I thought I would highlight a few quotations from the publicly available filings in this matter that show how my lawyers demonstrated that her lawsuit lacked merit.
First, a brief recap: Naffe initially sued, not only me, but also Los Angeles County, my former boss Steve Cooley, and (incredibly) my wife. My lawyers filed a set of motions showing how utterly meritless Naffe’s claims were. In particular, they blasted Naffe for her irresponsible decision to name my wife as a defendant. In response, Naffe made no attempt whatsoever to justify having sued my wife. She simply dismissed my wife from the suit. There was never any basis whatsoever for naming my wife in this lawsuit, and I believe that Naffe’s decision to do so was simply a tactic designed to terrorize my family.
Bolstering my conclusion that this was a politically motivated attack were the admissions by Neal Rauhauser (the hatchet-man associate of Brett Kimberlin) that he had arranged counsel for Naffe. Rauhauser proudly trumpeted his silly but telling hope that the lawsuit would accomplish his (and Kimberlin’s) long-held goal of costing me my job.
Above: Neal Rauhauser and Nadia Naffe, 2012
(It did nothing to dispel my suspicions about the political nature of this lawsuit when a lawyer who was suing James O’Keefe took over the litigation — after the judge had issued a ruling that expressed extreme skepticism about whether Naffe could show damages in excess of $75,000. Usually, lawyers don’t get too excited about lawsuits that the judge has said are unlikely to be profitable.)
Basically, I had put up a publicly available court document from PACER, and soon learned that the lawyers who had uploaded it to PACER had not redacted it, as they were supposed to have done. So I took down the link to the document a little over an hour after the post was published. I redacted the document, and put it back up. And Nadia Naffe literally made a federal case out of it.
The meat of the Court’s ruling dismissing her claims is contained in the Court’s tentative ruling, which was confirmed by a short minute order on Friday. As Ken did, I want to emphasize two comments that the judge made in the tentative ruling concerning the manner in which Naffe and/or her attorneys “played fast-and-loose” with my language. Here is the first:
In paragraph 39 of the FAC [First Amended Complaint] Plaintiff quotes Frey as saying the following: “You owe [O'Keefe] @gamesokeefeiii a retraction. A big one. You’d better issue it promptly. [A threat made as a Deputy District Attorney].” FAC 39. The Court may consider the text of Frey’s actual statement in connection with a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. See Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006), Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2001.). Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s use of quotation marks, the language “[A threat made as a Deputy District Attorney]” does not appear in Frey’s actual comment. See Frey Decl. (Docket No. 40), Exh. KK, at 266. The Court would consider issuing sanctions against Plaintiff and/or her attorneys for the contents of paragraph 39. [emphasis added]
They inserted words inside quotation marks that I had never said. The second comment by the judge:
In her Opposition brief, Plaintiff characterizes this as “Frey issu[ing] a direct threat against Ms. Naffe with Frey stating that he intended to investigate Ms. Naffe for possible criminal misconduct.” Docket No. 53, at 11:18-21. Again, sanctions may very well be in play for Plaintiff’s (and/or her counsel’s) willingness to play fast-and-loose with the language that is actually at issue here. [Emphasis added]
One other observation I would like to emphasize from the judge’s tentative ruling concerns Naffe’s claim that she was having trouble finding employment because of what I said about her. I present the judge’s response without comment:
As for those interested in the facts of the case, the reader needs to understand that when the case was dismissed, the case was still in the stage where we were challenging the pleadings. That means that, to a large extent, the judge was forced to accept even untrue allegations as if they were true. For example, when Naffe falsely claimed that I blog and tweet on the taxpayer dime, my lawyers were forced to accept that as true for purposes of our motions, even though it is false. It is a very frustrating position for a person to be in — but such is the plight of a civil defendant.
There were, however, limited ways that we were permitted to dispute some of her allegations in certain contexts. Towards that end, I provided a declaration that is probably the best document for you to read if you are interested in the underlying history of the case. My declaration explains, among other things, how I began writing about Naffe, and how I obtained and posted the deposition transcripts.
My declaration also provides proof that contradicted several of Naffe’s assertions in her complaint and declarations. For example:
Naffe claimed that I had not obtained the deposition transcripts from PACER, but had somehow obtained them though resources available to me as a DDA. Not so. I provided proof, in the form of records from PACER, showing I had downloaded the transcripts from PACER on the same Saturday that I posted them.
Naffe claimed that I had issued certain posts “as a Deputy District Attorney.” Not so. I provided printouts of those actual posts in which I said in the body of the post that I was posting as a private citizen and not a DDA.
I provide proof in the declaration that the link to the publicly available deposition transcripts containing Naffe’s Social Security Number was removed from the post about an hour and 17 minutes after it was first put up. (Indeed, if Ron Brynaert had not publicly tweeted the fact that the transcript contained her Social Security number, it could have been taken down and redacted with nobody being the wiser. But for some reason Brynaert — who has also complained about me to my workplace, and has spoken of punching me in the nose and taking a “shit” on my wife — decided to make this information public rather than emailing me privately. Draw your own conclusions as to why.)
Naffe claimed that she had been intimidated by my March 2012 post linking to her deposition, and that she made her blog private as a result. Our 12(b)(1) reply provided proof that her blog was still public in May 2012, and that she was blogging that she had not been intimidated by my post.
In other words, as a result of the actions of MR. FREY, I was in fact intimidated into not giving evidence of O’Keefe’s wire tapping to the County. . . . As a direct result of MR. FREY’s harassment, and in order to prevent further harassment, I have been forced to make private both my Twitter account and my blog at nadianaffe.com. Though I desire to, MR. FREY has made it impossible to freely participate in online speech. [Emphasis added]
Naffe’s claim of harassment revolved around a post and other tweets that I published in late March 2012. That’s when she was supposedly intimidated into making her blog private and not reporting evidence of a crime. Yet we showed that her blog was still public in May 2012, when she published a post at nadianaffe.com that said:
Patrick Frey may have believed that posting my Social Security Number and medical records online to his blog, in retaliation, would intimidate and stop me from telling the truth about O’keefe [sic], chill my First Amendment right and dissuade me from coming forward to report a crime committed in his jurisdiction. Though, what he has accomplished is precisely the opposite. These two civil servants, both deputy district attorney’s [sic] in Los Angles [sic] County, in the past were able to bully and harass private individuals, with impunity. But their patent on intimidation and retribution expired when they came to me. The Frey’s [sic] are the poster children for the type of rampant corruption Carmen Trutanich, Alan Jackson and Danette Myers [sic] have each spoken out against. (Exhibit LL at 268-269.) [Emphasis added]
If you read only one document from this latest round of filings, I would read my declaration, mentioned above. If you read a second document, I would read this one: the reply brief on the anti-SLAPP motion. This is one of my favorite documents in the whole lawsuit. It describes Naffe’s suit as “a classic SLAPP – a lawsuit calculated to retaliate against expression that makes the plaintiff angry.” Page 2 lists various statements of hers that we had demonstrated to be deceptive and/or misleading. Pages 11-12 set forth the specific context for my remark that Naffe was “full of false allegations.” It also opposed her seeking discovery by making these points:
Plaintiff has boasted that she will use the discovery process in this case to harass Mr. Frey on unrelated issues including (1) how Mr. Frey and his wife afforded their house; (2) an unrelated incident in which Mr. Frey was the victim of a false police report; and (3) the identity of an unrelated anonymous blogger.
