Contact
Subscribe


Nadia Naffe Won't Shut Up, But She'll Threaten You To Make You Shut Up

Mar 26, 2012
By .
Law, Politics & Current Events

Ideal clients and ideal political opponents share an important quality: they'll shut up if you tell them to.

James O'Keefe and Nadia Naffe are not ideal clients, and political blogger Patterico is not an ideal political opponent.

Who are these people?

Well, no doubt you've heard of James O'Keefe, a conservative activist who seems to have embarked on a skit-based journalism career. His pimp-visits-ACORN routine led to political upheaval and a lawsuit which I wrote about in 2009. Another caper led to a misdemeanor conviction.

Nadia Naffe is a young conservative activist who once worked with O'Keefe, and is now publicly accusing him of a scheme to assault her sexually. A judge previously dismissed her harassment claim against O'Keefe for insufficient evidence, and even sources that would normally report any allegation against O'Keefe with unmitigated glee are treating her with suspicion, though that may be based more on her conservative background than on a sober evaluation of facts. Her diction and demeanor give us a glimpse of what it would be like if Gawker Media hired a lolcat.

Patterico is a political blogger and, in his day job, a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County. Patterico is substantially to the right of me, and we probably disagree more than we agree; however, I see him as someone who calls them as he sees them and does an admirable job of avoiding "my side, right or wrong" mentality. His site is well worth reading.

What do these people have to do with shutting up?

Well, first, O'Keefe and Naffe are classic examples of nightmare clients. They are embroiled in litigation or threatening litigation and yet will not shut the fuck up. Here's the thing — unless your attorney is a partner in a Kardashian-inspired approach to litigation and is helping you use the court system to get publicity, any competent attorney will tell you that you need to shut up about the subject of your lawsuits, criminal investigations, and prosecutions. Anything less makes your case vastly more difficult to litigate. O'Keefe is suing media outlets for harming his reputation by falsely reporting (maliciously or incompetently) that he had been convicted of a felony, but won't shut up about it. The result is a wealth of statements that any competent lawyer will use to impeach him and tear apart his argument that his reputation has been damaged by the media. Similarly, Naffe would clearly like to sue O'Keefe, but her antics have rendered any case very probably unwinnable by offering a wealth of impeaching statements and rhetoric that puts her motives in the worst light possible. The result — both have created an appearance that they view litigation as politics by other means, not as a way of resolving genuine disputes. Lawyers hate clients like that.

Moreover, Naffe might well be not-shutting-up her way into trouble. A significant part of her story involves documents she apparently downloaded when she got access to O'Keefe's email. One hopes that she has an attorney advising her, and that the attorney is familiar with the federal computer fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1030, which makes it a federal crime to do the following:

(a) Whoever—
. . . .
(2) intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains—
. . . .
(C) information from any protected computer [a term including any computer or mobile device "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication,"];

. . .

or

. . .
(7) with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—
. . .
(B) threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access;
. . .

Second: Nadia Naffe and her political allies very much want Patterico to shut up about her allegations against O'Keefe, and they are willing to threaten him to shut him up.

See, when Naffe released her (to date) two-part series accusing O'Keefe publicly, Patterico offered some skeptical questions, the sort of questions that one might ask in written discovery or in a deposition or on cross-examination. The next day he offered still more. Some of the questions are about the circumstances of the incident Naffe describes; others are about her political biases. Many are questions that any good attorney would ask in evaluating her claims. The defense attorney in me is tempted to say that this is the most thorough consideration of exculpatory evidence that I have ever seen from a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, but that would be uncouth, so I will not, and you should definitely forget that I brought it up.

Naffe and her allies did not refute Patterico's bullet points or explain why they did not detract from her case or credibility. Rather, they turned to threats.

Naffe has now locked down her twitter account. Before she did, though, she indicated that she was reporting Patterico to "Internal Affairs" at the DA's Office. She suggested that he had done wrong by (1) writing posts that amounted to "legal advice" to O'Keefe, (2) writing posts that amounted to "interfering in civil matters," and (3) posting on a private blog during work hours.

As to the third part, her claim appears to be ass-damp speculation. Anyone with a blog knows that when you write and when you publish can be two very different times; I routinely write before or after work and set posts to publish during the day, or give posts a last read-through during a break and publish then. Patterico is an old hand at this, used to feckless bullying by political opponents, and I would be surprised if he's not very careful about his on-the-clock behavior.

