Still nothing.
But I am now hearing claims that someone paid a lawyer good American money to send this letter standard mail — with no delivery confirmation and no certification of receipt — to an “old address” that can’t be revealed. Because then I’d know who my victim is. And I’m not supposed to know. Which makes the sending of the letter all the more baffling.
Oh. I’ve been at my current location since 2006. The harassment supposedly took place sometime this year. Just in case you were wondering.
A-yup.
return to sender
Darn, you’re clever. To go to all that trouble of moving five years ago just to avoid getting a cease and desist letter so you’ll stop harassing an unidentified individual!
So this alleged C+D letter* was sent exactly when? Patterico made it sound like it was within the last year.
*Of course we know there almost certainly was no C+D letter, it was never sent, and there may not even be a Patterico reader and/or lawyer who told Patterico about it, but this discussion requires us to suspend disbelief.
Pat’s friend should of got a real lawyer, Like Frank Azar. Anyone from Colorado knows who this is. Dude got me a check.
I imagine this “letter” went something like this:
————-
From the Law Offices of: Well, that would be telling. But rest assured, we’re real lawyers ‘n’ stuff. We just can’t tell you who we are, because, you know…
To: Jeff Goldstein of Eugene, Oregon
Subject: Stop it!
Dear Mr. “Goldstein”,
It has come to our attention that someone using the name “Jeff Goldstein” has been harrassing our client with unhinged ranting emails. Stop it right this instant, or there’ll be hell to pay.
And no, we’re not going to tell you who that client is, so don’t bother asking. Our client is a very private individual, and he doesn’t wish to further enrage you (you know how excitable your people can be) by telling you his name — which you’re fully aware of already, what with all the harrasing. quod erat demonstrandum.
So you just make with the ceasing and desisting, and never contact our anonymous client (or anyone, anywhere, just to be on the safe side) ever again.
Cordially,
A Real Live Honest-to-God Attorney of Law, who doesn’t want you to know who my name, either.
…someone paid a lawyer good American money…
Sorry, you’re breaking up. I couldn’t have heard that right.
Are you in a tunnel?
And now we know why the lawyer is upset. Now the whole damn world knows he doesn’t know how to do his fucking job.
And he’s still a better lawyer than the Patrick Frey, Esq,. we all know and laugh at behind his back.
The cease-and-desist letter of the day is: Y.
The cease-and-desist number of the day is: 4.
You know, I’m beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, there’s something a bit — how should I put it? — fishy about Frey’s claims. One might almost be tempted to think he had an axe to grind or something.
I know, I know — this way lies madness. Or a nice piece of pie.
“Our house… in the middle of the street”
Hang a left at the next light — that way lies Squeeze.
OT: But, I’m thinking Mirko Crocop thought about sending a cease and desist to Brenda Schaub; before Schaub knocked him out (re UFC 128). Plus, watching Jon Jones dismantle Rua effortlessly was epic. My wife and I just watched it during dinner. Medium rare duck breast with sweet BBQ. is delish. I don’t think proclaiming Jones the beginning of a new Generation of fighters is hype (not my proclamation). The guy is exciting to watch. Class act too. In other news, Randy Couture is a machine. How old is he now? 45? Just looked. Forty frickin seven. Amazing. He’s fighting Machida in UFC 129.
this way only leads to madness or swiss cake rolls i think maybe cupcakes
Jeff,
This is all attorneys just jerking each other off. This is an ADA with a bit of influence and power announcing “You’re in my useless world now!” Meh. I lurked on the previous threads, and you’ve gotten some great advice and some poor advice. He acts like he’s securing evidence for a fucking grand jury. But can’t say what it is. Top secret. LOL. He can’t even get a friend lawyer (that probably owes a favor) to honestly consider civil case because it’s shit from the word go. It’s well digger’s ass murky, there’s no COA, and now an unidentified/ shielded “victim”. Uh, yeah, last time I checked that’s for criminal cases involving rape victims, young victims of child molestation, and soon to be residents of the Witness Protection Program.
