Documents from Nadia Naffe’s Race Discrimination Case Against the RNC: The Computer That Was Never Returned
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 . . .
Did I just give legal advice again? Dammit!Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:15 pm
And it was on company time, too, since I have to work all weekend (at home) — and took a few minutes out of that weekend work schedule to write this post.
Double whammy!Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:17 pm
She’s a piece o’ work. A perennial victim of discrimination/litiGATOR.Colonel Haiku (bd479c) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:21 pm
I find Nadia to be of sufficient intellectual heft to be able to possibly keep up with my 6th Grade daughter. Harvard, my a**. Unless Harvard has a Middle School.dfbaskwill (c021f2) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:23 pm
I’ve seen a lot of people start walking on eggshells when these kinds of charges and innuendos are pushed out into the public square.
Patrick cowboys the f up and rides it.
Breitbart would be proudSteveG (e27d71) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:30 pm
Harvard does have an Extension School. I believe anyone can attend.
Wonder if Tommy C. should look into that too.
But there I go, a sympathizer with the “Klu” Klux Klan, suggesting that someone who thinks “your” is the contraction for “you are” (as demonstrated by consistent tweets over months) is not necessarily Harvard material.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:31 pm
“She’s a piece o’ work.”
She’s a piece of something…but, it ain’t work.Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:36 pm
Sure hope the teacher’s union doesn’t come after Patterico now for giving Nadia unauthorized grammar lessons.elissa (ea306b) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:39 pm
That was a very clever comment.Patterico (2422ef) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:41 pm
BTW, you’ve gotta love the Streisand effect.Dustin (330eed) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:45 pm
When the Black Panther’s put up a reward, an Louis F. marks citizens for death we’re looking at a spot of bother.gary gulrud (d88477) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:55 pm
you gave him 29 BULLET POINTSbuilderD (958987) — 3/24/2012 @ 5:56 pm
the fake “right” actual LEFT – using incendiary language again.
Yeah, I love the “company time” idea, as if you are on the clock working exactly your 8 hour day.MayBee (081489) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:00 pm
Patterico – Can I get some advice at the same hourly rate you are billing O’Keefe?daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:00 pm
Skipping over the laptop or a moment: Prozac and Ambien then. Prozac and Ambien now?
Prozac + alcohol equals exacerbated response to alcohol. Prozac plus Ambien plus Alcohol even moreso. Drugs affecting serotonin change both alcohol metabolism and its effects in the brain.
In fact, Ambien, full stop. Irrationality+confusion+ motor impairmentSarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:02 pm
(see Pdf 2 for factors affecting her testimony)SarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:03 pm
Patrick still won’t confess what sandwich he consumed using his taxpayer paid salary on his taxpayer subsidized lunch time.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:05 pm
“Prozac + alcohol equals exacerbated response to alcohol. Prozac plus Ambien plus Alcohol even moreso. Drugs affecting serotonin change both alcohol metabolism and its effects in the brain.”
SarahW – If you’re looking for some suggestions, I could add a few.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:06 pm
“Patrick still won’t confess what sandwich he consumed using his taxpayer paid salary on his taxpayer subsidized lunch time.”
Or if he consumed taxpayer subsidized condiments on said sandwich.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:08 pm
Just noting she was taking both of those back then. Was she taking them when she was forced to use harsh soap. #lyebarnSarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:09 pm
Those little packets aren’t free you know.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:10 pm
If the company just asks for it’s property back, you don’t have to give it back. It isn’t like taking the company’s time.MayBee (081489) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:11 pm
She’s a liar. But you knew that. It’s clear she converted the laptop to her own use, if she did it dishonestly she’s a thief.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:13 pm
Daley has been the the #facedown barn?SarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:14 pm
“Just noting she was taking both of those back then.”
SarahW – OK then. Some people have trouble sleeping and try a variety of cocktails, both liquid and powdered. As you noted, some combinations exaggerate individual effects of cocktail components. Some folks look for that enhanced overall effect, some don’t.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:16 pm
J. Edgar Hoover this one times tried to get MLK to give his laptop back.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:18 pm
SarahW – I’ve been #facedown but not in a barn that I remember anyway.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:19 pm
that “s” in times is not an attempt at dialect, just bad typing.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:22 pm
I’m ticked that O’Keefe didn’t do this research prior to getting involved with this twit. This filing should have been a red flag James!!!Pamela (95126e) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:24 pm
I bring it up mainly because I was wondering the other day if she were taking something.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:25 pm
and it was on company time, too, since I have to work all weekend (at home)
Some of these trolls have peculiar job histories. Flex time takes on a whole other meanings.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:27 pm
SarahW is really on to something.
She was taking Seroquel, as indicated in the third deposition. It is used to treat schizophrenia, mania, and bipolar disorder. The attorney says in that deposition that “she survives with that medication,” and it’s a reasonable question to ask whether she still takes the drug. Taking it with alcohol is not recommended and can increase Seroquel’s side effects, which can include drowsiness, agitation, dizziness, fatigue, weakness, lethargy, irritability, nausea, and shakiness.
By the way, I am working on an edit for the first depo, and will try to put the link back up soon.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:28 pm
Ground beef enchilada a la carte, small albondigas soup, diet Coke. Lunch of champions.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:34 pm
YOU SCARED SOMEONE….. THEY NOW HAVE A PROTECTED TWITTER ACCOUNT…BWAHAHAHAHAHPamela (95126e) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:34 pm
Apparently the Prozac and Ambien was what she was taking on the first day of the deposition, but then she became distraught after the first day, and her psychiatrist then prescribed more serious medicine, including the ones described in my previous comment.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:39 pm
Holy heck. Well, that kind of illness would explain her jumbled interpretations of language that would not confuse others, and her mental insertion of serious threats into generally benign remarks/situations.
If her condition has worsened, perhaps it might explain why her own friends do not quite recognize her at the moment. It might even account for some of her peculiar difficulties with spelling and syntax (far less present in her earlier tweet history and blogging.)
Of course just plain old malice and stupidity might account for it. Though in my own case I usually just blame mypopia/presbyopia and floaters.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:41 pm
That bitch is, in my opinion, fucking crazy.
It is my contention that she is a worthless pile of crap who’s only skills are lying, stealing, and filing bullshit lawsuits.Scott Jacobs (ba5cb9) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:46 pm
Well that could explain much concerning her apparent random association back and forth with reality. And her sense of victom-hood. Hope to heck she isn’t out there driving. (Or being driven to rape-barns.)builderD (958987) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:49 pm
I hope she has friends and family who reach out and help her, if this is the case. And it might be a case of mixed mental illness and malice… in which case I hope folks show her more grace than she’s showing.Dustin (330eed) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:50 pm
This was a case she wanted to bring, right?MayBee (081489) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:51 pm
Wishing her not to drive , can’t be construed as giving her legal advice from an unlicensed individual – can it ?builderD (958987) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:52 pm
I’d be reluctant let someone drive a car or be a passenger on public transportation if they were taking medication that makes them drowsy, sick, or confused.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:53 pm
You know the truth of this one, DRJ: no good deed goes unpunished. Suddenly O’Keefe doesn’t look quite so skeevy, huh?Simon Jester (be9387) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:56 pm
My non- accredited, non- legal, un-licensed , legal advice to her would be : To use the diminished reality defense caused by medication/alcohol reactions. Her best defense against what sure seem as likely countersuits.builderD (958987) — 3/24/2012 @ 6:59 pm
Why is that after reading this I get the feeling Nancy Pelosi is going to call another meeting and we are going to have to listen to Nadia giving Congressional Testimony telling us how America needs to provide all young Republican Women, Seroquel, Prozac, and Ambien free of charge.Sanmon (3df60c) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:03 pm
and free taxi-fare if drunk, company or school computers , legal advice, rape-barn kits, twitter accounts . . . wait . . . i think all/ or most of of that was/is available to her.builderD (958987) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:08 pm
“Taking it with alcohol is not recommended and can increase Seroquel’s side effects”
Patterico – Everybody knows those recommendations are just there to scare people. Add a case a beer, some xanax, some weed, you can have a one person party and crash for 12-18 hours.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:18 pm
It might just have been rxd to deal with her anxiety…but given all the strange behavior…
Anyway, it would make her beer beerier, that’s for sure.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:19 pm
klonopin chaser of course.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:20 pm
Good God, these transcripts are tedious to read. I will keep trying though.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:23 pm
That bitch is, in my opinion, f*cking crazy.
It is my contention that she is a worthless pile of cr@p who’s only skills are lying, stealing, and filing bullsh*t lawsuits.Scott Jacobs (ba5cb9) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:31 pm
Scott – Don’t hold back.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:32 pm
Hmmmm, lets see now, can we think of anyone else who threatens bar complaints and complaints to your employer upon critical blog posts …
Gee, something ought to pop up in my memory.SPQR (26be8b) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:49 pm
And if Nadia and that certain someone shared a common friend or two . . . wouldn’t that be something?!Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 7:51 pm
Reading through that, I have to say politics are really messed up if you can have black outreach, Black Republican groups, and then it’s illegal race-based employment practice for the party to then assign black employees to work those events.MayBee (081489) — 3/24/2012 @ 8:39 pm
She seems madder that she wasn’t running that show, if you ask me. Disgruntlement at not being in charge.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 8:54 pm
I just got done reading the second one. The defense attorney’s frustration with her mendoucheity was palpable.JD (318f81) — 3/24/2012 @ 8:54 pm
Not liking hr ideas is, and asking her to retract her big plans seems to have frrustrated her. She was offended at suggestion repub rallying was unsophisticated .Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 8:57 pm
About to re-upload Volume 1.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:01 pm
iPad typing, cheezit crackers. Im buying a stylus tomorrow, maybe it will improveSarahw (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:09 pm
Just re-uploaded Volume 1. Had to redact a Social Security number. Kind of silly, since the document is freely available on PACER, but whatever.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:11 pm
Doing the redaction made the document monstrously large.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:12 pm
The trolls have a different set of rules for you to follow. They obviously really don’t care about the number.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:14 pm
Oh, I know the rules are different for me.
The medication is relevant, by the way. Who made a public issue out of why she got loopy from some alcohol?Patterico (feda6b) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:16 pm
OMG, well this explains why she fits in with the nutroots, that deposition is agonizing,narciso (cf7360) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:17 pm
Yeah, it’s kind of weird. They know you are a good/decent person and expect you to act like one. They know they themselves are lowlifes and expect themselves to act like ones.
The meds don’t surprise me. I guessed Celiac Disease. What do I know?Noodles (3681c4) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:21 pm
Here’s the thing.MayBee (081489) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:26 pm
A lot of people have issues.
But if you know about yourself that you have a history of needing strong medicine because you panic, and you can’t concentrate, and you can’t remember simple things….then you should be a decent person and not try to attribute those symptoms to someone else trying to drug and then rape you.
A decent person would say, “We fought that night and I acted irrationally and don’t remember a lot…but I have a history of that and I accept full responsibility for my behavior. I still never again want to work with James O’Keefe”.MayBee (081489) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:29 pm
I wonder if there are going to be any new stories on Gawker or Mediwhateverite with this new information?
Somehow I don’t think they will be as excited since it seems to be folding in on itself.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:35 pm
The truth didn’t serve the template, which counterednarciso (cf7360) — 3/24/2012 @ 9:37 pm
the ‘idiosyncratic’ nature of the Occupy protests
I just opened up doc 3, I’m presuming “lamaticol” is lamictal,the anti – seizure med….Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:08 pm
That bitch is, in my opinion, fucking crazy.