Her other two claims are simply ridiculous. Naffe released assertions publicly in a clear bid for publicity. The notion that a blogger who happens to be a lawyer can't comment on her claims without straying into "legal advice" to a party is ludicrous. Such a wide interpretation of ethical rules would not survive First Amendment scrutiny. Similarly, the notion that an attorney is "interfering" in a public civil matter by commenting upon it is fatuous. Naffe and her hangers-on will not be producing any authority supporting their arguments, because (1) it doesn't exist and (2) they aren't capable of finding it if it did exist.

But Naffe and her supporters aren't relying upon the legal force of their arguments. They are relying upon openly censorious thuggery — on politics by other means. Misconduct allegations against an attorney — even when they are sub-literate and specious — are embarrassing, inconvenient, and annoying. That's the point of the tweet pictured above, and of Naffe's celebrations of censorship-by-complaint. Naffe and her supporters do not seek to persuade, or to prove their cause is right — they intend to make frivolous complaints to a public entity in hopes of silencing a critic. For this, they deserve our contempt.

I have no idea what really happened between O'Keefe and Naffe. On the one hand, I find O'Keefe to be skin-crawlingly creepy and would not let him near my daughters unless I had a Mossberg Persuader pointed at his junk. On the other hand, Naffe seems like an unbalanced publicity-seeker. I'm not interested in being the one who sorts out what happened. I am, however, interested in freedom of expression. By that metric, right now Naffe and her pals are coming off as the clear villains of this exchange.

Edited to add: By the way, I will not hesitate to put up the Popehat signal to arrange pro bono defense of Patterico to the extent that the sub-normal blather ripens into anything.

Edited again: An apt illustration of the sort of sub-normal censorious asshattery that Naffe has in her corner:

You can’t hide behind journalism or free speech, because you are NOT a journalist. You are a THUG and a DISGRACE to the community and state of California. And we are going to make an example out of you for all to see. And that example is your THUGGISH behavior, your outright OUTRAGEOUS conduct towards women, other races, other religions, and other cultures. You are an avowed racist, and you attack and or support others who go out and attack people without provocation. And we will dedicate our time, effort, and money to root out your THUGGISH ways. And will campaign to have you called on the carpet for every attack on others you promote. And you can take that to the bank and cash it you despicable low rent thug.

I'm pretty sure this blogger is immune to an equally censorious response, because he doesn't have a job, or the folks at the place he cleans toilets on the night shift don't care.

Last 5 posts by Ken White

124 Comments
Tags , ,

124 Comments

  1. David  •  Mar 26, 2012 @8:45 am

    "…what it would be like if Gawker Media hired a lolcat."

    Great line!

  2. John Berry  •  Mar 26, 2012 @10:30 am

    How do these people live such a soap opera existence? Maybe I just like a bit more personal honesty and far less drama in my life.

  3. Naaman Fletcher  •  Mar 26, 2012 @10:56 am

    They both sound like a couple of lunatics to me, although in this case it is clear that Nadia is being nuts and that O'Keefe is guilty only of having liked a girl who didn't like him back.

  4. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 26, 2012 @11:45 am

    and you attack and or support others who go out and attack people without provocation.

    So what, exactly, would they like for him to do?

  5. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 26, 2012 @12:07 pm

    You folks realize that it is only a matter of time before the follow me hear…

  6. Dan Weber  •  Mar 26, 2012 @12:10 pm

    The only thing I would say to defend Naffe is that if you believe a DDA is acting improperly, contacting the DA's office is appropriate. One of the many problems in the Tonya Craft trial was that the prosecutor was making a bunch of comments directly to the media.

    Of course, in this case (AFAIK) the matter is not anywhere near Patterico's district. He is pretty much a private citizen in these matters and ought to be able to comment as he wishes without people running to his boss to get him fired, especially for posting such innocuous things.

    (Randomly, a few mornings ago I happened to remember the old days of Usenet, and how someone commented how his wife had miscarried so he wasn't in a good mood. The guy he was in a flame war with made a comment along the lines of "well, now your stupidity won't reproduce." Our identities were all essentially public in those days, and the post was forwarded to the a-hole's employer — where he was posting from. He was fired. I approved at the time, but looking back with age I'm not sure how I feel now.)

  7. Xenocles  •  Mar 26, 2012 @1:25 pm

    ""…what it would be like if Gawker Media hired a lolcat."

    Great line!"

    Seconded.

  8. Dustin  •  Mar 26, 2012 @2:48 pm

    "The defense attorney in me is tempted to say that this is the most thorough consideration of exculpatory evidence that I have ever seen from a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney"

    I may be a fan of Patterico's, but that was very funny.