It’s impossible to list all the deceptive and/or misleading aspects of Naffe’s lawsuit in a single blog post. Hopefully, this gives you a sense of why we considered it to be a meritless attack on free speech — and why the judge dismissed the case and threatened Naffe and/or her lawyers with sanctions.
UPDATE: Ken’s post is up here. I plan to blog this result in more detail on Monday morning. There are several reasons for this proposed delay. Hopefully, the entire country will not be as focused on tonight’s arrest of the Boston Marathon bomber. Hopefully, the steady drumbeat of depressing news of violence will have dwindled to a trickle. Finally, traffic should be back to normal weekday levels. I hope to publish my detailed post on this at a moment when the glorious tradition of people reading blogs at work is being observed with all the energy America’s workforce has to offer.
But for now, I would like to focus your attention on three brief points.
First: Ken quotes two footnotes from the judge’s tentative ruling, which was confirmed (and expanded upon) today. The judge twice threatened Nadia Naffe and/or her attorney with sanctions “for Plaintiff’s (and/or her counsel’s) willingness to play fast-and-loose with the language that is actually at issue here.” That’s a quote from the judge, folks. I didn’t make it up. As Ken points out, while the judge did not ultimately follow through on the threat, the language is nevertheless telling. To quote Ken:
Though Judge Wu did not ultimately award sanctions, I look forward to quoting those words on appeal or in a state court motion for sanctions if Naffe re-files there.
Second: Ken and I in particular got to face, not just criticism, but “vapid and dishonest partisan hacks” who criticized both of us for standing up for free speech — including “the greasy, demi-literate, demented Hutt who wrote an extended quasi-sexual fantasy about a mob murdering Patrick and me.”
Hi, Bill Schmalfeldt! I understand you were curious about the result of this case. I’m happy to be sharing that with you! And, your sick, twisted fantasies notwithstanding, nobody has yet beaten me or Ken with baseball bats or tire irons. No group of men has thrown us in front of a moving truck as part of a conspiracy to cause our deaths. (If you think I am exaggerating, I have uploaded a .pdf of Schmalfeldt’s violent fantasy here.)
Third: Ken’s post, and the conduct of Ken White and Ron Coleman throughout this litigation, is an inspiration to people everywhere who stand up for free speech. Ken makes the point well when he says this:
I defended [Patterico] because the First Amendment that lets him speak freely lets me speak as well. I defended him because malicious, frivolous, and politically motivated lawsuits aimed at censorship make it a little more dangerous for each of us to speak. I defended him pro bono because frivolous lawsuits can effectively censor people even when they eventually fail, because the expenses of lawsuits can be ruinous.
When I told Ken this evening by email that I could not thank him enough, he told me: “[T]o pay me back, keep writing what you want to write, and encourage people to support free speech, especially for people with whom they disagree.” That brings tears to my eyes. It makes me want to stand up and start singing “God Bless America.” And, on a more practical level, it redoubles my resolve to continue donating to organizations like FIRE — and to continue to stand up for free speech rights on this blog, even when I disagree with the opinions being expressed.
That’s more than I expected to say in this post — and yet, I plan to blog this result with a little more specificity on Monday. For those of you who have specific questions about the litigation, I hope to be able to point you to court documents that address some of the issues, and make it clear why this litigation has been such an abusive attack on legitimate criticism of a public figure.
In the meantime, go read Ken’s post in its entirety, and please give him and Ron Coleman your thanks for the service they have done, not just for me, but for the cause of free speech in America.
Today I write to offer pleadings for anyone interested in the case, and a pleasing update regarding its status. As long as litigation continues, I’ll refrain for both prudential and stylistic reasons from arguing our case here, other than to say we continue to believe the case is an abusive and meritless attempt to retaliate against protected speech.
. . . .
In brief, Judge Wu agreed with us that the Complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 because the facts alleged do not show that Mr. Frey was acting “under color of state law,” as is required under that statute. After argument, he gave Ms. Naffe what he described as “just one chance” to amend — that is, he gave her a chance to file an amended complaint to see if she could plead facts sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 1983. Generally judges err in favor of giving a chance to amend.
Ken notes that, in response to our motions, Naffe dismissed all claims against my wife. He also cautions that the judge’s order
treats allegations of fact in the Complaint as true for purposes of the motion to dismiss, as is appropriate; that’s not a finding that the allegations are true. Many are not.
There are more details and links to all the pleadings at the link. If you read just one pleading, it should probably be this one (.pdf). On Ken’s and Ron’s advice, comments are closed, but I will note that I am very grateful to Ken White and Ron Coleman for their pro bono work on this case.
I have learned that my wife and I are being sued by Nadia Naffe, who leveled accusations at James O’Keefe last year, and was the subject of criticism at this blog earlier this year. Also named in the lawsuit are Los Angeles County, and Steve Cooley, the District Attorney of Los Angeles County. The complaint has been filed in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08443-GW-MRW, and is captioned Nadia Naffe v. John Patrick Frey, et al.
Brett Kimberlin associates have played a role in instigating this lawsuit. Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser recently admitted in a complaint to my office that he introduced Naffe to attorney Jay Leiderman:
I brought this situation to the attention of Los Angeles attorney Jay Leiderman, then introduced he and Naffe, and he is now representing her in a civil case against Frey.
In the same document, Rauhauser declared that if Naffe is successful, he believes it will put an end to my career as a Deputy D.A.:
[T]he lawsuit he faces from Nadia Naffe is another matter and it is understood that if she prevails that may put an end to Frey’s career in the DA’s ofﬁce.