It is my contention that she is a worthless pile of crap who’s only skills are lying, stealing, and filing bullshit lawsuits.
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/24/2012 @ 6:46 pm
— When did the conversation switch to Gloria Allred?
Oh.Icy (838f58) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:10 pm
Itt’s used for manic expression too….Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:10 pm
“I still never again want to work with James O’Keefe.”
… because he’s a creeper.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:13 pm
Yeah, Leviticus. It’s him. He’s the creeper.MayBee (081489) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:17 pm
“I just opened up doc 3, I’m presuming “lamaticol” is lamictal,the anti – seizure med….”
SarahW – Some docs have used anti-seizure meds of label for bulimia, anxiety, alcohol as well.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:17 pm
off label.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:18 pm
The medication is relevant, by the way. Who made a public issue out of why she got loopy from some alcohol?
Comment by Patterico — 3/24/2012 @ 9:16 pm
— Mystery solved: she roofied herself!Icy (838f58) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:23 pm
She can be a creeper too, MayBee. It’s not like there’s a Mutually Exclusive Creepiness Principle at play here…Leviticus (870be5) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:35 pm
“Mystery solved: she roofied herself!”
Makes more sense than her current story, since she obviously doesn’t remember it…Leviticus (870be5) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:37 pm
So, Leviticus, two creepers don’t make a right. Or something? I’m confused.MayBee (081489) — 3/24/2012 @ 10:56 pm
Can you ask the question again?
It is certainly possible that the things O’Keefe did not specifically deny about the Boudreau incident did occur — and if so, there was some horrible judgment at play there.
And I don’t know what happened in the barn and don’t pretend to.
But when we’re deciding how to apportion scorn, at what point do the equities shift and cause us to heap the greater amount on Ms. Naffe? When she smears a dead family man? When she (however comically) uses lies to threaten the livelihood of your blog host?
When?Patterico (2422ef) — 3/24/2012 @ 11:15 pm
Yeah, what Scott said.
I about died laughing, reading that deposition, btw. To paraphrase “light fingers” Nadia: I’m not sure if I can answer your questions, on account of I’m a whack job, and the drugs I’m taking might make me even more of a whack job (true: side effects of Ambien can include hallucinations and delusions, according to wiki).
Nothing like having your sole witness (at least I think she’s their sole witness) confess to taking various mind-altering drugs, and then stating for the record that she’s not even sure she’ll be able to testify!
That’s a real credibility builder.
Too freaking funny.
Thanks, Pat.Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/24/2012 @ 11:19 pm
Damn! And it would have been a big comeback hit for Whitney, too:
The bitch, the bitch, the bitch … the bitch is whack!Icy (838f58) — 3/24/2012 @ 11:21 pm
Ding Ding Ding — we have a winner.
Scott Jacobs @ #37.
This one’s not to hard to figure out.
As Forrest’s mother used to say “Stupid is as stupid does.”shipwreckedcrew (e57b7e) — 3/24/2012 @ 11:30 pm
Leviticus is nothing if not consistent: past (alleged) ickiness begets future false accusations; cry no tears over O’Keefe, for he brought this upon himself.Icy (838f58) — 3/24/2012 @ 11:41 pm
“She was taking Seroquel, as indicated in the third deposition. It is used to treat schizophrenia, mania, and bipolar disorder.”
You have to admit that her doctor knows how to diagnose.Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:26 am
“Itt’s used for manic expression too….”
Is that a medical condition where you can’t stop talking?
I think I might have that.Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:29 am
I, personally, am worried that Mrs. Patterico will sue the bunch of us for alienation of Patterico’s affections since he is using marital assets and taking away from quality family time to talk to us on this blog.nk (dec503) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:43 am
“She was taking Seroquel…”
I think she’s moved on to harder stuff, and is now taking a combination of Stupid-itol and Liesthruherteeth-itol. And, judging by her semi-coherent twitterisms, she’s probably shooting up skank-idrene as well.Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:59 am
iPad auto-correct is in Sheridan mode again.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 6:12 am
What the hell does a guy have to do to express his opinion in a protected fashion and yet still get sued by that loony-toon chick?
Damnit, I want in on the fun!Scott Jacobs (ba5cb9) — 3/25/2012 @ 6:23 am
What the hell does a guy have to do to express his opinion in a protected fashion and yet still get sued by that loony-toon chick?
Damnit, I want in on the fun!Scott Jacobs (ba5cb9) — 3/25/2012 @ 6:23 am
She had some tweet the other day that seemed overly touchy about speculation over her mental status.
Transient situational anxiety usually gets nothing more than some Ativan or Xanax thrown at it,. She was on some serious stuff then. Her drug cocktail at the time of the deposition is more common with diagnoses of bipolar, (or as Daleyrocks explained, alcoholism associated with mood disorder.)
Her atory always had one big thinking error on display: she tends to judge people’s motivations behind their actions from their immediate effect on herself. She feels bad, the motivation is bad, or even hostile or threatening or some kind of deliberate cruelty. Other, more benign reasons can’t be true, because of how she felt.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 6:48 am
nadia thinks she’sColonel Haiku (0ee692) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:01 am
perpetual victim of
Has there been any new activity/reaction yet from the big guy–the White House Correspondent–the practitioner of sacred and real journalism–Tommy Xtopher?
Obviously, for most behind-the scenes zealot leftist narrative builders and disseminators Nadia’s credibility and issues with being truthful don’t matter because they’re convinced it’s their job (and therefore quite OK to outright lie and make up stuff) to take down their political opponents at any cost. But at *some* point doesn’t this start to catch up with Tommy? Won’t his sloppiness, the laziness, the growing reputation for lack of curiosity or investigative rigor affect his standing with employers? He’s already publicly embarrassed himself and Mediaite in the Weinergate affair. How many more passes does he get before colleagues or ambitious young journalists who want his job begin to undermine him–if they haven’t already started?elissa (24cab4) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:11 am
I’m wondering if Patrick’s pondered follow up will relate to Seroquel’s use as a “date rape” drug?
I’m also wondering what proportion of cunning and malice is in theer with the crazy. Could she have meant to set up o’keefe, or did she just go ’round the bend?Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:13 am
Elissa, “too good to check” is how they roll over there. Tommy, however, is fast becoming a Jamie Gorelick figure, mistress of disaster.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:20 am
“How many more passes does he get?”
You know the answer… as many as he needs and then it’s a “passes-spike” in his last year right before he retires.Colonel Haiku (0ee692) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:32 am
Anti-seizure medications such as Lamictal, Depakote, Tegretol etc are used in bipolar disorder as mood stabilizersJGaulte (a57aa6) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:37 am
If she is being treated for alcoholism I would expect to see Antabuse,Vivitrol, or Campral in her medication profile as well…JG/RPhJGaulte (a57aa6) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:44 am
Clearly, the court documents and filings being discussed on this thread were also available to any intrepid journalist. There are only a couple of possibilities at play here: Tommy C. already knew what was in them about Nadia but plowed ahead anyway–foolishly assuming that nobody else would bother to look. Or, it never occurred to him to background check Nadia in the first place –which would be all the more stunningly stupid in light of his very public Nikki Reid disaster.elissa (24cab4) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:48 am
McKenna has way more patience with her nonsense than I would.JD (e5c06b) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:50 am
Haiku @ 7:32
I’m actually not so sure Tommy’s all that immune from a professional standpoint. Journalism (and I do use the term loosely) can be a very competitive and nasty business. Reporters are willing to almost kill each other for “the get”. Lots of ambitious journos would love to have his ID tag and to be sitting in his seat in the WH press room. I would not rule out palace intrigue and it appears that Tommy may be too clueless to even be watching his back or protecting what’s left of his reputation.elissa (24cab4) — 3/25/2012 @ 8:04 am
25mg of Seroquel is below the daily dose commonly seen to treat schizophrenia. For schizophrenia the daily dosage range is usually several hundred milligrams up to the FDA labeled maximum dosage of 900mg/day and in some cases greater. Seroquel (specifically the XR dosage form) also has an FDA labeled indication as adjunctive therapy in Major Depressive Disorder to augment the action of an antidepressant. It also has an FDA labeled indication in the treatment of depressive episodes associated with Bipolar disorder. The lower doses of Seroquel are most commonly seen to treat depressive manifestations of Bipolar 1 or 2. The additional use of the medication lamotragine (lamictal) also points to Bipolar disorder….JG/RPHJGaulte (a57aa6) — 3/25/2012 @ 8:10 am
tommy throws at wallColonel Haiku (0ee692) — 3/25/2012 @ 8:37 am
and hopes that some sh*t will stick
cares not for The Truth
Robin Abcarian in today’s LA Times says that Mr. O’Keefe has adopted Saul Alinsky’s theatrical tactics. Hmmm?AZ Bob (1c9631) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:36 am
You guys are just like the Klu Klucks KlanJD (318f81) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:58 am
“(or as Daleyrocks explained, alcoholism associated with mood disorder.)”
Sarahw – I was not attempting to diagnose, merely pointing out that some folks take drug label warnings as mere suggestions and ignore or seek out the enhanced effects described in the warnings through combination with alcohol or other drugs.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:58 am
“If she is being treated for alcoholism I would expect to see Antabuse,Vivitrol, or Campral in her medication profile as well…JG/RPh”
JGaulte – If she admits to a problem with alcohol as you suggest above, I agree. Otherwise a doctor may attempt to treat with anti-anxiety or anti-seizure meds until she is ready to stop drinking. Just a thought.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:02 am
Here’s what I read throughout that deposition:MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:09 am
“And I’m rockin’ one leg. Jealous?”
Daleyrocks – I hope I didn’t imply you were diagnosing! No, it’s important to note off label uses, because her specific situation then and now is only partly or not known.
She discusses bouts of depression (explains it as a cause for leaving employment), and she discusses anxiety in parts 2 and 3 above.
The cocktail she gets is a common one for bipolar conditions. That would be my speculation if I were pressed to make one. I ‘d add I think she goes off the deep end; if blogger and tweeter Nadia is ALL Nadia, then I see hints of mania/though disorder/ language dysfunction. Bipolar, or worse. I was reading through to see if she’d had any kind of breakdown or psychosis mentioned. All I’ve seen so far in those records is depression and anxiety. But that’s a strong cocktail. It suggests more.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:14 am
How many patients admit to doctors they drink to excess? I assume some do, especially those that see the doctor because they want to stop drinking, but my guess is most don’t.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:14 am
Maybee heh. – that’s been my mental picture of #BARNGIRL for a while.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:15 am
Could yu repeat the question please, after rambling borderline coherent totally mendoucheous answer cracks me up.
Sometimes yes, and sometimes no.
Explain the yes to me. Now explain the no to me.
That deposition was about 8 hours longer than it needed to be, due to her asshattery.JD (318f81) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:15 am
Why did Nadia Naffe protect her twitter account?JD (318f81) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:18 am
She (or someone helping her) shut down everything. The Nadia Milhouse facebook account, some old blogs, her Milhouse listing on some social networking groups. Some of those were mentioned here, next day they were removed.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:23 am
( The facebook was at least removed from public searches.)Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:24 am
Sarah, do you think the internet and social media shut downs also signify the (reluctant) shut down of the failing “operation”? Or does it mean something else?elissa (24cab4) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:28 am
“But I’m responding!” (when she is upset at having her non-answers declared unresponsive)
What was that thing Lileks used to joke about?