    An altogether nice summary of the BS on display in this case.

  9. Ken  •  Mar 26, 2012 @3:05 pm

    Naffe sure has a lot of spam commenters.

  10. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 26, 2012 @4:16 pm

    No, the thugs she is palling around with are likely the source.

  11. Ken  •  Mar 26, 2012 @4:18 pm

    No, I mean on her site.

  12. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 26, 2012 @4:34 pm

    ahhhh.

  13. Judge N. Jury  •  Mar 26, 2012 @7:06 pm

    I know this was discussed when O'Keefe broke CA privacy laws and Patterico was exposed as a part-time DA/part-time partisan blogger, who the left feared might influence real justice, but Naffe newly seems to think the fact that Patterico is an active public servant creates a conflict of interest.

    This is likely because she has to now deal with the courts and O'Keefe has already received exceptionally light punishments for his crimes, including an incomprehensibly generous immunity deal from Patterico's homestate on dead-to-rights illegal taping.

    Naffe is a definite loose cannon, but only has credibility as being newsworthy because she was a trusted colleague of Breitbart and O'Keefe. They vetted her for the general public, trusted her with their innermost intel. Everything went sour and O'Keefe is lucky the MSM doesn't trust her or else his face would be on the front page for being some kind of sex fiend. But this is about his #1 cheerleader…

    Naffe thinks Patterico's "coverage" and "legal pointers" put a burden of proof on her that is not asked of O'Keefe. This shows a bias and pre-judging that may call into question his ability to evenhandedly serve any and all of the people in his district.

    Guys like Breitbart and O'Keefe are bankrolled by anonymous sponsors ostensibly to generate media made solely for it's imbalance. The justice system works differently.

    O'Keefe himself said free speech means highlighting the things he thinks are important to tell his story his way – even if others consider it deliberate deception. At the same time, he solicits large contributions from affluent patrons rather than his readers – disgusting, right? Astroturf.

    O'Keefe's portraying a criminal in order to manufacture a story is an abuse of free speech, similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater, or akin to criminal mischief, disturbing the peace, interrupting commerce, etc. He was paid to disrupt ACORN's activities and found some dirt but not endemic to the whole organization.

    It didn't matter – look who was poised to pounce on ACORN:
    Todd Akin [R-MO2]
    Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
    Joe Barton [R-TX6]
    Rob Bishop [R-UT1]
    Jo Bonner [R-AL1]
    John Boozman [R-AR3]
    Paul Broun [R-GA10]
    Henry Brown [R-SC1]
    John Campbell [R-CA48]
    John Carter [R-TX31]
    Howard Coble [R-NC6]
    Tom Cole [R-OK4]
    Michael Conaway [R-TX11]
    John Culberson [R-TX7]
    Mary Fallin [R-OK5]
    Trent Franks [R-AZ2]
    Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
    Kay Granger [R-TX12]
    Ralph Hall [R-TX4]
    Jim Jordan [R-OH4]
    Steve King [R-IA5]
    John Kline [R-MN2]
    Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
    Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO9]
    Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]
    Kenny Marchant [R-TX24]
    Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
    Bill Posey [R-FL15]
    Phil Roe [R-TN1]
    Jean Schmidt [R-OH2]
    John Shadegg [R-AZ3]

    It came out later ACORN's rape-plotters were anomalies – and everybody who voted to defund ACORN disobeyed the basic Constitutional provision that you can't target a single entity.

    We can agree ACORN and OWS had some bad apples, and maybe we can agree it's okay to emphasize only the bad apples from a right wing perspective to make the most impact for a reporter looking to grab attention, but ethically, it's not okay to intentionally suppress relevant mention of the positive work they also do, to include radical speculation and exaggeration, or to tar the innocent workers.

    It's most important to faithfully report the ratio of bad apples to responsible workers found in primary research. Otherwise it's a propaganda piece – this goes for all sides.

    Might Patterico recuse himself from cases involving Democrats, liberals, OWS members or former ACORN employees he might come across? What about people who have worked for Planned Parenthood, or supported the Black Panthers? Will Patterico show the same disdain for those individuals as he does their organizations in his blog on his free time?

    A teacher in a tough school in Jersey got canned for her blog, writing critically about her students – it was considered unprofessional to be so publicly outspoken when she is expected to treat all students evenhandedly.