Above: Neal Rauhauser and Nadia Naffe, 2012
As regular readers are well aware, Rauhauser has long wanted me sued, fired, and so forth for several reasons — one of which is the fact that I have defended James O’Keefe on this blog. Here is a quote from Rauhauser from July 2011:
This new situation is a little different. Patterico I want to see fired from his Deputy District Attorney job, barred from practicing any sort of law, sued to the point of bankruptcy, or criminally charged. Better yet, all five of these would not be sufficient for this tiresome little punk. The motivation, briefly, is that he used to spend his time vigorously defending that little creep James O’Keefe, and his behavior of late seems to indicate he had a hand in the stalking and smearing of Congressman Weiner.
I have not seen the complaint, but a tort claims action Naffe filed earlier this year primarily related to my publication of public documents from the federal PACER system in this post. (The PACER system is open to the public. This, by the way, is the same PACER system that Leiderman encourages his Twitter followers to consult, for details on the lawsuit.)
Naffe’s previous claim also attaches Brett Kimberlin’s State Bar complaint against me. That is one of several details showing a connection between Kimberlin (and his supporters) and Naffe. To cite just a few examples:
Rauhauser and Naffe discussed the issuance of a subpoena for James O’Keefe’s emails.
Kimberlin issued a subpoena for those emails, in a lawsuit (Kimberlin vs. Allen) where there had already been a final judgment.
Rauhauser has claimed that he then rode the train with Naffe to collect the emails.
Brett Kimberlin supporter Breitbart Unmasked claimed that “we” have Naffe “covered” after another Kimberlin supporter complained about my blogging about Naffe:
Breitbart Unmasked also told Naffe to complain about me to my office, reasoning that such complaints cause me to have less power as a blogger:
I am fortunate to have pro bono representation from two fine lawyers: Kenneth P. White (whom you may know from Popehat), and Ron Coleman (whom you may know from Likelihood of Confusion). I will be responsible for expenses, so any help would certainly be appreciated. The tip jar and the Amazon widget are both on the sidebar.
I don’t know to what extent (if any) I will be blogging on this case as it develops. However, I am confident that the court will see that my speech about Naffe was protected under the First Amendment.
On the advice of Ken and Ron, I will not be allowing comments on this post.
You list Patterico on your blog roll. He has been investigated twice for harassment, but slipped both times. He did NOT slip a civil suit from Nadia Naffe, a former employee of James O’Keefe. I set up the lawyer for her after Pat Frey posted her medical records and social security number online. No question it was him – he used his wife’s account and did it during work hours from the offices of the Los Angeles County District Attorney. See the attached documents about Frey & Naffe for proof such things are happening. [Like much of what Neal writes, this paragraph is packed with falsehoods. -- Ed.]
Frey did that because James O’Keefe is facing a state grand jury in New Hampshire. I know this because I talked to the Associate AG in charge of it, and then I hand carried a letter from him into an injunction hearing in New Jersey. Nadia wouldn’t release what she has on O’Keefe without paperwork, the AG was in trial and only had 48 hours to respond, while an out of state subpoena takes a week, so I carried the water for them. I’ve attached a copy of that letter for your reading enjoyment.
If the emails are genuine — and they read very much like Neal Rauhauser’s unique writing style — then they appear to reveal a close working relationship between Brett Kimberlin associate Neal Rauhauser and the New Hampshire Attorney General investigating James O’Keefe.
Someone should call the New Hampshire Attorney General and ask the Assistant Attorney General who wrote the letter, Richard Head (actual name), if Rauhauser’s claims are true.
By the way, a screenshot of part of that letter from Richard Head appeared on the web site of close Kimberlin associate Breitbart Unmasked, on the morning of the hearing.
The emails also reveal that Kimberlin associate Rauhauser put Nadia Naffe up to filing a civil claim against me and my boss, by arranging for her to be represented by Jay Leiderman, a lawyer who has represented at least one figure allegedly from the hacking group Anonymous.
Nadia Naffe has filed a civil claim against me and my boss Steve Cooley. This claim gains special relevance today — because of the identity of Nadia Naffe’s lawyer, together with an email that just emerged this evening.
If this email is genuine, it cements the evidence of: 1) a friendly relationship between Kimberlin associate Neal Rauhauser and attorney Jay Leiderman, and 2) efforts by Rauhauser to turn a person thought to be an enemy of mine against me, by referring that person to Leiderman.
I’m not a lawyer, but what Rauhauser appears to be doing in this May 28 e-mail — besides lying about me — is attempting to inveigle California attorney Jay Leiderman into representing Mike Stack in a nuisance lawsuit against Patrick “Patterico” Frey.
There is a reason I find this particularly interesting.
Namely: in an amazing coincidence, Jay Leiderman happens to be Nadia Naffe’s attorney. In her post about how she desires to sue me and my wife, she posted a link to a document showing service of a civil claim against me and my boss Steve Cooley. That document indicates that her lawyer is Leiderman:
There are many more connections between Naffe and Kimberlin / Kimberlin associates. Perhaps in a future post I’ll have time to lay them all out.
But for now, this one is pretty interesting, eh?
P.S. Here is one more I have time for.
On May 26, 2012, Nadia Naffe also threatened to file a State Bar complaint against me. If she follows through with her threat, she will join Brett Kimberlin in sharing the honor of filing a State Bar Complaint against Patrick Frey:
Naffe also threatened to file a State Bar complaint against my wife, a Democrat who cancels out my vote in every election. She joined Ron Brynaert, Kimberlin associate Neal Rauhauser, and anonymous Brett Kimberlin supporters OccupyRebellion, BreitbartUnmask, LulzShack, and Gaped Crusader (and probably others I am forgetting) in making creepy comments about my wife:
You’re about to listen to one of the most bone-chilling pieces of audio you will ever hear. At least, it was to me when I first heard it.
It’s a phone call that could have gotten me killed.
In this post you will hear that audio clip. You will also read about a months-long campaign of harassment carried out by at least three individuals: Ron Brynaert, Neal Rauhauser, and Brett Kimberlin — much of it directed at critics of Brett Kimberlin. This harassment includes repeated references to critics’ family members, workplace complaints, publication of personal information such as home addresses and pictures of residences, bogus allegations of criminal activity, whisper campaigns, frivolous legal actions, and frivolous State Bar complaints.