Oh yes: ” the chastening stare of the Perry Head”
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/04/0804/0802art/perryhead.jpgSarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:30 am
I wrote something that I referred to as “my proposal”. But that does not mean it was mine, does not mean I was proposing what was contained in said proposal, and does not imply that I would be interested in doing what was contained in my proposal.JD (318f81) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:34 am
Elissa, I don’t know. She was getting kind of out there.
She might be afraid and/or rationally want to block off prying.
She might have gone off the bend for reals, and is in a paranoid mood.
Maybe counsel or a good friend has corrected her and done what it could to clean up her act.
I have to think her friends would catch on at some point.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:35 am
The reason TC didn’t get these documents of PACER (run by US Dist. Ct. clerk’s office) is because you have to pay a per-page fee to download court documents using that site.
TC doesn’t pay for information critical to getting a story right. He would rather make it up for free.shipwreckedcrew (e57b7e) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:43 am
Also – It was somebody else’s proposal really so I just called it my proposal which is not taking credit for it in the least. It’s just proposal boilerplate.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:43 am
This is one of my favorites:
A: It was more than once. I wouldn’t callSarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:46 am
3 that repeatedly.
But Tommy knew about the litigation, and his org should have a subscription. I that’s not in his toolbox, that’s very nearly a disgrace.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:49 am
“If that’s not”, that isSarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:49 am
And it’s not expensive.Dustin (330eed) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:53 am
Was it before lunch or after lunch? I don’t know, I don’t want to speculate or put wrong information into the record, was it within minutes? I don’t know. Was it with hours? I don’t know. Was it the same day? I don’t know. The same week? I don’t know. The same month?!?!?!?!?!!?JD (318f81) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:57 am
It’s Dan Abrams. You would think he would have a Pacer account.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:03 am
It seems impossible that he would not.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:07 am
ok then, at the end of Doc 3:
17 It’s my client’s
18 understanding the Lamaticol [lamictal] that she takes in
19 the morning is what — that medication is to
20 keep her coherent
More than anxiety going on. More than low mood.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:14 am
“She discusses bouts of depression (explains it as a cause for leaving employment), and she discusses anxiety in parts 2 and 3 above.”
Sarahw – I wasn’t trying to be critical. I haven’t made it through 2&3 yet. I see the anti-depressants, anti-anxiety, and sleep meds combo commonly in this area, not necessarily an indicator of serious serious probs.
OT – In an example of great thinking, some women like to drop the booze for the pills cuz the pills don’t have calories. Preserve girlish figures by getting hooked on benzos!daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:17 am
“That deposition was about 8 hours longer than it needed to be, due to her asshattery.”
JD – What I submitted to the EEOC did not include all the specific instances of racism and racial stereotyping that I invented after coaching by the EEOC. That’s why there are differences in the documents. Can’t you see that Mr. McKenna?daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:22 am
Daleyrocks, no worries. I’m not feeling unfairly criticized or even criticized – and hope anyone is circumspect about drawing conclusions about Ns reasons.
However I did see this at the end of Doc 3Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:24 am
See the post right above yours for short quote) –
Bet Mr. McKenna had a drink or two himself after having to endure that ordeal.elissa (24cab4) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:25 am
I think if Tommy or Shuster had looked at this before promoting the #soapscare story, it would have been doing a kindness to her.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:26 am
“See the post right above yours for short quote) -”
Sarahw – Heh. Dosage could have used a little tweaking.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:30 am
Maybee, but she was always expendable.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:37 am
A PACER account is nothing special. Tommy (or any of you) can sign up for one right now with a credit card.
I was charged for only 30 pages per volume of depo at 8 cents a page. Less than 8 bucks for the whole thing. Better yet, they spot you the first 10 bucks per quarterly billing cycle. I may end up paying a few bucks because I downloaded a lot of documents besides these — but this is not expensive. And the “subscription” is free.Patterico (61eaae) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:40 am
It’s been a long time since I asked about it, but I think Hubs has a deal where he gets all the docs he wants in the eastern district for a flat fee.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:42 am
Yeah, they’ve only billed me once and I’ve used it for years. If you don’t use it much, you never go beyond the freebies.
But Tommy is a journalist and if he didn’t value his reputation enough to drop a few bucks on normal research that explains why his reputation is where it is today.Dustin (330eed) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:44 am
What’s worse is if he did.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:47 am
By the way: please note that at least one Twitter thug is alleging I posted this information as “revenge” for Nadia’s threatened complaint. This is straight from their playbook. If you do journalism about someone, they attack you personally. Not only do they get to try to intimidate you, but now they can also argue that your future journalism is personal retaliation for their complaint.
This actually turns the attack itself into a weapon. If she didn’t file a frivolous complaint, they couldn’t portray the journalism I was going to do anyway as “revenge posting” done for personal reasons.
They do the same thing with investigations: open a bogus investigation by complaining about the journalist in a frivolous manner, and then describe the journalist as “under investigation.”
Interestingly, this thug critic has employed this very tactic himself.
Somewhere there is a playbook where this is all written down.Patterico (61eaae) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:49 am
I’m guessing he didn’t though. He’s too ready to go with that which he is ready to believe.
At sometime in the past few days this story should have stopped making sense to him, though, if it ever made sense to him.
He was all too ready to get her to tell her story, not for the truth of the matter but for the damage it could accomplish. He’s like a mean girl. True or false is less important than the effect of the gossip.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:52 am
“I may end up paying a few bucks because I downloaded a lot of documents besides these”
Patterico – If the suit moved any distance down the road, I assume Kester was deposed. If he was, did you download that for comparison?daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:55 am
Ever since Nadia teamed up with Neal, it’s been like deja vu. Practically every element of this crew’s BS has been repeated.
What’s sad is if it turns out Nadia has some serious mental problems, and they used her like this anyway (but I recall when Ron was pretending to be crazy… right when he thought he was about to get into serious trouble).Dustin (330eed) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:58 am
Here’s what’s weird, Patterico. It’s her lawsuit. She wanted it. She has indicated she currently feels she was completely right in filing this lawsuit. So how is this revenge? Does that mean they are seeing something unflattering in it?MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:59 am
And did they ever depose her doctor?Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:00 pm
Shades of “Obamacare”Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:01 pm
It’s a lovely name until the program is unpopular.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:02 pm
Now… from American International Pictures… “They Were Expendable”… starring Tommy Christopher, as Cody Finke, ace reporter… directed by Roger Corman… rated ‘IM’ for immature audiences only…Colonel Haiku (b7cf0d) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:03 pm
It’s revenge because it undermines her (already weak) story.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:04 pm
You are all sexist and racistJD (318f81) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:07 pm
Yeah, it’s just interesting to see them admit that.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:09 pm
==At sometime in the past few days this story should have stopped making sense to him==
Sarah, yes. And this is one of the reasons I hate twitter so much. People get so emotionally involved in things in such public, personal, vitriolic ways and so invested in their own position that it becomes almost impossible for them to pull back from even when it stops making any sense. If required, an article or a single blog posting can be updated or amended or softened or tweaked with new info in a professional way. A series of profanity and spittle-laced tweets on the other hand are harder to correct and are out there making people like TC and others look foolish for all eternity.elissa (24cab4) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:10 pm
Here’s the thing: that deposition (if it exists) is probably not online. Depositions rarely appear on PACER; only court filings do. The reason Nadia’s was put online is because it was an exhibit to a motion seeking more deposition time because of her delay tactics.
So you see, her obstreperous behavior in the depo ended up being responsible for your ability to read it.
There’s a lesson there for anyone willing to see it.Patterico (61eaae) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:16 pm
Unruly, stubbornly out of control
Learn somethin’ every day.Dustin (330eed) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:17 pm
What ended up happening with her suit?MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:19 pm
“Sarah, yes. And this is one of the reasons I hate twitter so much.”
elissa – I agree. Twitter is the debbil’s invention.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:22 pm
Tommy, afaik, opted not to issue more information in his very legitimate media outlet.
Shuster only chose to issue a semi-apology after making a statement on a news outlet owned by the former Vice President of the United States.
Twitter may be a problem, but in this case Patterico has been able to use it to draw attention to reporting that smears O’Keefe using a questionable witness.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:26 pm
One justification NN had for her difficulties in deposition was her medical condition/medications.
Would there have been any response to the motion on file with a medical report or some such? If the motion wasn’t objected to I guess there wouldn’t be but maybe there is?Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:28 pm
I just want somebody to double check.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:30 pm
All I know, Sarah, is that the court granted more time for the depo, and in the same order, the court ordered Nadia to review her deposition transcript and note any answers that she gave that were incorrect because of her medication.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:39 pm
Settled. Looks like it was about to go to trial. Last document is a dismissal based on a settlement.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:40 pm
I wonder if Nadia’s attorney told her to take down her social media presence. If so, perhaps he also explained how it would hurt her legal position to be filing frivolous complaints against me.
I kind of doubt this is what happened, because if so, it sure took him a long time to get around to doing this. But you never know.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:42 pm
Somewhere there is a playbook where this is all written down
“How To Blame The Victim While Invoking The Memory of Your Dead Son” by John EdwardsIcy (5c3322) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:44 pm
“The reason Nadia’s was put online is because it was an exhibit to a motion seeking more deposition time because of her delay tactics.”
P – Got it.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:46 pm
Thanks, Patterico. Settlement is what I would have guessed.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:51 pm
Given the medication Nadia was (is?) taking, she probably follows careful rules about drinking, like only doing it on days ending in “y”.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 12:54 pm
“when we’re deciding how to apportion scorn, at what point do the equities shift and cause us to heap the greater amount on Ms. Naffe? When she smears a dead family man? When she (however comically) uses lies to threaten the livelihood of your blog host?”
I think it’s probably appropriate to heap the greater amount of scorn on Naffe even at this point, because of the two of them she’s the one who keeps running her mouth and that (often) bespeaks guilt. I’m just saying we should be heaping a lesser (but still significant) amount of scorn on O’Keefe, to keep ourselves honest.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:07 pm
Scorn seems a little much for O’Keefe given what we actually know.
In fact, whatever sins he’s committed it appears he’s paid for many times over.Dustin (330eed) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:13 pm
So is that the main thing she has done to upset you, Leviticus — “running her mouth”?
Anything more specific, perhaps?Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:14 pm
In O’Keefes defense, he might not have seen the crazy coming.
If she had not decompensated in his presence beforehand, nor that of other persons he knew, maybe her behavior was not only hard to handle and interpret, but impossible to predict.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:15 pm
Allowing flagrant misrepresentations to stand as truth. Dissembling endlessly. Forcing her way into the public eye then (pathetically) trying to squelch her critics with threats. Possibly lying outright on multiple occasions. Needing an attorney before she’s 30. And, finally, associating with James O’Keefe.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:19 pm
And she hasn’t “upset” me – I just don’t think she’s particularly trustworthy, at this point.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:21 pm
This is the one I thought might get your attention.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:21 pm
Oh. OK, then.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:22 pm
Any others who aren’t upset by her baseless threats towards me?Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:23 pm
What do you want me to say, man? She doesn’t know what the f*ck she’s talking about. You yourself pointed out how utterly ridiculous the threat was. So no, I’m not upset by it. It’d be like getting upset over a 5 year old’s threat to run away and join the circus.