And the chick who came up with “Everybody Draw Mohamed Day”.
What ADA Butthurt wants is for you to hire an attorney at your expense out of fear and play paperwork/stall/motion/paperwork/stall discovery games at $250/ hr for a few years knowing it will never go anywhere but may bankrupt you in the process.
Civil attorneys fire off a 100 C&D/ Demand letters a day. It’s a numbers game. A trot line. They just want one fish to bite, hire an attorney, and then settle in a war of attrition.
The identity theft thing is a different animal which you may certainly want to look into. But, as has been noted in other threads, due to their simple forgery, email evidence (unless through a VPN or some such very secure network) survive evidence review like a fart in a tornado.
CrybabyMcShitmypants wants you to play in his sandbox. Don’t. If he sues or files charges, fine. Go after him. But he won’t.
Why-for you say that?
Jeff! Now we know who it is!
(Pandemonium ensues at Patterico’s site)
McGehee, if Jeff puts somebody in WitSec, he gets my tax refund in the tip jar.
Outlaw!!!
I’m just kidding.
There’s no way in hell I’m getting a tax refund.
Frey pushes this supposed ‘event’ back some 6 years and across how many state lines? Seriously? So, another ‘clarification’, Pat? How many’s that now?
Why bother, Pat? You’re a shameless liar, that’s the bottom line here. Forthrightly admit your lies, apologize your ass off, and you’ll come through this a better man with a chance to redeem your character. Otherwise, you become the lesser of the two LA bloggers who once were pretty decent guys.
No, he hasn’t pushed it back, serr8d. He’s saying that the lawyer had an old address for me, because the victim had an old address for me — and neither bothered to check if I still lived there. If you believe the story.
The harassment happened sometime this year, though a specific interval of dates is also very very secret. And needs to be kept from the supposed perpetrator.
Conveniently, that also forestalls any alibis I might be able to use to further disprove this nonsense.
Because here’s the thing: I NEVER SENT ANY UNHINGED HARASSING EMAILS!
If it were a WITSEC case, I wonder if the blabbermouth Patrick Frey, Esq. we all know and laugh at behind his back could face sanctions for the resulting breach? That would be fun to watch.
Except for the poor guy who has to be re-relocated because of it, of course.
I suppose Patterico also has lots of girlfriends in the Niagara Falls area, too.
Seriously. Our civilization is falling down around our ears and guys like him are wasting everyone’s valuable time making up silly lies about other people who are more or less on his same goddamn side.
Fuck it. Who wants a cupcake?
Dammit, I wish “In Plain Sight” would show up on the damn schedule again.
I haven’t followed Frey for a long time, Does the guy ever win any cases? Does he ever argue any cases? ‘Cause he’s never won an argument in this long blog war.
And I wish I had a cupcake. Or better still a fruit pie.
Nah. Thailand.
Creme Brulee. Cause nothing says dessert like lighting a blowtorch and putting some burn on some sugar.
Patterico’s comment above…
Patterico: I’m a little disappointed to see a hoary Maureen Dowd tactic used on me, especially because I have no desire to be at odds with McCain.
Pat is quite the drama queen, isn’t he.
Seriously, is this what this is about, a remark to that hack Alan Colmes, who I used to feel sorry for, because Hannity kept ‘pummeling him’ but not after Aug 29th, Jeff in a more academic setting, illustrates absurdity to prove absurdity, McCain is not racist, you are not antisemitic, but such remarks are used to shut off debate from the left. Then again, that fatwa directed against Mark Levin, because of something, Riehl though he heard, which carried over to the mauling of Christine O’Donnell, not just as a candidate, how dare she challenged the Solon of Wilmington, but as a human being,
Say, does this old address make my ass look fat?
Be honest.
