Sandra Tsing Loh writes in the L.A. Times about Cathy Seipp, blogger coverage of her death and funeral — and the cybersquatter:

Into this heartfelt swaying and singing of “We Are Cathy’s World” entered the cyber-squatter. This is the disgruntled blogger who years ago bought the domain name cathyseipp.com; as a result, Cathy blogged from cathyseipp.net. What he did on cathyseipp.com varied — first he posted as Cathy, and then he merely posted disparaging comments about Cathy, Photoshopping her and her daughter’s heads atop various bodies.

On the one hand, it would be hard to confuse cathyseipp.com with her actual site. On the other hand, when the cyber-squatter last week reverted to his earlier ways, posting a “last blog entry” signed “Cathy Seipp” in which Cathy supposedly begged final forgiveness for her politics, her friends and her parenting … this seemed to cross a new line.

Indeed it did. I gather that the site has since been taken down, and I won’t repeat any of what I remember reading there — but it was enough to make your blood boil.

By week’s end, Cathy’s family and friends were debating whether to take legal action. Everyone was offended, exhausted and still staggered with grief.

I received a phone call and e-mails from a couple of people in the circle of friends, looking for a way to put a stop to the ghoulish ravings of the evident lunatic who — coward that he is — had chosen to lash out at Cathy once she went unconscious and couldn’t strike back. I debated, not so much questions of legal action (I couldn’t help with that, but put them in touch with Justin Levine, who did render some small assistance), but questions of whether to publicize it. (I didn’t want to give the cretin any more publicity. Evidently I was in the minority. It seems a moot point now that it’s in the L.A. Times.)

Over at Cathy’s World, commenters seem slightly taken aback at what they perceive as a slight hostility on the part of Ms. Loh towards bloggers. Well, given that her spirited, funny, and somewhat uncomfortable eulogy was recorded and posted by one of those bloggers — and given the situation with the cybersquatter — I think any such attitude can be forgiven for now. Especially if Ms. Loh isn’t that familiar with us.

But we’re not all that bad. Cathy knew that. Heck, she was one of us.

David Ehrenstein and I had an exchange of e-mails in which he promised not to engage in the sort of behavior here that got him banned before. I have accordingly agreed to reinstate his commenting privileges.

We’ll see how it works out.

That offer remains open to any banned commenter who makes a sincere pledge to change their ways, by the way. Ehrenstein is just the only one who inquired about it.

It’s all part of my never-ending campaign to Crush Dissent.

Kevin Roderick’s dad has died.

Send him a nice note:

editor@laobserved.com

Mickey Kaus:

The LAT‘s Tim Rutten has defended against the charge that he’s “sanctimonious” by publishing a piece titled “These rules we live by.” Oh-kay!

Heh.

I still want to see Rutten address how Rummygate affects his claim that David Hiller “had no trouble at all recognizing an ethical train wreck when he saw it coming.” Maybe it’s harder if you’re the guy driving the train?

In any event, it’s all moot now. The guest editor idea, you won’t be surprised to learn, is dead. (H/t Roderick.)

Tony Snow’s cancer has returned. It’s in his liver.

Best wishes to him.

Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino made the announcement today, and added instructions from Snow to reporters: “Tell them not to bug me.”

What a class act.

UPDATE: Speaking of class acts, Charles Karel Bouley, blogging at the Huffington Post, has this lovely quote:

I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you. Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot? I know, it’s terrible. I admit it. I don’t wish anyone harm, even Tony Snow. And I do hope he recovers or at least does what he feels is best and surrounds himself with friends and family for his journey. But in the back of my head there’s Justin Timberlake’s “What goes around, goes around, comes around, comes all the way back around, ya..”

. . . .

Now, I’ve been brutally honest above, and may have offended some, and for that I’m sorry. Again, I don’t want Tony Snow to suffer and die of cancer. But like many this morning, I had the thought.

Note well, Glenn Greenwald: this is not an anonymous commenter. It is a blogger at one of the top left-wing blogs on the Internet.

Of course, many of the anonymous commenters are with him.

P.S. The commenters’ statements would be meaningful to Glenn Greenwald if 1) you had to register to comment at the Huffington Post; and 2) similar hateful comments about right-wingers had appeared on previous Huffington Post posts; and 3) those previous hateful comments, along with the current hateful comments, had not been deleted. [Bystander hands Patterico a note.] Wait — this just in: all of those things are true.