Doesn’t mean I don’t have a great deal of respect for you.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:27 pm
I would like to point out that this claim being settled gives us an excellent example of what employment attorneys can get settlements on. Putting too much faith in the fact that an employment dispute has been settled is always a mistake. Even if the claim is against James O’Keefe.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:30 pm
That is an excellent point, MayBee.
It seems like arrests, settlements, etc. are like Rorschach tests: people see what they want to see — based on their politics.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:33 pm
I don’t see any evidence that Naffe’s accusations being baseless has any deterrent on her actually filing the suit.
So yes, I’m upset for you.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:33 pm
I think Nadia Naffe and her enablers know something you don’t: Even baseless claims can be hard to defend against, and they can tarnish or end careers.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:35 pm
“It seems like arrests, settlements, etc. are like Rorschach tests: people see what they want to see — based on their politics.”
Whatever.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:36 pm
“I think Nadia Naffe and her enablers know something you don’t: Even baseless claims can be hard to defend against, and they can tarnish or end careers.”
If that happens, I will be immensely upset for Patterico. Here and now, where Naffe is just another entitled moron shooting her mouth off, no, I’m not upset. He played it down himself. It’s silly.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:37 pm
My comment wasn’t specifically directed at you.
Do you actually disagree with it?
Really?Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:41 pm
In retrospect, maybe this will be considered mere “silly” talk. However, attacking someone in their career isn’t a joke and the worst doesn’t have to happen for me to get upset about it.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:45 pm
Leviticus- Do you still suspect O’Keefe tried to get busy with NN?MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:46 pm
Bingo.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:49 pm
O’Keefe did a great service to Americans when he exposed the ACORN machine for what it was. I have nothing but respect for the young man.Colonel Haiku (612d95) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:51 pm
I’m most distressed with the scruples of those who wanted to get her story out before appraising it while it could still do some “good” (i.e. maximum damage.)SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:55 pm
“My comment wasn’t specifically directed at you.”
I figured it was directed at me. I don’t disagree with it at all.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:55 pm
FYI, Patterico, PACER fees go up next week to 10 cents / page. I think the quarterly minimum for no bill goes up a bit too.SPQR (354ab5) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:55 pm
It’s just unforgiveable.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:55 pm
I don’t know at this point.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 1:56 pm
Meanwhile, still ruminating over a Starchild nexus.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:00 pm
I wonder if Prudence Paine might have some input?DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:05 pm
However, attacking someone in their career isn’t a joke and the worst doesn’t have to happen for me to get upset about it.
Also, whether the attacks are disproved and the accusers found to be liars – even discrediting themselves along the way, personal and professional damage can still be done. And at times, it can be irreparable. Not everyone waits for evidence before assuming accusations are true. We know who those people are. And they will be relentless in pushing the lies.Dana (4eca6e) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:15 pm
Do you still suspect O’Keefe tried to get busy with NN?
MayBee, IIRC, there was a comment NN wrote at the link happyfeet provided in an earlier post of her statement (since removed), where she referred to O’Keefe in oddly intimate terms – someone she had ‘deep affection for’ and considered ‘precious’. It was somewhat surprising and out of nowhere. It made me wonder whether NN tried to get busy with O’Keefe and was rebuffed… hence, an angry rejected overly medicated drunk girl with an axe to grind.
Maybe simplistic, but she just doesn’t seem that bright or clever.Dana (4eca6e) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:21 pm
Also, for busy people with a short attention span, when something is confidently asserted, some people retain it and believe it. Or at least think it MIGHT be true. I had someone ask me if O’Keefe really clerked for me, based on assertions made by an anonymous Twitter account who has done nothing but issue lies and smears in support of evil people. All he had to do was say it, and someone who should know better wondered if it was true.
It’s not, by the way, as I already explained earlier. I have never met the man.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:29 pm
Then why the “whatever” comment?Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:30 pm
“Also, for busy people with a short attention span, when something is confidently asserted, some people retain it and believe it. Or at least think it MIGHT be true.”
What else explains Tommy’s method of reporting? Why else would he want to facilitate getting someone’s story “out” before he checks it?SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:32 pm
Because I thought it was directed at me.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:36 pm
==What else explains Tommy’s method of reporting? Why else would he want to facilitate getting someone’s story “out” before he checks it?==
alternate revenue source?
blackmail?elissa (e9c09f) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:37 pm
I’m not sure why I was able to download a document with 180-200 pages and only be charged for 30, but that’s what happened. Even with the new rates, you could download all the depos yourself, and if that’s all you got for the quarter, it would be free.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:38 pm
Shorthand Leviticus: regardless of the truth about the current circumstance, O’Keefe deserves to be harassed due to past misconduct — both real or alleged.
Somewhere in the deep south there’s an open seat for Sheriff. Any candidates out there?Icy (5c3322) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:43 pm
Not “harassed.” Just held in contempt.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:46 pm
Leviticus, why do you feel compelled to include your contempt of O’Keefe alongside Nadia’s egregious lies and accusations, as if they were equal?
It’s one thing to claim Naffe is just another entitled moron shooting her mouth off, but even moron’s shooting their mouths off can do irreparable harm to a person’s professional and private life.Dana (4eca6e) — 3/25/2012 @ 2:54 pm
“Leviticus, why do you feel compelled to include your contempt of O’Keefe alongside Nadia’s egregious lies and accusations, as if they were equal?”
I don’t have to keep saying it, I suppose, so long as people get that that’s my position and refrain from absentmindedly drifting into canonization of the guy in fits of sympathy as this thing unfolds. I am content at this point to watch Pat and others dissect Naffe’s story, to see her present any evidence she may have to back her story up, etc, without making more reference to my low opinion of O’Keefe.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:00 pm
what……EVAH!!!Colonel Haiku (a3303a) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:02 pm
gotta do it with mo dramatic effect.
Between Canonization and Contempt. A great blog post title if I’ve ever heard one!elissa (e9c09f) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:06 pm
FWIW, I don’t have the highest regard for O’Keefe either but that is not germane to the matter at hand – which is Nadia Naffe.Dana (4eca6e) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:07 pm
Ok stop right there: “present any evidence she may have to back her story up”
You are too sensible not to comprehend that her #rapebarn accusations are, in the light most favorable to herself, invented upon reflection, based entirely upon her subjective responses while she was intoxicated and irrational and nonsensical (on order of 5yo clown college applicants.)
Not to mention a claim of unlawful restraint is ludicrous under the fact situation she outlines, and that she was never improperly touched.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:14 pm
I think that’s standard. According to PACER’s FAQs:DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:15 pm
There you go!
It’s a great research tool and a great deal.
Of course, if Big Media uses it, it’s journalism.
If a blogger does it, you threaten their job and call it harassment and stalking.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:16 pm
Apparently depositions are considered documents and not transcripts, or at least these were.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:18 pm
I guess some media outlets can’t afford $8-10 for research like this. Times really are tough, aren’t they?
Of course, they can’t say that since they can read it for free now that you’ve posted it here.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:22 pm
With all this PACER talk, I might have to join later. Maybe after Mad Men.
Of course, surprises are nice. It must mean something is coming soon on Da Creeps.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:24 pm
I think I may lay off Nadia and give her a chance to realize she has made a mistake in threatening to report me for totally bogus reasons.
I don’t really have much else to say about it right now anyway.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:42 pm
She may just be starting to realize that she has made a series of mistakes that could land her in trouble. Maybe she’s reconsidering and that’s why the Twitter and Facebook are gone.
Let’s see.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:43 pm
Maybe someone told her that she looked like a fascist moron for threatening someone for remarks about the… porous nature of her story on a disclaimer riddled personal blog in a post subtitled ‘Crowdsourcing’. “Do you know how stupid that sounds?” is not a legal strategy, unless they’re waiting till later to teach us all the awesome stuff.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 3:53 pm
I think chances are pretty fair she’s not right in the head; that increases compassion. If that doesn’t mitigate the malicious spirit of her efforts, it at least points to obnoxiousness promoted by distorted perceptions and lack of insight.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:00 pm
“She may just be starting to realize that she has made a series of mistakes that could land her in trouble. Maybe she’s reconsidering and that’s why the Twitter and Facebook are gone.”
I’ll bet one of her lawyers became aware of what she’s been doing, and told her to shut the hell up.
Frankly, I don’t think she’s smart enough to figure it out on her own.Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:06 pm
“Ok stop right there: “present any evidence she may have to back her story up”?”
I was thinking more along the lines of evidence to support her allegations that O’Keefe had previously used that building to videotape a girl in a compromised position without her knowledge, but the publication of any emails she gets past a preliminary injunction too, I suppose. If that allegation is not supported by airtight evidence, then it’s really really damn low. It’s damn low to let people like Shuster and Olbermann turn whatever happened that night into a “rape plot,” too, but that would be much lower.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:21 pm
I guess she’ll be bringing all those emails to court, and the judge will get to look at them and determine whether any such emails exist.
If they don’t, maybe she’ll say she took them to her mom’s house and they got lost in the hurricane, like the laptop she kept.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:24 pm
Hopefully she’s smart enough to realize that people saved the weird stuff she said on her Twitter. People like me. But almost assuredly not just me.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:25 pm
I think Ms. Naffe is smart enough to know it’s one thing to talk about filing a legal claim and it’s another to go through with it. As her deposition illustrates, the resulting scrutiny goes both ways.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:27 pm
Yeah. Based on her conduct up to this point, I can’t imagine that any sensible judge would allow her to release anything that’s not directly relevant and highly probative to her specific allegations. If that results in nothing being released, that’ll say a lot about who she is and what she’s about.Leviticus (870be5) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:28 pm
Assuming (which I do not) that such a video exists, how in the world would one know it was a secret to one of the parties? Just because it exists? If there was a way to know it was taken that way, wouldn’t Nadia have pointed this out very early on? She had this material for a while.
Instead, and this is assuming the video exists (which I don’t) she speculates hoping people decide O’Keefe is a creeper. The mission to harm his reputation works even when you realize Nadia is not being fair.
It’s insidious. Of course, assuming this video exists (guess what: I don’t) and was taken without the lady’s knowledge, that is awful behavior. Though Nadia’s telling the world highly sexual things about this lady was a revictimization or simply a victimization.
O’Keefe is a very controversial figure. I don’t want to help smears work by letting my personal views contribute to a lie’s effectiveness, but it’s not always easy.Dustin (330eed) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:29 pm
That’s the nice thing about focusing on the facts, both here and in the Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case. We don’t know enough about anyone’s character to let that be the deciding factor regarding what happened or who we believe.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:35 pm
“Doing the redaction made the document monstrously large.”
That’s because the version posted to PACER is rendered text, not an image.
An example of rendered text are the comments on this blog post. An example of scanned image is the excerpt in your blog post “Based upon . . .”
It looks like the transcript you made is a computer-generated image, you used a digital “printer” to transform the document from the rendered text (plus red box) to make a computer-generated image with no rendered text.
Differences are: you can select and copy rendered text, but not scanned image (unless OCR is performed on it)
If you zoom in on rendered text, it always looks clean no matter how high your zoom level. But if you zoom in on a scanned image, eventually it looks blocky and pixelated. Because you used a software “printer” to generate the volume with the SSN, it doesn’t look very blocky, but if you zoom in enough you can see it’s not as smooth as rendered text.