And finally, you will hear a comparison of one of those men’s voices to that of the man who made the call that sent police to my home. And you’ll read a declaration from a forensic audio expert comparing those two voices.
BREITBART TOLD THE STORY JUST BEFORE HE DIED
In the last radio interview Andrew Breitbart ever gave, on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Breitbart talked about a new ruthless tactic used by thugs against political opponents:
[O]ne of the things they’ve done to people who have worked with me in the past, including an L.A. prosecutor, is to “SWAT.” That means that they’re spoofing phones, pretending to be somebody else’s phone, calling 911, and saying “I killed somebody” and then the person’s home is met with the guns drawn, the SWAT and the helicopters, in a horrifying act. It’s happened twice: once in New Jersey, once in Los Angeles, with an L.A. County . . . prosecutor who [is] associated with me.”
I am that L.A. County prosecutor. And in this post, you’ll hear the hoax call that sent police to my house, pointing loaded guns at me.
THE NIGHT I COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BECAUSE OF MY BLOGGING
At 12:35 a.m. on July 1, 2011, sheriff’s deputies pounded on my front door and rang my doorbell. They shouted for me to open the door and come out with my hands up.
When I opened the door, deputies pointed guns at me and ordered me to put my hands in the air. I had a cell phone in my hand. Fortunately, they did not mistake it for a gun.
They ordered me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. They handcuffed me. They shouted questions at me: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE HOUSE? and WHERE ARE THEY? and ARE THEY ALIVE?
I told them: Yes, my wife and my children are in the house. They’re upstairs in their bedrooms, sleeping. Of course they’re alive.
Deputies led me down the street to a patrol car parked about 2-3 houses away. At least one neighbor was watching out of her window as I was placed, handcuffed, in the back of the patrol car. I saw numerous patrol cars on my quiet street. There was a police helicopter flying overhead, shining a spotlight down on us as I walked towards the patrol car. Several neighbors later told us the helicopter woke them up. I saw a fire engine and an ambulance. A neighbor later told me they had a HazMat vehicle out on the street as well.
Meanwhile, police rushed into my home. They woke up my wife, led her downstairs and to the front porch, frisked her, and asked her where the children were. Then police ordered her to stand on the front porch with her hands against the wall while they entered my children’s bedrooms to make sure they were alive.
The call that sent deputies to my home was a hoax. Someone had pretended to be me. They called the police to say I had shot my wife. The sheriff’s deputies who arrived at my front door believed they were about to confront an armed man who had just shot his wife. I don’t blame the police for any of their actions. But I blame the person who made the call.
Because I could have been killed.
The weirdest part of the whole thing was that I halfway expected this might happen. Because I was not the first one it had happened to.
I think it’s about time you heard the call that sent police to my home.
“SWATTING” CAN KILL PEOPLE
What you just heard and read is no joke. It actually happened. The phenomenon is called “SWATting,” because it can bring a SWAT team to your front door. SWATting is a particularly dangerous hoax in which a caller, generally a computer hacker, calls a police department to report a shooting at the home of his enemy. The caller will place this call to the police department’s business line, using Skype or a similar service, and hiding behind Internet proxies to make the call impossible to trace. Anxious police, believing they are responding to the home of an armed and dangerous man, show up at the front door pointing guns and screaming orders.
That is exactly what happened to me. It is a very dangerous hoax that could get the target killed.
Above: an anonymous Kimberlin supporter mocks my swatting in August 2011, before it was publicly known. The reference is to an article about a 2008 swatting case in Dallas.
Although I am an L.A. County Deputy D.A., it is certain that I was “swatted” because of my blog and not because of my job. As Andrew Breitbart noted, this happened to two people within the course of a single week: a man in New Jersey and myself. Both of us had had contact with Andrew Breitbart. Both of us were writing about the same story. And both of us received email threats days before we were swatted. The threat to me said, in part: “Please think about your family. This story is not worth it. I can assure you that.”
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
So who perpetrated this crime on me and my family?
I reported the crime to the FBI on July 1, 2011. (Obviously, the Sheriff’s Department was already aware of it, since they had come to my house.) Unfortunately, law enforcement has not solved the case. Worse, they have failed to follow up on a number of leads I have given them.
But there is circumstantial evidence suggesting who may be responsible. I met personally with the nationwide experts on swatting in December 2011: the FBI office in Dallas, Texas. They told me that swatting is an extreme form of harassment — and that swatters typically combine swatting with other forms of harassment, including: complaining to the victim’s workplace, defaming the victim online, “Googlebombing” the victim, publishing the victim’s address online, filing phony reports of criminal activity by the victim, and so forth.
All of these things have happened to me and other critics of Brett Kimberlin since July 2011. The harassment has been relentless and has occurred almost every day. It would literally take a book to catalogue it all. What you read in this post, incredibly, is only part of it.
Why target me? Well, I first wrote about Brett Kimberlin in October 2010, after getting a call from Andrew Breitbart. Andrew told me that his site was going to publish a post about a domestic terrorist named Brett Kimberlin. The story sounded interesting, and I published a post about Kimberlin shortly after the Breitbart post (penned by Mandy Nagy aka Liberty Chick) was published.
It’s fair to say I have been one of Brett Kimberlin’s least favorite people in the world for a good long time now.
THE RELENTLESS AND VICIOUS HARASSMENT OF CRITICS OF BRETT KIMBERLIN, BY KIMBERLIN AND HIS SUPPORTERS
Beginning about the time I was swatted in July 2011, the harassment I had already experienced from Kimberlin was stepped up several notches — and other Kimberlin critics were also targeted. Several anonymous accounts identifying themselves as supporters of Kimberlin’s have participated in the harassment. These anonymous harassers go by names like @OccupyRebellion, @BreitbartUnmask, Gaped Crusader, and “Just Call Me Lefty.”
But much of the harassment Kimberlin critics have experienced has occurred at the hands of three named individuals: Ron Brynaert, Neal Rauhauser, and Brett Kimberlin.
Meet Ron Brynaert
Ron Brynaert is a so-called “journalist” who last August threatened me and my wife in the most despicable manner possible:
References to my wife come completely out of left field. She is a Democrat and cancels out my vote in every election. The only reason anyone would bring her up online is to intimidate and harass my family.
