limited group of addresses) as the sending server. The intervening routers might change a bit, depending on traffic patterns, but not drastically. Not go pinging through Nigeria and North Korea, for example.

    And your ISP would be able to verify whether a particular e-mail was or was not sent by your machine to the ISP. Because your machine has a unique MAC ID that could be spoofed only by someone who knows your machine’s MAC ID. (MAC doesn’t mean MacIntosh in this case.)

  115. Wow.

    What a troll.

    w asserts was told x about y by z

    w says x is true

    y says x never happened and says z is a liar

    w says z says he has proof but it’s secret

    y says hell with the secret, even if it makes me look bad. z, show the proof

    w reasserts that z is not lying, even though w has not seen the proof

    y says that without proof, either z is lying to w or w is lying about x

    w asserts that he is not lying about x and z is not lying even though w has not seen proof

    y says, if w hasn’t seen the proof and y denies that x happened, let z produce the proof of x

    w says z will not only not produce proof of x, he can’t because his wife won’t let him, and w will not identify z to y because y already knows who z is.

    y says w lied when he said that x was true

    w says he didn’t lie because he never said x was true, he said he believes z when z says x was true

    y releases evidence that he says x didn’t happen

    w says he still believes x to be true based on secret evidence seen only by z who refuses to be identified, z’s mysterious lawyer and z’s wife and that the evidence to the contrary presented by y is false and probably falsified.

    y says w is obviously a liar, not only did x never happen but there is no z, z’s wife or z’s lawyer, as none of them will be identified, there is no proof of x, and, in fact, the only evidence is evidence to the contrary.

    w says he didn’t lie, he merely said that z said x about y and that he believes x to be true, and that y knows it to be true.

    LMC thinks w is full of shit and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, believes y when he says that he believes that z is either a figment of w’s imagination or a liar and a coward.

    LMC was also told that a certain person had to send a message to w so that w would stop emailing that person pictures of the Wonder Woman tattoo w has on his penis.

  116. rho says:

    I’ve sent Frey emails in the past. Would the header info regarding route change each time? Because I have no doubt that if he and his buddies can fake some emails, they will.

    Headers look like this:


    From: LeapFrog
    Subject: Spring Savings at Amazon on LeapFrog Books & Games + Free Shipping
    Date: March 17, 2011 3:18:57 AM CDT
    To: [My Name]
    Reply-To: reply@em.leapfrog.com
    Delivered-To: [My]@[Email.com]
    Received: by 10.216.6.32 with SMTP id 32cs69204wem; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
    Received: by 10.150.179.10 with SMTP id b10mr1492606ybf.129.1300373244983; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
    Received: from [my.mailserver.com] ([my.reverse.domain] [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q24si15432467ybk.48.2011.03.17.07.47.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
    Received: from o1.em.leapfrog.com ([63.124.11.42]) by [my.mailserver.com] with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0ETz-0002j9-Jj for [My]@[Email.com]; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:47:23 -0500
    Received: from empledwsimd01.na.leapfrog.com (empledwsimd01.leapfrog.com [10.13.2.59]) by o1.em.leapfrog.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCA62182D5 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
    Return-Path:

    (That’s from an email helpfully telling me what new things from LeapFrog I can buy for the kids. I took out private info and put it [In.Brackets])

    I don’t know what the law says, but IMO unless you can corroborate every Received: line with server logs, it’s just a text file with some words on it. Can it be faked? Probably. I can fake email headers that suggest James Dean is sending me pictures of LOLCATS from Heaven. But the path has to lead back to your mail server, and it has to end up at whoever’s mail server. In the above (the headers are in reverse order), the messages starts at leapfrog.com, go to my mailserver, which forwards to my gmail.com address, and winds its way through Google’s servers to end up in my gmail in-box.

    In these supposed emails, do all of those line up? Do they all make sense? Is the time frame right? Do they lead back to your server? Can any of this be proved? Again IMO, it’s not enough to just have gnarly looking headers. I’ll drop you an email with a couple of things you can look for to indicate chicanery in the unlikely event you ever get to see these emails.

  117. Ernst Schreiber says:

    LMC thinks w is full of shit and, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, believes y when he says that he believes that z is either a figment of w’s imagination or a liar and a coward.

    This whole thing really boils down Liam Neeson’s Rob Roy’s (paraphrasing) “You know the character of this man [accusing me of whatever the hell it is I’m accused of] and you have my word.”

    I think I have a sense of that man’s character, at least in his dealings with Jeff, and I have Jeff’s word. The moral calculus here practically resolves itself.

  118. Spiny Norman says:

    At what point does Patty’s story-telling cross the line into “defamation of character”? At what point does his bullshit begin to reflect badly on the office of the Los Angeles County District Attorney?

  119. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    I’ve received such harrassing and intimidating emails as “No. Will check it out, thanks.” and “Good on you!” His wife once showed up unannounced and left an unrequested package on my front porch filled with presents for my newborn daughter.

    But, were they presents that you needed? If not it was a barbaric and vile invasion of your privacy! I know of a lawyer in LA that will take your case.

  120. A fine scotch says:

    OI, we absolutely did not NEED those presents! And now that you mention it, my privacy was feeling vilely and barbarically invaded. I mean, have you seen Jeff’s wife? Vile and barbaric invasion practicallly describe her!

    But, it turns out someone in Jeff’s household has exquisite taste in baby girl clothes. So I decided to let it go.

    Jeff, your wife strikes me as someone I’d want on my side at all times. I pity those at whom she directs her anger. And, I’ve never seen her angry…

  121. McGehee says:

    At what point does Patty’s story-telling cross the line into “defamation of character”?

    At least a couple of years ago, but IANAL, thank a loving and merciful God.

  122. Abe Froman says:

    God this whole thing is so fucking high school. With the exception of the fact that Frey won’t get the everloving shit beaten out of him like he so richly deserves, anyway. There’s really nothing sadder than a not particularly bright overachiever like Frey allowing his ego to drive his nose off of the grindstone. He’s horribly overmatched and it is driving him crazy.

  123. Zoyclem says:

    People are always going to say things, Jeff. It’s probably better for your own health to ignore them and go on with what you’re doing.

Comments are closed.