Rendered text tends to use much less memory to store the same amount of writing.
Here’s a very important distinction: you can “redact” rendered text by drawing black highlighting over it (for example with a highlighter in MS Word, or the highlighter built in to Acrobat, or you can use Acrobat to put a colored box over it), and it appears to be redacted, but in reality, the rendered text still lives underneath the highlighting. A person looking at the PDF, or printing it out, won’t see the “redacted” text. But they can select the text, copy, and paste it into an MS Word document, and read what you thought had been redacted. Ctrl-A Ctrl-C Ctrl-V.
As far as I can tell, you DID properly redact the SSN. I can’t delete the red box to look at what was underneath it. Even if I went through the PDF bit-by-bit, I think the SSN is simply not stored there.
In the future, the way to keep file size down is to replace only particular pages that need redaction, and to leave the rest of the pages as the original rendered text. If you have a full version of Acrobat, it is easy to insert/remove pages.
Another way of thinking about the problem of false redaction of rendered text is to imagine if this comment was written entirely in white letters. Because the background is white, you would see nothing. But you could select the text of the comment to copy it and paste it into a text file or MS Word document, and from there you could read it. So you always have to be very careful with rendered text.
On the other hand, if you were to print out this page, including all the comments, and my comment was white text on a white background, the physical pieces of paper would show nothing. No matter how much trickery you had at your disposal, you could not tell by looking at the pieces of paper what my comment was. Blank paper simply does not give up its secrets.Daryl Herbert (92a60f) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:37 pm
Very interesting, Daryl. Thanks.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/25/2012 @ 4:41 pm
“If they don’t, maybe she’ll say she took them to her mom’s house and they got lost in the hurricane, like the laptop she kept.”
Patterico – Scoff if you must. Hurricanes can be tricky weather events. I’ve had them snatch small and large items out of my house when I was distracted for less than five seconds without disturbing anything else. Never turn your back on those suckers.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 5:30 pm
I think I may lay off Nadia
— That’s what O’Keefe said. *rimshot*Icy (5c3322) — 3/25/2012 @ 7:31 pm
Comment by Sarahw — 3/25/2012 @ 10:23 am
She (or someone helping her) shut down everything. The Nadia Milhouse facebook account, some old blogs, her Milhouse listing on some social networking groups. Some of those were mentioned here, next day they were removed.
As of last night….
….found immediately with a Google search for Nadia Milhouse
….was still there..
and it still is. I didn’t want to refresh it but I checked in another windwow.
It says there:
Education and Training
I’m interested in
Hello YPA! My name is Nadia Kroger-Milhouse and I’m thrilled to become a member of such a fantastic group. I finally had a chance to finish my profile and I’m looking forward to becoming more aquatinted with everyone.
About me: I have been a teacher for 10 years. I’m in the process of starting an education non-profit. I love working with students and watching them grow and develop. I enjoy snow boarding, hiking, jogging and bicycling.
I am of Jewish and Hispanic decent. I’d like to meet members with similar goals and interest. I look forward to hearing from you!
Now, does the picture here, look like the picture here, on the Nadia Naffe Twitter account?
It’s protected, but the picture and some information is still there.
Blogger. Political Junkie. Cigar Aficionado. Frustrated Conservative. Email: email@example.com
Nadia Kroger-Milhouse does look younger, but people sometimes put up old pictures. Nadia Naffe’s skin is slightly darker, but that could be the photography.Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 3/25/2012 @ 8:40 pm
Some years ago, I served on the Harris County Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee. We had responsibility for investigating complaints. When appropriate, we filed civil suits to obtain injunctive relief and restitution to victims. When appropriate, we referred the results of our investigations to the Harris County District Attorney with recommendations regarding criminal prosecution. Thus I can unequivocally say the following without fear of well-informed contradiction:
Ms. Naffe’s allegation, had it been made about a lawyer in Houston, would definitely have been brought to the full attention of the entire Committee at one of its regular meetings.
You see, occasionally — after an hour or two of debating many routine cases and a few genuinely close questions, factual and often philosophical, regarding the unauthorized practice of law — sometimes we needed a bit of comic relief.
On such occasions, a committee member who’d reviewed and rejected a complaint as frivolous would nevertheless bring it to the meeting to read aloud, purely for comic effect.
During my tenure, the number of then-currently, validly licensed Texas lawyers who were disciplined or prosecuted — or even contacted by the Committee to inquire about possible defenses — for allegedly practicing law without a license in Harris County, Texas: Zero.
I can’t speak for California. I’m not sure yet whether the Ninth Circuit has legalized thought-crimes or made common sense illegal; I’m not sure if California construes the term “unauthorized practice” to include and embrace its opposite, that is, licensed (authorized) practice of law. But in Houston, from among those responsible for investigating such complaints, Ms. Naffe would have only gotten a belly laugh in response.Beldar (f9f436) — 3/25/2012 @ 8:51 pm
Sammy, Nadia is definately AKA Milhouse
That Boston picture is new since the other day! This was her profile pic this morning in the Boston Group.
She was pulled from this meetup group: http://www.meetup.com/Boston-Tea-Party/members/?offset=40&desc=1&sort=chapter_member.atimeSarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:17 pm
The Boston account profile has also been altered.
I were Nadia K Milhouse in Boston, I’d want no confusion on the point –SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:24 pm
I’m not sure yet whether the Ninth Circuit has legalized thought-crimes
— If you mean “criminalize”, then see: Prop 8 decision.
or made common sense illegalIcy (5c3322) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:28 pm
— Only for themselves, when adjudicating cases on days that end in “y”.
Sammy, Nadia is definately AKA Milhouse
Milhooouuuusssse!Colonel Haiku (420ed2) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:29 pm
How odd. I cannot find that there is a Nadia-Kroger-Milhouse in Massachusetts. In fact, a Nationwide search came up empty for any Nadia Milhouse but Nadia Kolasa Milhouse.
I guess if kroger is a teacher, her certification will be online if it’s like Virginia and California.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:31 pm
I should also mention, just for completeness while ridiculing, that whether done by a licensed lawyer or a layman, the offering of opinions in public on a matter of public controversy isn’t considered the “practice of law” for purposes of the Texas statute forbidding the unauthorized practice of law. That would be another entirely sufficient reason to disregard Ms. Naffe’s complaint, and would only have added to its humor value had I come across it as a committee member some years ago.Beldar (f9f436) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:33 pm
Icy, you’re right (#240), I meant “de-legalized,” and the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision on Prop 8 is a good example of my grounds for wondering.Beldar (f9f436) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:37 pm
The old profile is still in the google cache for the moment. I took a screenshot just bc it’s likely to disappear shortly. It’s an empty profile except for the Sam Adams avatar.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:42 pm
Rats, teacher certs aren’t publicly searchable online, that I can tell.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:42 pm
Of all the Bostons in all the world, Nadia Kolasa Milhouse walks into hers.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:44 pm
I’m curious that no national search brings up a Nadia K Milhouse that isn’t Kolasa. That’s odd, for a teacher.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:45 pm
“In fact, a Nationwide search came up empty for any Nadia Milhouse but Nadia Kolasa Milhouse.”
SarahW – She spelled out her middle name “Kolasha” in part one of the deposition.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:46 pm
Maybe she has a hyphenated name? Nope, search on a hyphenated name comes up empty. I must not be doing it right.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:47 pm
I saw that. She’s in databases as Kolasa, though.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:47 pm
I’m sure the h spelling is correct if she put it in a deposition instead of an electric bill.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:49 pm
What’s curious is I can’t find this other Boston Nadia Milhouse. I’ll check Knowx tomorrow just to satisfy my curiosity.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:50 pm
Daleyrocks – you saw the other Boston Nadia Milhouse has a middle name of Kroger…. that’s what I’m looking for.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:51 pm
Sammy had posted a link to the Boston meetup group “nadia Milhouse” that was altered, I think today.
The pic and name there now, are not related to Nadia Naffe.
Before today, it had a Sam Adams avatar and no profile description, other than a professed interest in education and training and networking, and an age range that fit Nadia Naffe.
Nadia Naffe’s profile was pulled from another Boston Tea Party Meetup group.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:57 pm
Of all the Bostons in all the world, Nadia Kolasa Milhouse walks into hers.
snortMayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:57 pm
Just going to throw this in, though I doubt it will help a lot: Nadia’s Harvard email indicates the “FAS” college (the arts and sciences), which includes the graduate extension school (they have mixed online classes for degrees wish as an MA in Journalism).Dustin (330eed) — 3/25/2012 @ 9:59 pm
Guys, I think we’ve been Marianela’d
The profile pic appears to be lifted from a Hispanic fashion website.
http://www.migentehispana.com/Templates/images/fashion/614858_low.jpgileSarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:07 pm
doh. Here is a link that should work: http://www.migentehispana.com/Templates/fashion002.htmSarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:09 pm
Wait, which pic Sarah?
I think she just changed that meetup one to any random pic. We know what she looks like.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:11 pm
Now I know we’ve been marianela’d.
https://www.facebook.com/people/Christina-Cordova/100002323219684Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:11 pm
I am going to lay money that anyone who wants to call the Harvard Extension School tomorrow to see if she has been a student there will be told that she has.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:11 pm
I don’t think so. That pic belongs to a real person.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:12 pm
That’s . . . very, very odd.
What do you make of it, Sarah?Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:12 pm
Yeah, but that is not a pic of Nadia. Remember, many people have met her in real life.
Yet there is the FB page Sammy found, and its picture is of another person. That’s very strange.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:13 pm
Maybe I am missing something but all I can see is that sometime today she went and jacked with all her accounts.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:19 pm
Patrick – I don’t know but I call shenanigans.
just to emphasize to anyone confused – A Nadia Milhouse in Boston was part of that Boston meet-up group, and was linked to a local event.
Her profile had been a Sam Adams avatar and a few words about interests.
That profile was altered this morning with emphasis on a name that is distinguished as Nadia KROGER Milhouse, and on a racial heritage at variance with our Nadia Naffe/Milhouse.
Noodles, If I find Nadia Kroger Milhouse in a legitimate databack I’ll take it back. But I can’t find another Nadia K Milhouse in Boston, in Massachusetts, with or without a hyphen,Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:23 pm
and I haven’t yet found one in a national database.
Wow.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:25 pm
I still don’t get the connection between the FB page Sammy found and Nadia Naffe. It’s clearly not her picture. So . . . what?Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:25 pm
Comments crossed. I just read Sarah’s explanation and I get it now.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:26 pm
They need to up the bitch’s dose, if that’s the case…Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:28 pm
Again, I may be missing something but I think she just went in and changed it (most likely because she saw us talking about it).
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone thought it would be lulzy to put up a picture linked to the name Cordova so Tineye finds it that way.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:28 pm
Oh well lah-dee-dah, ain’t you just a fancy man, not needin’ a lawyer before you’re 30… :pScott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:29 pm
Could you send the link to and screenshot of the Google cache? Feel free to embed in a comment but I’d like it by email too.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:30 pm
Playing Mass Effect 3? 🙂Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:31 pm
“Daleyrocks – you saw the other Boston Nadia Milhouse has a middle name of Kroger…. that’s what I’m looking for.”