Well, then. Stand by for the Greenwald denunciation!

UPDATE: Jim Treacher doesn’t wish harm on Charles Karel Bouley. But he had the thought.

What ever became of those prosecutions the Bush Administration was allegedly trying to affect with the U.S. Attorney’s firings? Were prosecutions against Democrats suddenly jump-started after the firings? Did prosecutions against Republicans die on the vine?

I’m kind of thinking that the answer is no. Career prosecutors are unlikely to have their work affected on a significant ongoing political prosecution by replacing who is in charge of the office.

But the only specific I remember off the top of my head is that Foggo got indicted.

I’m looking for facts and links, folks. Facts and links. If someone, or a collection of you, can compile a good list, with links, I’ll post it.

I know that the comments will likely be filled with arguments about whether it should matter who is in charge, whether the firings ought to have had an effect, were intended to have an effect, and the like. I can’t stop you from making these arguments. But what I’m really asking for is facts and links.

Don’t think of it as laziness on my part. Think of it as a chance to participate!

Although really, it’s just laziness on my part.

P.S. (OK, really, I’m just pressed for time and busy with other things. But it’s funnier to say I’m lazy.)

Army Lawyer sheds further light on Jarek Molski, the vexatious ADA litigant highlighted in my post yesterday. Army Lawyer quotes us a passage from a federal decision that gives us all a bit more insight into the deceitful scumbag this fellow is:

For example, in Molski v. El 7 Mares Restaurant, Case No. C04-1882 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski claims that, on May 20, 2003, he and significant other, Brygida Molski, attended the El 7 Mares Restaurant for the purposes of dining out. Molski alleges that the restaurant lacked adequate handicapped parking, and that the food counter was too high. After the meal, Molski attempted to use the restroom, but because the toilet’s grab bars were improperly installed, he injured his shoulders in the process of transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet. Thereafter, he was unable to wash his hands because of the lavatory’s design.

Although this complaint appears credible standing alone, its validity is undermined when viewed alongside Molski’s other complaints. In Molski v. Casa De Fruta, L.P., Case No. C04-1981 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski alleges that he sustained nearly identical injuries on the exact same day, May 20, 2003. In Casa de Fruta, Molski alleges that he and significant other, Brygida Molski, patronized Casa de Fruta for the purpose of wine tasting. On arrival, Molski was again unable to locate van accessible parking. Once inside, Molski again found the counter to be too high. After wine tasting, Molski again decided to use the restroom, and again, injured his upper extremities while in the process of transferring himself to the toilet. Thereafter, he was once again unable to wash his hands due to the design of the lavatory.

This was, apparently, not the end of Molski’s day. In Molski v. Rapazzini Winery, Case No. C04-1881 (N.D. Cal. 2004), Molski once again alleges that he sustained nearly identical injuries on the exact same day, May 20, 2003. Molski, again accompanied by Brygida Molski, claims he visited the Rapazzini Winery for the purpose of wine tasting. Again, Molski complains that the parking lot lacked adequate handicapped van accessible parking. Upon entering the establishment, he discovered that the counter was too high. After tasting wine, he again needed to use the restroom. In the course of transferring himself from his wheelchair to the toilet, he injured himself yet again. Thereafter, he was again unable to wash his hands due to the lavatory’s design.

The Court is tempted to exclaim: “what a lousy day!” It would be highly unusual — to say the least — for anyone to sustain two injuries, let alone three, in a single day, each of which necessitated a separate federal lawsuit. But in Molski’s case, May 20, 2003, was simply business as usual. Molski filed 13 separate complaints for essentially identical injuries sustained between May 19, 2003 and May 23, 2003. The Court simply does not believe that Molski suffered 13 nearly identical injuries, generally to the same part of his body, in the course of performing the same activity, over a five-day period. This is to say nothing of the hundreds of other lawsuits Molski has filed over the last four years, many of which make nearly identical allegations. The record before this Court leads it to conclude that these suits were filed maliciously, in order to extort a cash settlement.

The decision is Molski v. Mandarin Touch Rest., 347 F. Supp. 2d 860. Thanks to Army Lawyer.

Simpsons fans will inevitably be reminded of the classic Mongomery Burns quote:

Three misfortunes, that’s possible. Seven misfortunes, there’s an outside chance. But nine misfortunes? I’d like to see that!

How about thirteen, Mr. Burns?