    What about the money being raised on Patterico's site? Is it making just enough to cover his hosting, or might some wealthy patrons be channelling donations secretly into Patterico's Paypal account to thank him for a job well done in backing up Breitbart, O'Keefe and the boys who they secretly pay? It's anyone's guess because he offers no transparency.

    Would running such a blog ever be worth endangering a good day job to any of you? If so, what stirs that kind of passion so much, an all-encompassing hatred of left wing causes?

    Is Patterico able to put all of that aside when he is on taxpayer time? I would hate to be a liberal in his district that had business before his office only to find out if he's going to blog about the case at night? Patterico has done this already. The whole reason we have real courts is to avoid trying people in the court of public opinion.

    Having a blog that's biased is bad enough, secret donations is worse, but being a real district attorney during the day and writing about your own cases anonymously at night is beyond me. I hope my kids grow up without having to wade through so much trickery when they try to make sense of the world.

  14. Ken  •  Mar 26, 2012 @7:47 pm

    Patterico was exposed as a part-time DA/part-time partisan blogger

    Patterico is only a part-time DA? Really? You have proof? Or is that just a pointless rhetorical flourish? Also, did you really just say "partisan blogger" as if that is notable? You know of actual non-partisan bloggers?

    but Naffe newly seems to think the fact that Patterico is an active public servant creates a conflict of interest.

    This is likely because she has to now deal with the courts and O'Keefe has already received exceptionally light punishments for his crimes, including an incomprehensibly generous immunity deal from Patterico's homestate on dead-to-rights illegal taping.

    The second paragraph doesn't flow from the first paragraph. Also, are you trying to imply that Patterico, a lowly DDA, has the influence to determine what deals get offered to people in cases he's not handling? What's your actual influence? Also, are you actually suggesting that whether or not it's a conflict of interest for a public servant to write a blog depends on whether the mentally ill perceive that it is?

    Naffe thinks Patterico's "coverage" and "legal pointers" put a burden of proof on her that is not asked of O'Keefe.

    Except that blog posts and public discussions are not a legal proceeding and do not have a burden of proof, except ones that pedantic people attempt to argue about. If Naffe sues someone, or is sued, the burden of proof will be imposed by the law, not by blog posts.

    This shows a bias and pre-judging that may call into question his ability to evenhandedly serve any and all of the people in his district.

    Only to very, very silly people. Normal, stable people understand that folks can have strong political opinions in their private life and yet carry on a job and live by the rules in their public lives. Extremist douches on both sides try to obscure this as part of my-side-is-always-right rhetoric, but normal people don't take it seriously.

    O'Keefe himself said free speech means highlighting the things he thinks are important to tell his story his way – even if others consider it deliberate deception. At the same time, he solicits large contributions from affluent patrons rather than his readers – disgusting, right? Astroturf.

    People have been paying to be told what they want to hear as long as there has been language. If O'Keefe lies or acts like an ass, he can be called on it. Spare me the fainting couch.

    O'Keefe's portraying a criminal in order to manufacture a story is an abuse of free speech, similar to yelling fire in a crowded theater, or akin to criminal mischief, disturbing the peace, interrupting commerce, etc.

    This is a legal argument unsupported by any actual law. Can you cite any applicable cases supporting it? I'm not particularly interested in what you think the law ought to be.

    but ethically, it's not okay to intentionally suppress relevant mention of the positive work they also do, to include radical speculation and exaggeration, or to tar the innocent workers.

    Precisely what is the source of that ethical assertion? Do you evaluate all media to determine whether it tells good stories with the bad? Do you police, say, stories about Haliburton, or Bush 43?

    Might Patterico recuse himself from cases involving Democrats, liberals, OWS members or former ACORN employees he might come across? What about people who have worked for Planned Parenthood, or supported the Black Panthers? Will Patterico show the same disdain for those individuals as he does their organizations in his blog on his free time?

    Patterico might recuse himself from some prosecutions, I don't know. Can you point to a California ethics opinion supporting the notion that a prosecutor who criticizes Democrats or Republicans in private must recuse himself from prosecuting them? Or a published case? Or a state or county policy? Do you police Democrats who are prosecutors — or judges — to make sure they do not work on cases where Republicans are the defendant? Do you have any evidence suggesting that any of the defendants he faces are ex-ACORN or ex-OWS?

    A teacher in a tough school in Jersey got canned for her blog, writing critically about her students – it was considered unprofessional to be so publicly outspoken when she is expected to treat all students evenhandedly.