SarahW – I never saw a Kroger-Milhouse. When I saw you guys use that I was wondering if she got married again and decided to hyphenate. The deposition also spells her maiden name with two “ll’s”, but she never spelled it out for them. Who knows if it was ever reviewed for accuracy.
The 10 years as a teacher in the YPA profile is complete BS based on what we know, so I was assuming it was another person or she decided to blatantly lie.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:32 pm
That Cordova facebook account has been around since at least April 2011.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:34 pm
That’s likely an innocent person whose picture they decided to grab to cover her tracks.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:35 pm
The similarity to the Marienela tactic — and the rabid way that the allies have gone after me for this post — really make a person wonder.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:36 pm
It’s a totally fake FB. 2 friends, a picture from somewhere on the web, no activity.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:36 pm
F*ck that. B*tch did her level best to f*ck with your life.
Burn her f*cking world to the ground, and salt the earth as you leave. Make the wasteland a memorial to all who would consider pulling that kind of bullsh*t.
RUIN HER. Don’t stop until she calls you at home crying, begging for your forgiveness.Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:37 pm
My guess is that this is a troll by the usual suspects. They see people looking stuff up on here so they change some accounts with a picture linked to Cordova and watch as we all run around.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:40 pm
I pray that Nadia gets what she deserves.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:40 pm
I dunno. She just may not be that into Facebook.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:40 pm
Not just Boston. Quincy. Clearly a message.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:41 pm
Again, I’m inclined to sit back and see whether Nadia follows through on her threat, or has wised up. Will know soon enough.
For what it’s worth, I may not be able to share whatever I learn publicly, as office communications are assumed to be private.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:42 pm
Hurricane stole Nadia’s Facebook account.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:42 pm
Patrick, that account had been mentioned by me on your blog just before everything was pulled/ jacked, whatever.
A logical reason for the sudden and very specific alteration in profile, iwoukd be that is was meant to distinguish it from nkm and all of her nuttiness. That’s whatI presumed was going on when Sammy pointed out that meetuip profile had not been removed., and I saw it has been so changed.
The new profile name wasn’t showing up anywhere it usually would, and that very unusual for a teacher.
The image match showed that pic doesn’t belong to the Nadia Kroger millhouse the teacher, in Boston, but a dental hygienist in Arizona.
Since Nadia was fond of meetup groups, and spending time in Boston ( and in other Boston meetups, such as the tea parry group) and i could never find Nadia Mulhouse. I still think that was Nadia Kolasha’ mil houses profile.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:43 pm
Can you send it on?Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:44 pm
Yes, I understand. The explanation is clear. Thank you.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:44 pm
Or maybe it he Facebook is fake too. The pic is all over the place. And hubs wants me to stop looking and come to bed.
Ill look for Nadia Kroger Milhouse In knowX tomorrow.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:49 pm
No such YPA profile on the Wayback Machine.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:49 pm
Gerald Naffe will probably take you more credible places.
Of course someone could get O’Keefe’s side of the story. Or maybe Hannah’s. Or maybe, I don’t know, about 50 or so people that know her online.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 10:50 pm
Sure. But if it’s her, why did they not just scrub it, but also put a bullshit picture to throw people off?Patterico (feda6b) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:00 pm
That’s why it seems like a troll (especially witht the Cordova name). Maybe they are tracking IPs. Who knows? None of this makes sense.
It really doesn’t make sense that her blog it not updated and her Twitter is down. She didn’t think this was a possibility?
James sure doesn’t seem worried.
@JamesOKeefeIIINoodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:06 pm
A remix of “King for one day” by Thompson Twins just came on Sirius First Wave. I had to pull the car over and dance.
It’s also Nydia LoyaMayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:21 pm
Image searchMayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:25 pm
This is more likely the source of the image.
http://es.123rf.com/photo_614858_modelo-de-la-manera.htmlNoodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:26 pm
I don’t speak Spanish but I think I can read it.
Modelo De la ManeraNoodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:26 pm
I was wrong. I think it just means Fashion Model.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:30 pm
Yeah, it’s all over. A stock photo for a hispanic woman.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:31 pm
Although Nadia Kroger-Milhouse looks younger in the picture than Nadia Naffe, according to her stated biography, she has to be about the same age as Nadia Naffe (born Oct 1978), since she states she has been teacher for 10 years.
Important question: Are we sure that the Boston (or Quincy Massachusetts) Nadia Naffe is the same person as the Florida Nadia Naffe who worked for the Republican Party and was planning on studying accounting and had never worked as a teacher, as of September, 2005? Or is there just one Nadia Naffe, who resembles a pathological liar?
The Florida Nadia Naffe said her middle name was Kolasha and her maiden name was Nadia Kolasha Millhouse (she spelled out Kolasha, but Millhouse may have been spelled by the court reporter, perhaps relying on some document) See her July 29, 2005 deposition page 5 lines 20 and 22 and Page 6 line 2. She says that Naffe is her married name and that she was married from 1996 to 2000.
But Massachusetts Nadia Naffe says her name is Nadia Kroger-Milhouse.
There seems to be an issue in the deposition about whether she was related to a Johnny Hunter. Her position is that she was not, but it seems like maybe she had told people – and convinced Johnny Hunter? – that she was. The allusion is a little bit too fragmentary to guess what really happened here but I’d say there really seems to be a possibility of some blatant dishonesty going on here.Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:44 pm
Sammy- the picture isn’t of Nadia anyone. It’s a stock photo that’s been used around the web and on facebook for at least 2 different women.MayBee (081489) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:54 pm
Hurricane stole Nadia’s Facebook account.
Comment by daleyrocks — 3/25/2012 @ 10:42 pm
. . . and her meds.Icy (5c3322) — 3/25/2012 @ 11:57 pm
Comment by Patterico — 3/25/2012 @ 10:13 pm
Yet there is the FB page Sammy found, and its picture is of another person. That’s very strange.
That’s not FaceBook. That’s the Boston Young Professionals Association. It’s her page at BostonYPA.com.
It has a connection to Facebook (and some other places) You can like it on Facebook – but it completely independent of Facebook. It’s linked to it in some way, like blogs can be.Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 3/26/2012 @ 12:07 am
I was talking about the Christina Cordova page. I guess someone else found that? I lose track sometimes.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/26/2012 @ 12:14 am
Sarahw found it on Facebook and posted the link at 3/25/2012 @ 10:11 pm PDT two minutes before you made that comment. That appears to be the original, because the YPA Profile picture is cropped.. I found that first, at about 9 PM Saturday night March 2 24, 2012, EDT but didn’t post anything about it until 8:40 pm PDT (11:40 PM EDT – that late!? I guess I kept checking things out.)Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 3/26/2012 @ 1:17 am
I found the photo – Sarahw found out it was on Facebook.
The FB/YPA photo looks like it might very well be of the same woman pictured on the Nadia Naffe Twitter account. Not the same photo, but the same woman, but taken 10 years or more earlier. It’s actually too young for the Nadia Kroger-Milhouse profile.
And Sarahw says that, contrary to appearances, that picture didn’t use to be there (the Nadia Milhouse YPA page gives every appearance of not having been updated since March 1 at the latest.)
There never was much activity. She joined apparently on January 20. There’s 2 comments and 2 likes.
And only the mention of the Social/Professional Networking Mixer at Bell In Hand in Faneuil Hall scheduled for March 1, 2012 from 7pm to 9pm that was what – going to be broadcast on the local ABC affiliate?
If the picture is new, of course, it never would have seemed incongruous for a woman in her early 30s. If anybody actually was looking at it.
I don’t know if anyone can check JPG dates. Copying a photo – or scanning an old one – changes the date.Sammy Finkelman (ea9037) — 3/26/2012 @ 2:03 am
Dude. Different person.Patterico (c2377a) — 3/26/2012 @ 6:40 am
Sammy, I took a screenshot of the profile that was there before (the one that was active fri or Sat or whenever it is I last looked at it). It had the Sam Adams avatar.
The new pic is some hispanic woman, who is not Nadia Naffe and not linked to her twitter picture.
At this time I think the YPA meetup profile had been “our” Nadia’s, If she’s hiding her greasy reality show tryout or someone is just having a bit of fun, good for them.
My curiosity will only extend so far as to see If there is a “Kroger Milhouse” Nadia in a Knowx search. If there is one I’ll tell.
Kitteh to someone’s laser pointer is alright for a lazy Sunday, but screw it. If someone’s got a story to tell, they’ll tell it whether you ask them or not.
In the immortal words of Happyfeet, fuuu Patterico-haunting skanks, and enjoy your thorazine.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 6:58 am
My curiosity on this also extends only so far. And I’ve probably reached that point.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/26/2012 @ 7:07 am
Oh, Maybee’s quick take on the “Cordova” Arizona Hygienist was quite correct.
All the family photos are borrowed.
I didn’t bother with “niece”SarahW (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 7:21 am
Since there is a minor Twitter troll connected to a certain convicted bomber and perjurer who is trying to make an issue out of Scott Jacobs’s comment above, let me say for the record that I do not agree with anyone who urges that I “ruin” Nadia Naffe. I am simply engaging in journalism regarding a person who has started a public controversy, who has chosen to target me in real life because of that journalism. It’s really just that simple.
I would also ask that commenters refrain from making comments like that, because they don’t help. The Twitter troll is planning to report me to my office now because of that comment, even though it is not my comment and I disagree with the sentiment. Comments like that do nothing to help and actually are counterproductive.Patterico (feda6b) — 3/26/2012 @ 7:26 am
I will add that comments like that are not only counterproductive, they play directly into the harassers’ hands. It is actually part of their playbook to elicit cornments like that. They would be especially thrilled to goad mePatterico (c2377a) — 3/26/2012 @ 7:33 am
Into making such comments. But they’ll settle for watching one of my commenters doing it and then smearing me with it.
Me, I’d rather Nadia helped than ruined. My hunch is that she’s got some mental problems and was goaded into making this situation a lot worse. She probably just needs some help and could actually be helpful in revealing the truth about those who have used her.
As usual, they use people in a way that doesn’t really help them, but does keep them furious at the Enemy.Dustin (330eed) — 3/26/2012 @ 7:40 am
To be clear, I’d rather she *be* helped than be ruined. I still think her actions are very wrong and obviously I don’t support them, but I think she needs help. The last thing I want to see is this person even less stable.Dustin (330eed) — 3/26/2012 @ 7:42 am
catching up. i don’t see how patterico’s public commentary in his prior post about nadia’s barngate posts, raising his questions about it, is an ethics violation for an attorney. i’m certainly no expert, but I remember that the deputy AG Andrew Shirvell in Michigan was allowed a lot of leeway to discuss his political views online–he only got fired/disciplined because he crossed the line into stalking an individual person and smearing them in fairly crazy ways for being gay. That’s NOTHING like what happened here. you couldn’t have any legal “blawgs” if commenting on a case was an ethics violation.
as for the laptop, i’m not seeing the huge significance of that. employees like to take the things they’ve been given when they leave, which they shouldn’t do. it appears the defendant in the case knew the laptop was destroyed and wanted an “inference” drawn that its destruction meant it had bad stuff on it that would hurt nadia’s discrimination case. obviously that would help defendants case, so its a smart argument, but the court didn’t do that. Whatever happened to the discrimination case? Was it dismissed? Settled?milowent (1b563e) — 3/26/2012 @ 8:38 am
Milowent – it was not her laptop to keep. I think that was the bigger point they were making, that she is a thief.JD (318f81) — 3/26/2012 @ 8:48 am
She kept it after she had been terminated (which no, people do not do) and after she had been asked to return it, took it to her mothers, where it was “destroyed”.