Brynaert explicitly connected his desire to do violence to me to his defense of Brett Kimberlin. The night he threatened me and my wife, Brynaert defended Kimberlin in a long series of tweets pointing out alleged holes in the case against Kimberlin. Brynaert said I was slandering Kimberlin:
One of Brynaert’s arguments was that certain of the witnesses against Kimberlin had been hypnotized. Apparently, it greatly upset Brynaert that I wasn’t responding to this argument, and he threatened violence as a result:
Ron Brynaert has been a guest blogger at The Brad Blog, run by Brad Friedman, a business partner of Brett Kimberlin’s. Brynaert has described himself as a friend of Friedman’s. Brynaert was for years the editor of a Raw Story, a publication that has teamed up with the Brad Blog to put out Brad Friedman’s radio show:
Neal Rauhauser is a creepy far-left activist. There is evidence that, using the handle “Iowa Boy,” Rauhauser has engaged in violent rhetoric, including calling for the public hanging of Republicans and the shooting of Dick Cheney. Rauhauser speaks regularly of the hacking group Anonymous and frequently suggests that his enemies are opening themselves up to Internet harassment.
Three days after I was swatted, Rauhauser wrote a post titled “Patterico’s Penalization” that made bizarre accusations about me, and accused me of working with a “cyberstalker” named Seth Allen — a blogger who had criticized Brett Kimberlin so tenaciously that Kimberlin (frivolously) sued Allen for defamation. In that post, Rauhauser publicized a State Bar complaint that Kimberlin had filed against me, and asked readers to get a picture of my wife. Rauhauser also suggested that a private detective stake out Seth Allen’s apartment:
Here is Rauhauser further publicizing Brett Kimberlin’s State Bar complaint against me, and stating his belief that if enough such complaints accumulate, I will be fired:
And here is Rauhauser talking about how he wants to see me fired, prosecuted, and bankrupted — all for purely political reasons:
Kimberlin has described Rauhauser as an “associate” of his. Rauhauser has written of working with Kimberlin and meeting with him personally. They have appeared in court together. Rauhauser has spoken of working with Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution organization on Occupy events. In 2011, Rauhauser talked of a new job that he had, and of moving to Maryland — the state that is home to Brett Kimberlin and Velvet Revolution.
Above: as “WeOccupyAmerica, Rauhauser says he is closely connected with Brynaert, to his “chagrin.”
HOW BRYNAERT, RAUHAUSER, KIMBERLIN AND ANONYMOUS INTERNET ENTITIES HAVE TARGETED KIMBERLIN CRITICS FOR RELENTLESS HARASSMENT
On many occasions, Ron Brynaert, Neal Rauhauser, Brett Kimberlin, and anonymous Kimberlin supporters have harassed me and other Kimberlin critics in a similar manner — using tactics that the FBI told me are characteristic of swatters:
Harassment of wives and family members – As noted above, Rauhauser asked readers for pictures of my wife. He and Brynaert have spoken of investigating my wife’s work as a Deputy District Attorney. Rauhauser and @OccupyRebellion have insinuated that my wife played a role in impersonating fake teens in the Anthony Weiner scandal. Kimberlin supporters @OccupyRebellion and @BreitbartUnmask have spoken of obtaining a picture of my wife. The Gaped Crusader constantly brought up my wife.
The Gaped Crusader wrote like Neal Rauhauser, talked about the same topics as Neal Rauhauser, and once left a comment on my site with the same IP address that Neal Rauhauser used to leave a comment on another site.
Brynaert has said my wife and I should be fired, and (as noted) has talked about taking a “shit” on my wife.
The obsession with family members recently extended to Stacy McCain, with Kimberlin apparently having contacting Stacy’s wife’s employer, causing McCain to flee his house. Kimberlin supporter @BreitbartUnmask has mentioned the names of Stacy’s children online. @BreitbartUnmask has publicly outed a commenter of mine, discussed that commenter’s divorce records, and named his father.
Publication of home addresses – OccupyforAccountability.org, a site related to Kimberlin, published my home address, as well as a Google street view and Google aerial view of my home. The “Gaped Crusader” republished that address.
Donations at OccupyforAccountability.org go to Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution. The same post published what the author stated was Andrew Breitbart’s home address. Andrew later told me it was actually a home owned by Andrew’s parents and rented out to others. Kimberlin later sent interrogatories to me at the address listed on OccupyforAccountability.org — and sent interrogatories to Andrew at the address the site had listed for Andrew. Andrew’s interrogatories eventually made their way to him, and he told me about it and gave me a copy of them.
Kimberlin unnecessarily put Aaron Walker’s home address in court documents. Kimberlin had a habit of putting information into court documents — information that is later disseminated by Rauhauser and Brynaert.
Workplace complaints – Brynaert and Kimberlin have both filed complaints against me with my office. (Rauhauser and Brynaert have spoken of these complaints publicly.)
When Brynaert contacted my office, he initially called the very same person Kimberlin had complained to — even though that person was no longer my boss. If Brynaert had simply called asking for my boss, the office would probably not have routed Brynaert to the same person Kimberlin had complained to. But if Brynaert asked for that same person by name, they would route the call to that person.
Kimberlin also spoke to at least two secretaries in my office, calling me a stalker, a racist, a homophobe, and saying he was going to have to get a restraining order against me. I had to explain to the secretaries that the man who called them had been convicted of setting off several bombs and had been sentenced to 50 years in federal prison — but was now free and harassing me.
Rauhauser has encouraged people to file complaints against me, as has anonymous Kimberlin supporter @BreitbartUnmask. The “Gaped Crusader” spoke of sending packets of defamatory material about me to candidates running in the election for District Attorney, as well as to defense attorneys on my cases. As noted, Brynaert has stated that my wife and I should be fired. Anonymous Kimberlin supporter @OccupyRebellion constantly talks about how I will be fired and disbarred.
Brynaert wrote to Andrew Breitbart defaming his employee Mandy Nagy (aka Liberty Chick), who wrote that comprehensive piece about Kimberlin in October 2010 I mentioned earlier.
Kimberlin put Aaron Walker’s home and work address into court documents. The inclusion of the work address contributed to Aaron’s being fired, due to the employer’s fear that a convicted bomber might appear at their workplace.
Brynaert contacted a man named Ken Ashford in an attempt to learn Aaron Walker’s real name, and threatened to email every member of Ashford’s firm claiming Ashford had harassed him. Brynaert later contacted the Human Resources Department at Ashford’s firm to complain about him.