That’s not the way he treated Balko or RSM or JeffG; he DEMANDED IMMEDIATE SATISFACTION! on his terms. Seems this hunkering down act is for biding time, to allow what might a most unpleasant event to pass: answering questions posed by a perhaps unfriendly internal investigation unit that has tons of online evidence of evidence to look over. Straw, camel’s back.
He’s hunkering down, because thoughts of a possible reassignment to a juvenile court miles and miles from home is frightening. I remember driving in LA; several trips to and from Phoenix to Long Beach; even in the ’70’s ’twas a nightmare. Day after day, back and forth, freeway therapy.
I hope ‘feets gives him a cupcake.
@14, McGehee:
I dunno. At this point it seems like when Patterico is saying “cease and desist letter” I feel it’s about as meaningful as if Jeff had actually been sent a letter, cut out of felt. Sort of like The Scarlet Letter, only it’s a giant C, and he’s supposed to embroider it on his Internet varsity jacket as a mark of shame for all to see. THE CEASE AND DESIST LETTER.
Once a phrase gets repeated often enough I develop issues with semantic slippage and start losing the actual meaning (in context) of the phrase or word, so I get these wacky mental images.
I knew about this feud for a couple of years but did have such a strong reaction until now. Frey’s public persona has suddenly jumped from the “annoying contentious blogger” region to the lower end of the “rogue public official” spectrum. People can see that he could do this to anyone.
He’s had plenty of cover, Wm T. Comes from pleading your case — as you’ve framed it — privately, without your opponent having recourse to defend himself in each particular instance. If you haven’t already done so — and you are interested — check out the remarkable email exchange between Frey and Pablo that Pablo later published (after Frey first began referencing it in public). It reads almost like Flowers for Algernon meets Mutiny on the Bounty.
It didn’t work on Pablo. But I can bet it worked on a lot of others who weren’t so close to all of this.
Is it a coincidence that Patterico’s last post on that thread is #666?
“Comes from pleading your case — as you’ve framed it — privately, without your opponent having recourse to defend himself in each particular instance.”
In aid of WHAT?
Saving face.
It’s really gotten weird for me. Normally when there is an intense argument within the same side of the aisle there should be no surprise about passionate discussions with those who are supposed to be political allies but disagree about certain issues or certain acts or whatever.Certainly Jeff has a sharpness and intense cleverness about him but reading his long responses are less about snippy little backhands and much more about deep, thoughtful and intelligent depths of knowledge and understandings.
For me the key difference between him and Frying Frey is Pat’s instant annoyance at anyone who fundamentally disagrees with him or critically points out some words of nice to the opposition (see CESMI, “has a good heart,” 2008.) Jeff, correctly so, doesn’t get sharp and/or vicious until some else redefines a critical argument into a personal attack mode. Rather than debate the issue, much what Frey presents is a direct attack on the arguer with much less writing about the argument.
That is the critical difference between these two. Certainly continue to snipe at Jeff and he’ll verbally pummel you into a bruised, bleeding intellectual cat fish. So what? Frey has clearly established that he is not the least bit brave enough to allow that discussion to continue on his site, allowing his ego to crush his dialogue. The one thing we do know is that an ongoing, splintered, down and dirty dialogue between Jeff and someone else happens online he will continue to allow if it’s really reflective of the discussion points.
Make it personal and insulting? Jeff will bury you like a barrel of nuclear uranium 235 … directly.
Frey, on the other hand, pokes a stick, gets a poke back, and then removes stick and sticker from his site, claiming, well, ownership or some such. There in lies the difference and why I’m now much more than interested in Aaron Worthing for info and analysis than in almost anything that Frey … has to say.