The idea that regular people just keep work laptops after they’ve been asked to return them is just kind of shocking to me.MayBee (081489) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:00 am
I do think it’s interesting that people set up fake Twitter and Facebook accounts to spring into use when needed.MayBee (081489) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:04 am
In this case, there is the fake dental hygienist and her photo double in Houston on facebook just created and hanging around the web. So weird.
MayBee – it is common for people to steal laptops from their employer. Duh.JD (e5c06b) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:31 am
Where was that Meagan Broussard chick from? I forget, but wasn’t it near Houston?
I have the dimmest unreliable memory of that “hispanic woman” stock photo pic being used as a friend in some other fake fb profile, maybe a fake GC profile.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:37 am
“To be clear, I’d rather she *be* helped”
Yeah, well, I’d help her from afar, if I was you, Dustin.
She seems to have a slight tendency to bite the hand that feeds.Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:44 am
In her depo, Nadia was confronted with a letter from her (“demented”) employer at the brickyard documenting her sudden departure, and requesting return of keys, overpaid salary, and cellphones.
Nadia said she’d never laid eyes on the letter before, and had not given it over as part of document production.
Yet she she had carefully documented return of the cellphone (and, fwiw, nk not given that documentation over to opposing counsel)
I’m guessing she didn’t give the salary back.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:46 am
Asking for the laptop back is just poor form on the part of the employer. It really reflects poorly on them that they tried to use that against their former employee.
milowent- the court deferred any jury instruction about an inference to be made for the trial judge. The trial never happened.MayBee (081489) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:47 am
“Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group?”
If you went around saying that to people thirty years ago, they would have locked you up in the nuthouse.Dave Surls (46b08c) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:48 am
Everybody should have the opportunity to work in the nourishing environment of a brickyard.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:53 am
“Asking for the laptop back is just poor form on the part of the employer.”
MayBee – Exactly. First they give the black chick a laptop that’s inferior quality than the ones they gave white employees, then they have the gall to ask for their second rate property back when she leaves their employment? PRIMA FACIE RACISM
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACEdaleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:58 am
I believe the propper internet response is “COME AT ME BRO!!!”Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/26/2012 @ 11:33 am
“The idea that regular people just keep work laptops after they’ve been asked to return them is just kind of shocking to me.”
Well, prepare to be shocked. I don’t know if they are “regular” people, but when you leave your employer in a dispute, I think its much more likely to happen. Its clearly not appropriate, but it happens
This study says 3% of departing employees admitted (self-report!!) they wrongfully kept their laptops.
Employers blog about this problem, its not isolated:
“The trial never happened.” Why not?milowent (1b563e) — 3/26/2012 @ 11:41 am
Nadia Naffe is one of the 3%erz. Se stole their laptop, and that was the evil inference that counsel wanted people to draw.JD (6a2c58) — 3/26/2012 @ 11:47 am
The one’s that do are guilty at least of conversion and if they lie and sneak it away, it’s theft.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 11:55 am
So admitting she has it, but not returning it, is conversion at the very least. If she lied about its demise, she flat stole it.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 11:56 am
It was a sneaky hurricane what ruined a laptop but not the structure.JD (6a2c58) — 3/26/2012 @ 11:58 am
Twitter troll is insane. Patterico endorses the content of every comment posted on this site, despite what Patterico might say to the contrary.JD (e5c06b) — 3/26/2012 @ 12:13 pm
Of course twitter troll is insane. Plain starkers.
I have a name for that technique ( to Pachoucha) from one of my hub’s first big cases.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 12:24 pm
Naffe’s tactics are very CAIR-like.LadyLiberty1885 (19edb6) — 3/26/2012 @ 1:39 pm
alright, you made me guys look. the timeline of the naffe GOP discrimination lawsuit is roughly as follows:
Aug 2003- Naffe is hired as field director in Florida for GOP/Bush-Cheney campaign
April 2, 2004 – Naffe says she is fired after filing complaint about racial discrimination
August 2004 – Naffe files federal lawsuit
July 2005 – Naffe gives deposition
Sometime after deposition – case settles out of course, presumably all terms are confidential.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/gop-challengers-blogger-taking-early-aim-at-hillsborough-commissioner/1185923milowent (be890a) — 3/26/2012 @ 1:52 pm
out of court*, sorry for the typo.milowent (be890a) — 3/26/2012 @ 1:52 pm
There are a lot more “clues” in Rape Barn 2: Electric Boogaloo than any old or dummy account that might be out there.
Every word in it is deliberate.Noodles (3681c4) — 3/26/2012 @ 1:56 pm
I did run that knowx tracer, btw, to see what came up.
Exactly one Nadia Milhouse (#rapehouse nadia)
No Nadia Kroger Milhouse, No Nadia Kroger-Milhouse in multi-state search
No Nadia Kroger in MA
Verdict: ZZZZZzzzzzenanigansSarahw (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 3:54 pm
“April 2, 2004 – Naffe says she is fired after filing complaint about racial discrimination”
milowent – Hurricane Ivan, the event which Nadia blames for the loss of the RPOF’s laptop, was in September 2004.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2012 @ 4:21 pm
@342 – and? i guess no one cared about until she filed suit in August 2004, then? again, not surprising to me. The GOP was a little busy with things other than recovering an allegedly old laptop. when she sued, any defense attorney worth his salt would want to see that laptop for evidence.milowent (0f8248) — 3/26/2012 @ 6:55 pm
I don’t think that’s the fact situation, Milowent. She was asked to return it upon termination.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 7:01 pm
See the paragraph from the depo at the top of this post.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/26/2012 @ 7:04 pm
“I don’t think that’s the fact situation, Milowent. She was asked to return it upon termination.”
I guarantee you she was, that would be standard protocol for anyone with halfway competent HR people. what you do when people don’t comply is another thing.
the value of the laptop in all this would be more useful if we knew how much the GOP paid to settle her discrimination claim, which we are not going to find out, i am sure.
unless nadia synced her emails to James’ laptop, i guess.milowent (0f8248) — 3/26/2012 @ 9:45 pm
“when she sued, any defense attorney worth his salt would want to see that laptop for evidence.”
milowent – Exactly, but the hurricane ate it. Also, it is not in any way inconsistent with the links you posted earlier.
Remember Nadia seemed to have a lot of trouble remember what work she had done on which computer and fessed up to not having searched her home computer for discoverable documents during her deposition. Of course she didn’t want to turn over the laptop.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/26/2012 @ 11:24 pm
daley – i didn’t read the whole deposition. i interpreted the posting of it as fair game, since its a public document, but its mostly evidence with which to potentially smear nadia regarding her barngate narrative. if hannah giles or izzy santa or lila rose, all who worked closely with o’keefe, came out and said “this o’keefe barn story sounds like total bullshit, James would never do anything like that” i’d probably be over it completely. in any event, this is all really just a personal squabble between o’keefe and nadia. the failed sting on the NYU professor who had the gall to ask for project veritas’ form 990 is the most interesting part of the whole shebang.milowent (1b563e) — 3/27/2012 @ 5:27 am
oh, and i don’t really believe the laptop was damaged during hurricane ivan, its just too convenient.milowent (1b563e) — 3/27/2012 @ 5:28 am
I’m guessing the settlement is somewhere in the “pay the attorney” range. But that’s just a guess.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/27/2012 @ 6:03 am
“daley – i didn’t read the whole deposition. i interpreted the posting of it as fair game, since its a public document, but its mostly evidence with which to potentially smear nadia regarding her barngate narrative.”
milowent – I guess commenting on Nadia’s activities regarding her employment with the RPOF and prior to the settlement of her lawsuit (shortly after the deposition) makes sense to you. To me it amounts to phoning it in.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2012 @ 11:12 am
I meant to include without reading the depositiondaleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2012 @ 11:13 am
Comment by milowent — 3/27/2012 @ 5:28 am
oh, and i don’t really believe the laptop was damaged during hurricane ivan, its just too convenient.
Highly unlikely,m but the judge had to accept that , because there is no easy wasy to prove otherwise.
My question is, what was so important not to return the laptop? I don’t think it was the money – not at that stage. I suppose it is fear of what could be found on the laptop. What could be found? Much of the content of erased files of course. I am wondering what she might have been worrying about.Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/27/2012 @ 1:34 pm
I don’t get that part at all. She had their property and shouldn’t have and it was destroyed so she should pay for the computer and the software and the data. This isn’t complicated.
An honorable person would pay for the property.Dustin (330eed) — 3/27/2012 @ 1:37 pm
Comment by Sarahw — 3/26/2012 @ 6:58 am
Sammy, I took a screenshot of the profile that was there before (the one that was active fri or Sat or whenever it is I last looked at it). It had the Sam Adams avatar.
I looked at the current page just after or aboput 9 PM Saturday night Eastern Daylight Time, March 24, 2012. I believe I booted up at about 8:55 PM, as I took a pictures of the screen at about that time (A day or two before, Firefox had somehow wandered off the icons on the bottom of that iMac)
You could have seen the old one later than 9 PM Saturday EDT if your browser had not refreshed the page.
I also looked at the Nadia Naffe Twitter page, which was protected at that point. That page did not automatically refresh – a later loading of that page had a different number of follwers and people following.Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/27/2012 @ 2:08 pm
It’s an empty profile except for the Sam Adams avatar.
At this time I think the YPA meetup profile had been “our” Nadia’s, If she’s hiding her greasy reality show tryout or someone is just having a bit of fun, good for them.
It looks like someone went to a lot of trouble to create false history like the editing of the London Times in George Orwell’s 1984. It’;s not just replacing the picture – it’s putting in historical data (although it might have been from another profile maybe)
The purpose, obviously, is so that the casual researcher should come to the conclusion that Nadia Milhouse and Nadia Naffe are not the same person.
There has to be an important reason for this.
If the Twitter picture is a picture of the real Nadia, then it looks like Nadia – or WINSTON SMITH – used some search engine to find a picture of a woman who resembled her and put that into the YPA profile. (the picture intended for people who knew for a fact that the YPA Nadia Milhouse and the Twitter Nadia Naffe were the same person. The false biography and slight name change intended for those who did not.)Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/27/2012 @ 2:10 pm
The new pic is some hispanic woman, who is not Nadia Naffe and not linked to her twitter picture.
The whole idea was that people should not think they were the same person. But a similar picture was used so as to limit suspicion on the part of people who knew for a fact that the two accounts belonged to the same person.
The following website:
…says that the photographer was:
Carla Van WagonerSammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/27/2012 @ 2:23 pm
De United States
Miembro desde January 2006
Cool, you foud the source for the stock photo! Ironic how often it gets used on cosmetic dentistry websites, given all the fuss about teeth jokes.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/27/2012 @ 3:02 pm
Sammy, that photgrapher is on shutterstock.com, too. There’s a whole cache of the same model. http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=Hispanic+woman&photos=on&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=CarlaVanWagoner&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1&secondary_submit=SearchSarahw (b0e533) — 3/27/2012 @ 5:29 pm
Sorry, link is wonky. But you can search on the photographer’s name to see the collection.