Abuse of court process – Kimberlin has filed numerous frivolous court actions against Aaron Walker and Seth Allen. The details of the court appearances are frequently reported — with a pro-Kimberlin spin — by Rauhauser and Brynaert. In a blatant abuse of the court’s process, Kimberlin served invalid interrogatories in the Seth Allen lawsuit on me, Aaron Walker, Mandy Nagy, and Andrew Breitbart. Rauhauser and @OccupyRebellion publicly referred to those interrogatories and asked when we were going to answer them.
When police gave Kimberlin a picture of Allen from his driver’s license, that picture made its way into the hands of Rauhauser and Brynaert, who published it online.
Kimberlin threatened to sue me right after I first published my first blog post about him. He told Walker’s pro bono attorney that he is planning a RICO lawsuit against me, Nagy, Walker, and Seth Allen.
Nadia Naffe’s civil claim against me — Nadia Naffe has now filed a civil claim against me and my boss Steve Cooley — and the lawyer is Jay Leiderman, an online buddy of Neal Rauhauser’s who put out a request on a defense attorney mailing list to investigate whether any defense attorneys don’t like me. Although I have not seen the legal claim myself, excerpts of Naffe’s legal claim have appeared at the web site of self-described Kimberlin supporter and Rauhauser friend BreitbartUnmasked.com. Before the claim was filed, Rauhauser and @BreitbartUnmasked encouraged Naffe to file the sorts of claims that appear in the civil claim.
Naffe has publicly said that she plans to use her lawsuit against me to ask questions in discovery about the value of my house — a topic in which Rauhauser and @OccupyRebellion have expressed interest in the past. According to a friend of mine, Naffe has also said that she plans to ask me and my wife under oath the true identity of conservative blogger Ace of Spades. Which is not something she ought to care about, since Ace had never said a word about her (although he has now).
You know who cares about Ace’s identity? Brett Kimberlin supporter @BreitbartUnmask. He has written entire posts about Ace’s identity. And before I was swatted, someone threatened me by email. That person threatened one other person the same night: Ace of Spades.
Additionally, Brett Kimberlin has used a subpoena in the Seth Allen lawsuit to subpoena James O’Keefe’s stolen emails from Naffe — despite the fact that there has been a final judgment in that lawsuit.
Outing – Ace has good reason to be concerned, as this group has a history of outing anonymous critics. Aaron Walker’s identity was outed by Brett Kimberlin after he received an “anonymous tip.” Seth Allen’s identity was also outed by Kimberlin.
In addition to furiously harassing Ken Ashford for Aaron Walker’s true name, Ron Brynaert also wrote Yale alumni affairs officials asking for information about Aaron. Within a single day of Brynaert’s failed campaign to learn Aaron’s true name and location, Brett Kimberlin wrote Aaron demanding that Aaron disclose his true name and location.
Whisper campaigns – Brynaert and Kimberlin have both contacted people that they identified as online “enemies” of mine to complain of alleged harassment at my hands. Brynaert has recently taken to contacting other major bloggers to defame me, Aaron Walker, and Mandy Nagy. I have been forwarded emails by Brynaert from several notable bloggers.
Frivolous claims of criminal wrongdoing – I am told Kimberlin filed frivolous claims of stalking against me with an anti-stalking unit in my office. Rauhauser has encouraged people to report me to that same unit. Interestingly enough, the anonymous person who threatened me by email before I was swatted mentioned the very same unit.
Brynaert has also constantly claimed that critics of Kimberlin have stalked him and Kimberlin. @OccupyRebellion has made the same claim.
I am told Kimberlin filed frivolous criminal charges against me with the California Attorney General. Rauhauser encouraged Daily Kos readers to file complaints against me with the California Attorney General.
Rauhauser compiled a large packet of defamatory material accusing me, Walker, Nagy, and others of participating in criminal activity, and said he had sent it to state police in New Jersey and the FBI in Baltimore. He made the entire packet available as a torrent.
Writing as Stranded Wind at Daily Kos (where he has since been banned), Rauhauser insinuated that I had obtained forged documentation during the course of my employment to support claims by shadowy Internet entity John Reid. @OccupyRebellion has made the same insinuations.
Rauhauser and anonymous Kimberlin supporters claimed that I criminally intimidated a witness by criticizing Nadia Naffe on my blog — an allegation that apparently has surfaced in her civil claim against me and my boss Steve Cooley.
Kimberlin claimed Walker assaulted him in a courthouse and made several claims regarding the incident that have been disproven by a video. Kimberlin’s claims were repeated by Brynaert, @OccupyRebellion, and @BreitbartUnmask. Rauhauser and @OccupyRebellion falsely alleged that Walker had been arrested for this crime, and repeatedly asserted that he had beaten Kimberlin.
Brynaert has recently accused Aaron Walker of “extortion” for sending Brynaert a settlement demand letter in Walker’s lawsuit against Brynaert. Brynaert accused me and Mandy Nagy of being part of the “conspiracy” to “extort” Brynaert. In fact, just yesterday, Brynaert used the threat of going to the NYPD as a way to deter me from publishing this post, saying that he was going to the police as soon as I published:
I’m waiting until a certain Deputy District Attorney – who has been enabling my blackmailer – to publish his lies, then I’m going to NYPD.
Brynaert has accused me of criminal harassment. @OccupyRebellion has consistently accused me, Walker, and Nagy of being criminals.
Brynaert, Rauhauser, and @OccupyRebellion have insinuated or stated that I was not swatted, that I filed a false police report concerning that swatting, and that in fact I am the person who committed the swatting of the man in New Jersey.
Frivolous State Bar complaints or threats to file State Bar complaints – Kimberlin filed a frivolous State Bar complaint against me, and has now filed a State Bar complaint against Aaron Walker. Kimberlin insinuated he might file a State Bar complaint against Walker’s pro bono lawyer. Brynaert threatened to file a State Bar complaint against Aaron Walker and Ken Ashford (the man who refused to tell Brynaert the true name of Aaron Walker).
General harassment – The “Gaped Crusader,” published a picture of a naked man with his penis exposed, and claimed that it was Deputy District Attorney John Patrick Frey. Here are some Gaped Crusader screenshots:
The image above was not fuzzed out on the Gaped Crusader blog.
Kimberlin supporter @BreitbartUnmasked harassed Aaron on Twitter, and gave accurate details about Aaron’s driving record that do not appear to be publicly available.
After a court appearance in which Aaron tried to get a peace order against Rauhauser, Rauhauser wrote an email to me and other friends of his which said, among other things: “Given Walker’s state of mind I would say his wife might find him hanging in the garage tonight when she gets home from work.”