My take is more or less the same as BJTex’s. On the one hand we have a blogger who takes ideas seriously and on the other we have a blogger who takes himself seriously. No need to say which is which
DISCLAIMER: This personal testimonial should in no way be construed as an endorsement. This non-endorsement was in no way solicited through back channel e-mails sent to an e-mail address obtained from a comment registration page. [blink-blink-blink] In no way was the threat, implicit or explicit, of “a bit o’ the ol’ ultraviolence” used to obtain this non-endorsing personal testimonial. [blink…blink…blink] There is no truth to the rumor that a horse’s head, shipped via fed ex, was left upon my doorstep to induce this non-endorsing personal testamonial. [blink-blink-blink]
What chafes Pattycakes more than anything is that we see right through him. I mean, here we have a guy who’s been discussing narratives and authorial intent and the redefinition of words and how those who think they’re really clever have been shaping things by corrupting the language.
Then we meet this bloated, pompous lawyer with a bloated, pompous regard for his cleverness with words, parsing and slicing and redefining everything his opponents (and should-be allies) write or say. He’s surrounded himself with a sycophantic chorus, and he’s parlayed his regular dissection of the LAT into a level of popularity that’s far above his talent. (I mean, really — taking apart the LAT? It ain’t rocket surgery.)
So here’s the thing, Pattycakes — you ain’t all that. You’re not half so clever as you’d like us to believe. You make a living (online and off) by parsing words for legal technicalities that have no meaning in arguments about greater truth and intrinsic meaning. In short, you’re everything Jeff has railed against for the better part of a decade, except that normally you keep your cheap, unfair weapons trained at our common enemies, so we let it slide.
That ended a long time ago. If you’re smart, you’ll keep your formidable arsenal of weasel words and bad-faith arguments trained on those who don’t have the sight and skill to see you for what you are, before we take you apart like an old copy of the LAT. Loser.
I wonder if Frey is operating from a severely confused recounting of the Insane Harridan Affair. The facts almost fit his claims, though the reality is 180-degrees out of phase from his claims.
I’m going to take some exception to that. Frey is fully capable of constructing a devastating argument. He’s got several fine and admirable smackdowns under his belt. The problem is that that’s not all he does, and the ever growing list of ostensible allies that have made his Object d’ hate list testify to that. His ends justify his means as far as he’s concerned. Truth is secondary to victory. If the righteous tools aren’t working, he’s got no compunction about digging out the filthy stolen ones and screaming “LOOK! UNHINGED BUNNIES!! OVER THERE!” while he does the deeds he doesn’t want noticed.
It’s not that he can’t argue. It’s that he’s got no integrity. And that he simply can’t tell when he’s lost. He’d make a good Wisconsin union thug.
Who’d be that stupid? Besides Teh Jury, daleyrocks and whatever other hangers-on Patterico has?
Frey is fully capable of constructing a devastating argument.
The problem is that he’s capable of constructing damn near anything, and he doesn’t care what materials he uses. When he’s got the evidence on his side, he’s very good at laying it out for all to see. But when the evidence is against him, he will wriggle and weasel and argue ’til he’s blue in the face over what the meaning of “is” is.
What I’d really like to know is if he really believes he’s in the right all the time, and that people like us are malevolent or misguided fools; or does he know when he’s really stepped in it, and is just desperate to keep his acolytes from realizing it when he does it? Which is a way of asking whether his ego is such that he can’t admit fault to others, or is it so big that he can’t even admit it to himself?
It was interesting, from this distance, to go back and look at the posts of mine that are responsible for launching this interminable (and tedious) blog spat.
1) On Nobility
2) Outlaw Speak (the follow-up)
3) Letterman’s “rape” joke (Frey waited, then later noted that I had “defended child rape” — I shit thee not!)
4. how I learned to stop worrying and love the f bomb, guest-posted on Hot Air (back before Frey’s campaign to have me booted from polite company).
4) Much later, when Frey decided to resurrect the Letterman issue to substantiate that I defend child rape, I responded. Here is the last.
5) More language lessons, revisited — the post in which I detailed why the method of vetting Stacy McCain publicly was linguistically flawed (and not a bit unseemly).