I wonder what the photographer would think about use of her pictures by fake-account scammers? Maybe nothing if she got paid. Maybe something if the image has just been lifted for free.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/27/2012 @ 5:36 pm
Went to the photographers FB…the model is one of her firiends. I dropped the photographer a short note with the links in case she retains any interest in the pics, and might care about them being used to create fraud IDs.Sarahw (b0e533) — 3/27/2012 @ 6:43 pm
Very interesting about the photo.
as for the laptop, i’m not seeing the huge significance of that. employees like to take the things they’ve been given when they leave, which they shouldn’t do. it appears the defendant in the case knew the laptop was destroyed and wanted an “inference” drawn…
oh, and i don’t really believe the laptop was damaged during hurricane ivan, its just too convenient.
This study says 3% of departing employees admitted (self-report!!) they wrongfully kept their laptops. This while including a link stating this is fraud and employers find it a problem
and? i guess no one cared about until she filed suit in August 2004, then? again, not surprising to me.
In service to not caring about Nadia stealing her employer’s computer, milowent hauls the goalposts around with him for a while.MayBee (081489) — 3/27/2012 @ 7:03 pm
SOP, MayBeeJD (318f81) — 3/27/2012 @ 7:05 pm
Of course they cared that she stole a laptop. You just can’t sue people for that kind of stuff because it’s not worth it.
Not only does she steal computers, but she actually boasted stealing all her associate’s (O’Keefe) emails. And then when they had problems, she held them over his head. She’s read every single secret in that man’s email. This is an unbelievable breach of privacy.
Imagine what Shuster and Tommy Christopher would say about O’Keefe if he did this to a woman he was angry with.
And everyone who has ever left her alone in their house or let her borrow their laptop or phone now is chewing on what Nadia has on them.Dustin (330eed) — 3/27/2012 @ 7:24 pm
“In service to not caring about Nadia stealing her employer’s computer, milowent hauls the goalposts around with him for a while.”
MayBee – Then milowent fesses up to not have read Nadia’s deposition which might have given a real indication why she would not want to have turned over the laptop. Heck, she admitted she didn’t even search her home computer for documents responsive to discovery requests.
Pure hackery on milowent’s part.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2012 @ 7:31 pm
if its hackery not to choose to read a 500 page deposition, i’m guilty as charged. my point has always been that laptop theft of former employees is a not uncommon problem employers have to deal with. when it happens to anyone here, go talk to HR, now you know that have guides for dealing with that stuff.
again, if if hannah giles or izzy santa or lila rose, all who worked closely with o’keefe, came out and said “this o’keefe barn story sounds like total bullshit, James would never do anything like that” i’d probably be over it completely.milowent (0f8248) — 3/27/2012 @ 7:45 pm
“my point has always been that laptop theft of former employees is a not uncommon problem employers have to deal with.”
milowent – It depends on your definition of uncommon, doesn’t it? My point is that it is unethical and stealing. Also given Nadia’s obvious evasiveness in her deposition, if I had to bet, I would guess there was ample reason for her not to produce the laptop if she was contemplating a lawsuit against the RPOF.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2012 @ 8:42 pm
“if its hackery not to choose to read a 500 page deposition, i’m guilty as charged.”
milowent – Guilty. Why read any of the subject of the post you are attempting to bloviate authoritatively on, right? Makes no sense at all.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2012 @ 8:44 pm
mil may have a bright future in congress. They tend to not read stuff before they bloviate authoritatively there, either.elissa (4d84c9) — 3/27/2012 @ 8:56 pm
You have to pass the bill, to find out what was in it, methinks.Simon Jester (ecbe56) — 3/27/2012 @ 9:22 pm
i guess you guys never have to sleep, you are better folks than i. that why if hannah, izzy, or lila just spoke up, lazy people like me and the mainstream media would stop wondering if there is a story here.milowent (0f8248) — 3/27/2012 @ 9:25 pm
If there is not sufficient evidence that Nadia Naffe is a lying liar what tells lies, then I don’t know what to tell you.JD (318f81) — 3/27/2012 @ 9:34 pm
“i guess you guys never have to sleep, you are better folks than i.”
milowent – Or you could just be a lazy hack.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2012 @ 9:46 pm
if hannah, izzy, or lila just spoke up … jesus christ, why won’t anyone just point me to what they’ve probably said somewhere already? cuz i’m a lazy hack.milowent (0f8248) — 3/27/2012 @ 9:51 pm
Folks, having interacted with Milowent this evening on Twitter, I’d ask you lighten up a bit…
Sure, he’s lazy. He admits it, and you know what? That’s fine. If he doesn’t want to search for links on his own, that isn’t horrible.
Just provide the things. Once you do, he’s willing to look at them, and question those whose story the evidence proves to be false.
Occupy Rebellion still hasn’t really answered his questions after proof a criminal case had been tossed out, once confronted with a screen shot proving it had been.Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/27/2012 @ 10:00 pm
Why do they have to say something to please you, milowent? None of them have said anything about it. Which, considering the way Nadia treats people who talk about her, that is probably wise policy.
You notice they aren’t taking a stand on her behalf, right?
There’s no evidence to support what she says, her history shows her to be litigious, accusatory, and dissembling, not to mention someone who helps herself to information on computers that belong to other people.
But yeah, you go ahead and ignore all that and make your own rule for what other people should do to prove her accusations wrong.MayBee (081489) — 3/27/2012 @ 10:11 pm
In other words, you don’t care to let her own actions, words, and history speak to the trustworthiness of her accusations.
Instead, you insist that other people not involving themselves surely means something bad.MayBee (081489) — 3/27/2012 @ 10:15 pm
milowent – I can also say it’s not uncommon for employers to use information contained on company owned assets used by employees, such as computers, as grounds to terminate employees. Some employees try to take steps to prevent employers from reviewing what is on their computers by erasing their contents or refusing to return portable or remotely sited computers. A lot of files can be recovered forensically if the employee does not know what he/she is doing.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/27/2012 @ 10:15 pm
Milo, thinks Weinergate was a political hoax, swallows the Planned Parenthood meme, hook line and sinker, and that’s among the most reputable things on his blog.narciso (83bb81) — 3/27/2012 @ 10:17 pm
if hannah giles or izzy santa or lila rose, all who worked closely with o’keefe, came out and said “this o’keefe barn story sounds like total bullshit, James would never do anything like that” i’d probably be over it completely.
Comment by milowent — 3/27/2012 @ 7:45 pm
— So, having “worked closely with O’Keefe” makes their hearsay opinions more relevant than any actual documented testimony/statements and evidence, or lack thereof?Icy (25eae8) — 3/28/2012 @ 2:13 am
Yeah… Way to go folks. That’s exactly how you convince a guy on the edge. Nicely done.
Idiots.Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/28/2012 @ 2:41 am
“Just provide the things. Once you do, he’s willing to look at them, and question those whose story the evidence proves to be false.”
thanks scott. its funny, because i first got interested in investigating stories during rathergate, and i completely supported the research done showing the docs were a hoax, because it was good research vetting by folks like patterico on the right. that is the way i have approached things since then. i defended patterico posting the deposition as fair game (though i was told by lefties “why are you defending this!!”!”), but i don’t think the laptop theft story proves much of anything.
“Why do they have to say something to please you, milowent?”
they don’t. but trying to pick who is more believable between o’keefe and naffe? i have serious issues with that.milowent (d3dcb6) — 3/28/2012 @ 6:25 am
Sure it proves something, Milowent. It proves she is willing to convert property belonging to others to her own use, fib about it, and was not only dilatory about meeting her obligations in document production, but probably had discoverable work product on the machine.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/28/2012 @ 6:53 am
“but trying to pick who is more believable between o’keefe and naffe? i have serious issues with that.”
milowent – It’s even harder when you don’t read publicly available source material.
Have you read Nadia’s complaint that was dismissed by the judge in New Jersey and compared that to what she is saying now?daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/28/2012 @ 7:08 am
You shouldn’t have a problem picking who is more believable in the present instance, milowent, because O’keefe has accused her of nothing except threatening to reveal his email communications, and she’s actually done that.
Moreover, her own story, read in the light most favorable to herself, is full of holes and inconsistencies. Her innuendo/conclusions rest on relation of her subjective fears and personal reactions to her situation, none of which materialized, by her own account, and ludicrous, somewhat nutty notions of what unlawful restraint might be.
Every action of Okeefes from the times his first removal from the barn to his dropping her off at the train station with aid of another driver can be viewed in a vastly different light based on her own admission that she was drinking, and information that has come to light about her mood instability and former and very likely present use of medication to control unstable mood, that not only amplifies the effects of alcohol, but which if being adjusted or missed or over-used could result into her tipping into an episode of detatchment from reality or mania. Moreover well after the fact such an episode could lead to a confabulated history.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/28/2012 @ 7:10 am
Calling other commenters “Idiots” because they didn’t follow your advice on how to win friends and influence people? Classic.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/28/2012 @ 7:48 am
“Calling other commenters “Idiots” because they didn’t follow your advice on how to win friends and influence people? Classic.”
DRJ – Also, I have not seen anything on this thread to indicate the commenter in question is in good faith “on the edge.”
Dancing goal posts is never the best indicator in my experience.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/28/2012 @ 8:00 am
Just provide the things. Once you do, he’s willing to look at them, and question those whose story the evidence proves to be false.
Funny.MayBee (081489) — 3/28/2012 @ 8:24 am
I think that’s funny because that’s exactly what happened until we got to the point where only *other* women weighing in will do.MayBee (081489) — 3/28/2012 @ 8:39 am
Why should any other woman “weigh in” when Nadia’s narrative speaks for itself (as in being backaway crazy)?SarahW (b0e533) — 3/28/2012 @ 8:42 am
You don’t need anything BUT her own narration to determine its unreliability.SarahW (b0e533) — 3/28/2012 @ 8:42 am
I agree. It’s all right there for those who want to read it. There are also some very good clues as to why involved women wouldn’t want to jump in and publicly criticize NN.MayBee (081489) — 3/28/2012 @ 8:57 am
uninvolved womenMayBee (081489) — 3/28/2012 @ 9:07 am
Begone, foreign spambot!Icy (1b5e18) — 4/2/2012 @ 1:07 pm
Hey, it worked!
Here, let me try it again: Amy Holmes, conservative babe extraordinaire, marry me!
???Icy (1b5e18) — 4/2/2012 @ 1:10 pm
better be carefulColonel Haiku (24d813) — 4/8/2012 @ 2:38 pm
with da brussels never know
what will sprout later
Has NN posted #rapebarn 3 like she promised?JD (34d969) — 4/8/2012 @ 3:30 pm
Nope, but it would be strange for her to post anything before he hearing, in May, don’t you think? (That is,if her lawyer has control of his erratic client.)Sarahw (b0e533) — 4/8/2012 @ 4:50 pm
Her last comment at her site says it is coming, sarahwJD (34d969) — 4/8/2012 @ 5:34 pm
i heart scentsy candles NG has a neurosis about my one at work I leave it on overnight all the time and she’s very very certain it’s gonna burn the office down one day
wouldn’t that be somethinghappyfeet (3c92a1) — 4/8/2012 @ 6:20 pm
JD, I saw that earlier this week sometime. I call it #bottomlessbarnSarahw (b0e533) — 4/8/2012 @ 7:14 pm
From what I have read here, Ms. Naffe would seem to have a limitless future if she were to enter the federal civil service system.Ed B. (5d05e8) — 4/21/2012 @ 12:26 am