Rauhauser called me at my office and left a message on my work voice mail, claiming that Aaron appeared to be suffering a psychological breakdown and needed help.
Rauhauser and anonymous Kimberlin supporters have consistently accused Aaron of being bigoted against Muslims. Rauhauser wrote Aaron mocking emails talking about how Muslims were likely to try to kill him because of his “Everyone Draw Mohammed” site. Kimberlin wrote Aaron’s local police purporting to be concerned that, because Kimberlin had been “forced” (he claimed) to file a court document containing all Aaron’s personal information, that Muslims would get hold of that document and put Aaron in danger. Even after Aaron lost his job, someone either arranged for, or pretended to be, a Muslim group that threatened to take protest and diplomatic actions against Aaron’s workplace until they heard Aaron had been fired.
Kimberlin defenders took court audio of Allen and put it on YouTube, showing a graphic of Allen’s face from his driver’s license picture.
Mandy Nagy endured months of harassment from Rauhauser, @Occupy Rebellion, and others. @OccupyRebellion mocked Nagy’s illnesses and personal tragedies. She told Nagy that she hoped Nagy died of cancer. She claimed that Nagy (a rape victim) had never been raped. She repeatedly called Nagy a “cunt.” And she told Nagy that Nagy had put her own family’s life in danger.
Nagy says she has been told by friends that people have been calling them asking questions about her, and that she has seen people seemingly staking out her residence in various vehicles.
Meanwhile, @OccupyRebellion and Rauhauser have incessantly accused Nagy of “baiting” Anonymous. This claim itself functions to stir up Anonymous accounts, in an apparent effort to get Anonymous to hack Nagy.
Heard enough about this harassment? Then let’s move on to the voice on my swatting call.
When I obtained the recording of my swatting, in July 2011, I thought I recognized the voice.
To me, it sounded like Brynaert. Specifically, it sounded like someone trying to disguise his voice at the beginning of the call, by talking in a monotone. Then, at the end of the call, when the dispatcher challenged the caller, the voice seemed to lose its disguised quality . . . and it sounded like Brynaert to me.
Here’s the thing: Brynaert was talking to me on the phone when the police came to my house. That is something that the FBI in Dallas also told me fits the M.O. of a swatter.
Before that phone call, Ron Brynaert had told me that he had important information for me about the Anthony Weiner case. And that is how I ended up talking to him on the phone on the night of June 30, 2011, leading into the early morning hours of July 1.
And that is how it happened that he was on the phone with me when the police showed up to my door.
Let’s listen to Brynaert’s voice compared to that of the caller:
I pushed and pushed for law enforcement to do a forensic comparison of Brynaert’s voice to that of the swatter. I found an interview of Brynaert online, so there was a ready sample for comparison. But they wouldn’t do it. (I was constantly frustrated by the failure of law enforcement to follow up on what seemed like obvious leads. More about that at a future date.)
I first approached Kent in August 2011, but at the time I was still trying to convince law enforcement to do the comparison themselves. By January 2012 I had given up on law enforcement. I sent Kent my swatting call; the swatting call from New Jersey; a call to BlogTalkRadio that sounded like the swatter; and the Ron Brynaert interview.
In this case the following files were presented for evaluation: Tag names for these four recordings are shown in BOLD. The[y] represent calls from two Swat Hoax cases, one involving Patrick Frey and one involving Mike Stack [the man from New Jersey -- ed.].
G-8025959 FREY SWAT – Call made to 911 claiming a shooting at Mr. Frey’s residence on 7/1/2011 at 12:16 AM. Caller impersonates Patrick Frey.
Stack Call – STACK SWAT – Call made to police dispatch in Readington, New Jersey. 6/23/2011 Caller impersonates Mike Stack.
Ron Brynaert Interview.mp3 – BRYNAERT KNOWN – an internet radio interview. This caller is suspected of being the Swat caller re: Frey.
Lee Call-in Radio Show – LEE KNOWN (Lee is interviewer’s name, not caller.) This caller is suspected of being the Swat caller re: Stack.
. . . .
CONCLUSION: Considering all of the evidence presented, it is my expert forensic examiner opinion that it is probable that all voice samples come from the same person.
In other words, it is the opinion of an expert forensic examiner that Ron Brynaert’s voice is probably the voice of the man on my swatting call. A call that could have gotten me killed.
What you have just read is a summary. I have lived this daily — literally daily — for almost a year. There are pieces of evidence I didn’t have room to include. There is so much evidence of harassment it would take you weeks to read about it all.
What’s more, I know that this post is going to result in more harassment. I will almost certainly be sued, despite my careful efforts to stick to the facts. There will likely be more complaints to my workplace.
And I have a feeling they’ll find creative new ways to try to rip my life apart.
As an aside, I have listened to Brett Kimberlin in court audio, saying he meets with Congressmen on a regular basis. I want to make sure these Congressmen know what he’s doing.
I have appreciated the support I have felt in recent days, with people like Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Stacy McCain, Ace, and many others stepping up and being willing to take on this topic.
It is my hope that the support of the blogosphere will not melt away after today. Because the harassment will almost certainly live on.
It’s an important battle to take on. And I want to stress that this should not be a partisan issue. I believe Brett Kimberlin uses lefty politics as a tool — but he doesn’t believe any of it in his heart. He is looking for a buck. I have been heartened to see left-leaning people of all stripes stand up to this guy in the past, from Mark Singer, the author of Citizen K; to Ken Ashford, who refused to give up Aaron Walker’s identity; to the left-leaning lawyer who represented Aaron pro bono.
It is my hope that left-leaning blogs will recognize that this is not a partisan issue. It is a free speech issue.
Remember how I said one of my commenters was outed? And this crew started talking about his parents? And his divorce records? For being a commenter of mine?
What happened to me could literally happen to anyone. It could happen to you.
If you take nothing else from this post, remember that. It could happen to you.
As always, opinions on this site are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. I speak in my personal capacity and not my official capacity, and do not intend to speak on behalf of my office in any way.
UPDATE: I received this today from Roxanne Cooper:
Raw Story was founded by John Byrne in 2004, and has only ever been owned by John Byrne (and minority-stake owner Mike Rogers, who joined in 2009). Roxanne Cooper became the publisher in October 2010, shortly before Ron Brynaert ended his tenure at the publication. Since March 2011, the editorial direction has been under the management of Megan Carpentier, who has complete editorial discretion separate from management.