6) Which of course, led to Frey’s series of posts about how Jeff Goldstein is violent; an intellectual fraud; not a man of substance; likes to play the race card, etc. My response was to show Frey how his OWN arguments defending his “investigation” of Stacy McCain (potential) racism can work — spoofing Frey’s own posts and using the opportunity to point out the linguistic problems with such arguments.
7) This prompted Frey’s first online meltdown and spectacularly failed attempt at a Google bomb.
8) Followed by proof of his pleading emails sent behind the scenes, in which I’m characterized as a psychopath out to destroy him — while he specifically states that he is going to try to destroy me, run my off the internet, and issue a long, drawn-out attack against me.
7) At which point Frey’s next line of attack has been to troll my comments section, looking to pluck things out that he can use to further a narrative about me (eg., when a serial troll posted as me that my son had cancer, Frey’s concern was not with the troll’s actions, but rather with my OUTRAGEOUS and angry response) — one that has been helped along by Frey’s Twitter buddies and his little backchannel blogger clique. I am guilty of altering comments (as a matter of course, is how it is sold); I am not at all concerned with “accuracy” in my “reporting”; I am interested in “outing” ANYONE WHO DOESN’T AGREE WITH ME; I am of course ultraviolent and have left a trail of bodies in my wake; and now, I am guilty of serial harassment and cyberstalking — the public accusation by a DDA based solely on second-hand reportage (though Frey believes the charges), and proffered without having seen any evidence, or fact checked the supposed victim’s story. To prove my perfidy, Frey has decided to “protect” the name of the victim (who I would know, having been the harasser, but hey, he’s rolling); protect the name of the attorney who is supposed to have sent me a cease and desist letter (though it is that attorney’s job to act as an intermediary between myself and his client — though it doesn’t surprise he or she wouldn’t know that: s/he didn’t know enough to check my address, or send their letter registered, if you believe Frey’s latest tale); and withhold the address to which said letter was sent as well as all dates of my supposed “serial” harassment.
I’m going to post this later today when the cease and desist letter once again doesn’t come. But I want people to pay attention to my posts and arguments. Are they really the kinds of personal attacks that should have provoked the kind of response they did? Or do they fit in perfectly with my other critiques of language, namely, that allowing the validity of certain linguistic and hermeneutic assumptions will necessarily create the foundation for a progressive takeover of our epistemological assumptions — and so determine our very “knowledge”?
These are big, important questions. But rather than have them asked, Frey has been more concerned with making sure the asker is diminished and removed from the public conversation.
And that’s just sad.
The latest example of acceding to the progressive takeover, may be found here. A related example is linked to here.
Because it’s more important that we poke at him while he’s hoisted on his own petard than it is to point and laugh at all the dumbshits he couldn’t see this coming.
Yes. “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
Dude will jump up on the table and stomp up and down until he wins. Or until somebody knocks his ass off the table and stuffs a sock in his mouth.
I’m still waiting for Robespierre to answer this. How long does it take for him to get back to a citizen with a simple question?
Is that tap dancing I hear from down LA way?
Y’know, seeing who can come up with the best allusion for PF Esq. DDA LA might make for an entertaining open thread.
Prize for winning: Jeff breaks your spine last.
Your death threats won’t intimidate me, Schreiber. I’ll lose if I damn well want to.
I’ve just been calling him “the Patrick Frey, Esq. we all know and laugh at behind his back.”
It’s good enough for him.
Okay, I spoke to the special investigator. She’s going to speak to legal counsel to see if I have any recourse here.
I told her that a DDA in her office is making public accusations on his private site using as his “proof” secret information. I argued that, if he is to be believed — and owing to the fact that I never sent serial harassing unhinged emails rants that would have precipitated a cease and desist letter being sent, nor have I ever received or refused one, and that he is an officer of the court — someone is using my identity in the commission of said harassment, and if the harassment were to continue, I’d be exposed to legal jeopardy.
