Internet Bluster Is Foolhardy

Print This Post

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Patterico says:

    I'll note only that there is very little doubt that Ms. Kelly is the one behind the bogus threat. Either that, or someone is framing her.

    I e-mailed her at her e-mail address, which clearly relates to her organization. She gave me a phone number to call, but I deferred as I want our communications to be documented in writing.

    I don't think I'm speaking out of turn to say that I told Prof. Volokh the above, and he was satisfied it was her. And he didn't even know that her IP address traces back to New Orleans (though I did).

    I have sent her this link as well as that for Prof. Volokh's post.

  2. Shkspr says:

    Her argument would have more weight if in addition to being an attorney she were also a Computer Engineer.

  3. Patrick says:

    If discussion on large weblogs today plays in some part the role that media attention used to play in heightening public attention toward injustice in individual cases, Ms. Kelly has spoiled the gift her client received from Balko/Reason.

    Where only Patterico, who himself has a large site, was discussing flaws in the Balko narrative, now Instapundit and Volokh, huge blogs, are directing attention to Ms. Kelly's foolish conduct, and collaterally directing attention to Patterico's questions about the Duncan case. Stupid.

  4. Patrick says:

    Update: Ms. Kelly has written a sincere and full apology, which Patterico has accepted.

    Good for her.

  5. rsbennett3 says:

    I would be very concerned if my attorney did not know the difference between "no" and "know."

  1. March 5, 2009

    [...] to blogger Patterico: how dare you talk to my witnesses as part of your research on my case? [Ken @ Popehat, Sheffner/Copyrights and Campaigns, Volokh, Hricik/Legal Ethics Forum; lawyer Kathy Kelly retracts [...]