Brett Kimberlin and Velvet Revolution are not and never have been involved in the ownership, management or editorial direction of Raw Story. Neither Carpentier nor Cooper had ever heard of Kimberlin or Velvet Revolution prior to the start of the events described by Aaron Worthing, Mandy Nagy and Patrick Frey.
Poking around PACER, one finds the most interesting things. Things that journalists like Tommy Christopher might want to look into, if they found themselves writing about Nadia Naffe. The following is from an order made by the court overseeing that lawsuit, after taking testimony from Naffe regarding a laptop that she had been lent by the Florida Republican Party during her employment. The court found that she had been asked to return it, and intentionally did not:
The relevance of the laptop is described in her deposition, which I found on PACER as well, in three parts: one, two, and three. Interesting reading. Apparently she believed she had been given an inferior laptop, presumably because she was black, given the lawsuit’s allegations.
But I guess it was good enough to keep after she was terminated, even though she had been instructed to return it.
By the way, I should note that Naffe has threatened to report me to my State Bar and my place of employment for writing posts critical of her:
The theory is that, by pointing out holes in her story, on a public blog, concerning a matter of public interest, I am giving James O’Keefe “legal advice” in a civil suit.
The claim is absurd. If a non-lawyer criticizes O’Keefe, in a way that gives her a legal argument in court, is that practicing law without a license? No self-respecting employer or bar investigator would buy this logic, so she moved on to another false claim: that I updated my blog on company time. You can add that to a large set of other falsehoods she has told in recent days and weeks.
The motive is to silence me. The likely result is that her tactics will draw greater attention to my criticism of her claims, and her tactics of trying to silence her critics.
UPDATE: Interesting points in comments about the medications she was taking, and how those medications don’t mix well with alcohol. One of the medications, Seroquil, is commonly prescribed for schizophrenia, mania, or bipolar disorder — all afflictions that may well not be temporary. If she was still taking the medications in late 2011, it could explain why she allegedly had such a strong reaction to alcohol. Details here.
There is another point about Seroquil that, together with the above information, might make for an interesting post. Will have to think about this one . . .
I had hoped to do a monstrous post today noting all the very odd aspects about Nadia Naffe’s story that Tommy Christopher ignored in his credulous reporting yesterday. But there are just too many, and I was tired last night and didn’t have time to compile them all.
So I will probably do that post over the weekend or on Monday. In the meantime, I am looking for some crowdsourcing. What odd aspects did you notice?
My post yesterday is a good place to start; I don’t need to hear those things repeated.
In a stream of consciousness here, these are the questions Tommy should be asking but is not:
Why did you tell a judge this was all not harassment?
Why do you claim the barn is remote when it is provably in a populated suburban area close to the street?
Why didn’t you call a cab, since you had a phone and were calling people?
Why do you say O’Keefe’s companion was brought to intimidate you and also say he was hiding?
What does it mean when you say O’Keefe “downloaded and/or linked his Gmail account to my device”?
Does that morally justify your publishing his emails?
Where are the Andrew Breitbart allegations?
Where is the evidence of a “rape plot”?
Why did you retweet Andrew Breitbart favorably in late 2011 concerning Occupy after the barn incident?
What changed in mid-February 2011 that made you turn on Andrew?
If you turned your back, how do you know O’Keefe stopped by your beer?
Why are you hurting innocent women who were allegedly done wrong by O’Keefe?
If you were given roofies, how do you remember so much?
How much did you in fact have to drink?
What do you think this is doing to your job prospects and what does that say about what’s really going on here?
Why are you cozy with Internet thugs?
Why do you say you retweet things so the FBI can get people’s IP addresses?
Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Why do some of your friends claim it’s not you running the account?
Why do you tweet things to noted Breitbart hater @NicoleGennette?
Why did you make a snarky remark about Andrew’s heart attack on the day he died?
Why did you smear Patterico as a racist on Twitter when you knew it wasn’t true?
Did you publish your entire email to O’Keefe’s board of directors?
If you didn’t, why not, and what did you leave out?
Why do you say O’Keefe “stole” pictures of you from Facebook but “gave” you his emails because he supposedly checked them from your phone?
Just to name a few.
Surely you have some of your own!
UPDATE: A court has granted a temporary restraining order against Naffe’s releasing any further emails and ordered her to bring all copies in her possession with her to court.
UPDATE x2: I have the injunction and will post it when I get home. I can’t upload it from a phone.
UPDATE x3: The injunction is available here. Here is a screenshot of the relevant portion of the order:
You may have noticed that Naffe is now threatening to report me to the State Bar for this post, which is, she claims, “legal advice.” Because I point out holes in her story, she says, that constitutes “legal advice” to James O’Keefe in a civil matter. She also falsely accuses me of updating the post during work hours.
I have seen this playbook before, folks.
By the way: given Naffe’s admission that she accessed O’Keefe’s emails, evidently without his permission, has she committed a crime? I offer no opinion on that, as this post (like all my posts!) is written in my private capacity, as an exercise of my rights as a private citizen under the First Amendment. I do wonder, however, whether the authorities are going to be investigating her for accessing O’Keefe’s email without his permission.
The big Nadia Naffe barn incident story is online. I don’t particularly feel like linking or quoting it; I’m sure you can find it if you want to. I don’t have a lot of time to discuss it, so I’ll just throw out a few quick questions to Nadia that I predict she and the partisan hacks writing about this story (hi Tommy Christopher!) will ignore:
Where is the evidence of a “rape plot”?
Where is the evidence that Andrew Breitbart ignored a “rape plot”?
If there was a “rape plot” then why did you testify that what happened that night was not harassment?
Why not call a cab? Why call Andrew Breitbart (who was all the way across the country) instead?
“James had downloaded and/or linked his Gmail account to my device.” What does “and/or” mean? Don’t you know which happened?
If someone accesses their Gmail from your phone or computer, and you are later able to re-enter their account, does that morally entitle you to access their account and download years’ worth of emails, as you insinuate you have done — or to publish all their emails online, as you have threatened to do?
Just how “remote” was this barn?
Why didn’t you mention your threat to destroy O’Keefe’s computers?
Is there anything missing from your republication of that email you sent to O’Keefe and his board of directors? If so, what does it say?
Why all the coziness with Anons and Internet thugs on Twitter?
The “and/or” thing is quite striking.
Countdown to Tommy Christopher uncritically repeating all this as if it’s a damning story with no holes in 5…4…3..