I informed her about my past difficulties with Frisch, and Frisch’s subsequent arrest for email impersonation — potentially within the time frame Frey has hinted the cyber-harassment took place. I informed her about my good relationship with DDA “Fred” (as we both agreed to call him) from 2004-2008, and my subsequent bad relationship with him. I noted that this wasn’t the first time he has leveled charges at me on his private site, but that the first such charge — DEATH THREAT — was so ludicrous that he later largely walked it back.
I don’t expect anything will be done, but I do want to point out that I was willing to take it this far because, if we are to take Frey at his word, it is UNDENIABLE that 1) either someone has stolen my identity and is spoofing me; or 2) the victim made the story up; 3) Frey made the story up; or 4) Frey and the victim concocted the story together, or at least have colluded in the method of presenting it.
I have repeatedly asked for dates, names, the release of materials, and so on. I pointed this out and noted that no information has been forthcoming, even while a reasserting of the accusations have. I noted that the latest suggestion was that the letter was sent to an old address (explaining why I might not have received it) — with the fact that it was never returned used to suggest that I actually did receive it.
She asked for his name. I told her that while I didn’t want to give his name before I knew if I had recourse, I only knew one DDA by name in her office: Patrick Frey.
Just because you are on the internet doesn’t mean you get to accuse people of committing real world crimes with no lack of evidence. When you are a DDA, doing so is even more reprehensible, in my opinion, because it carries with it the implied weight of public and legal authority.
My name is a “real world” thing. Accusing me of crimes is a real world thing — even if it happens online — because it asserts that I have intentionally harmed people in a way that may be criminally actionable in the real world.
I’ll include this information in my cease and desist letter update later today.
Nice. Expect fallout from the pragmatists.
I don’t care. The pragmatists aren’t the ones being publicly accused of crimes and given no chance to face accusers, with no evidence forthcoming save for the unseen evidence remarked on by Frey as being legitimate, and Frey’s professional position as a prosecutor and the weight that is supposed to carry.
Too, these pragmatists — should they believe Frey’s version — should be concerned that Frey is protecting an identity thief committing crimes in my name rather than, as an officer of the court, helping me find out who it is an stop him or her, both for my sake and for the sake of the original victim.
Jeff, I just want to express my sympathy that you have to go through all this nonsense once again because you’ve attracted the attention of another Internet Cray-zee. But I hope you won’t mind my adding that if anyone should take this lying sack of weasel shit to task, I’m glad it’s you.
Yes, I realize that this is sycophantic bullshit, but given the company you’re up against, you’ve probably had to recalibrate your suckup meter such that this won’t even make the needle twitch.
Thanks, Squid.
I am surprised Hot Air, Ace, Instapundit, and others have not picked up what a crapweasel Patterico is, but you have to experience him first hand to really get that. And he has mostly limited his attacks on those on the right/libertarian to you, RSM and Radley Balko. Of course Little Miss Attila and others have Patterico’s number from observation. Patterico selects targets that he thinks he can minimize blow back on (hence why Patterico turned on RSM when he was facing BS racist attacks from Chucky–probably as vindictive payback for RSM’s past support for you). And Patterico’s emails to Pablo read like a pedophile grooming a prospective victim. But it is only a matter of time before he does it to someone else. Patterico cannot help himself.
Patterico is Eddie Haskell.
He hates the fact you never went to kindergarten with a home permanent.
Oh, ow. That’s both painful and highly apt.
Probably the first of those stems from the second.
[…] and outlined my concerns. For those of you interested, I provide an overview of that conversation here. Posted by Jeff G. @ 6:31 pm Comments (0) | Trackback […]
That’s a whale of a perspective. Sobering. I hope you prevail, JG, and in light of the situation, that’s not sycophantic bullshit nearly as much as it is that stake you pound into the earth and look back on in a year, only then gaining a firm perspective on how sinister that event was.
My already tarnished view of low-level state legal thugs isn’t rising.