    Has the firing been tested in court? Has a court ruled on whether it was legal? Can you explain why the termination of a teacher in New Jersey has anything to do with the duties of a prosecutor in California? And if you are talking about this case, aren't you being awfully dishonest in your paraphrase in it, considering that the teacher was fired for writing things calling her own private-figure elementary students "future criminals," but Patterico is making comments about public figures?

    What about the money being raised on Patterico's site? Is it making just enough to cover his hosting, or might some wealthy patrons be channelling donations secretly into Patterico's Paypal account to thank him for a job well done in backing up Breitbart, O'Keefe and the boys who they secretly pay? It's anyone's guess because he offers no transparency.

    Do you have any evidence — as opposed to innuendo — that anyone is paying Patterico for writing on these topics? What specific rule or law would he be violating if they did? Do you think that people don't decide whether sites to "tip" based on whether they agree with the message of the site? Can you point to any political blog that does offer the "transparency" you talk about?

    Would running such a blog ever be worth endangering a good day job to any of you? If so, what stirs that kind of passion so much, an all-encompassing hatred of left wing causes?

    I don't know. What moves you to vomit forth lengthy, unconvincing, frankly dishonest comments on my site? And how is he endangering his day job — unless censorious thugs (and their cheerleaders, like you) try to inflict harm on him in retaliation for holding incorrect opinions? Do you ask the same questions about liberal bloggers? Do you accuse any of them of an "all encompassing hatred?" Or are you actually pushing the comically ridiculous position that Patterico's level of political fervor is unusual on the internet?

    I would hate to be a liberal in his district that had business before his office only to find out if he's going to blog about the case at night? Patterico has done this already.

    Really? Evidence, please. In which case has Patterico blogged about a case in which he is the prosecutor? I think you are full of shit on this one.

    The whole reason we have real courts is to avoid trying people in the court of public opinion.

    Well, no. We have courts to provide due process and the rule of law. I double-dog-dare you to name one case Patterico prosecuted in which his blogging interfered with due process. People always have, always will, and always should form and express their own opinions. That's what the First Amendment is for — except to your thuggish little friends.

    Having a blog that's biased is bad enough

    This is one the most fucking stupid things ever written by a putative human being.

    but being a real district attorney during the day and writing about your own cases anonymously at night is beyond me.

    Again, you're pulling that our of your ass. Link to a post in which Patterico wrote about one of his cases. Also, he's not anonymous, you dolt. You have his name. That's how your little friends complained about him.

    I hope my kids grow up without having to wade through so much trickery when they try to make sense of the world.

    I hope your kids grow up to avoid your level of dishonesty and idiocy.

  15. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 26, 2012 @8:31 pm

    Told you they would show up eventually…

  16. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 26, 2012 @8:45 pm

    Also, I would like to say hello to Judge N. Jury, also known as OccupyRebelion…

  17. Ken  •  Mar 26, 2012 @9:13 pm

    Gosh, the person who is so concerned with fairness and decorum and not having "all-encompassing hatred" is the person who talks like this?

    You block me because you're a fucking coward. Most republicans are racist criminals. Have a nice life rotting in hell bitch

    If God came down and kicked your racist ass telling you Trayvon Martin is innocent, you wouldn't give a shit. Fuck off cunt.

  18. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 26, 2012 @9:18 pm

    Shocking, isn't it…

  19. Jess  •  Mar 26, 2012 @9:56 pm

    Is the person talking like "this" the same one aka as Judge N Jury? Just curious.

  20. Smock Puppet, Cranio-Rectal Insertion Syndrome Expert to the Stars  •  Mar 26, 2012 @10:31 pm

    Naffe newly seems to think the fact that Patterico is an active public servant creates a conflict of interest.

    Funny how NO ONE ON THE LEFT ever seems to consider this possible about THEIR partisans commenters in the government.

  21. Smock Puppet, Cranio-Rectal Insertion Syndrome Expert to the Stars  •  Mar 26, 2012 @10:44 pm

    O'Keefe himself said free speech means highlighting the things he thinks are important to tell his story his way – even if others consider it deliberate deception.

    So at worst he's like Michael Moore — and this is IF one grants your description validity. Do you make the same kind of negative commentary about Moore, or are you a partisan hypocrite?

    He was paid to disrupt ACORN's activities and found some dirt but not endemic to the whole organization.

    What are you, out of your MIND?
    a) Is Sixty Minutes "paid to disrupt a company's activities" when they do an undercover investigation? What in your pointy little head leads you to consider the two any different?
    b) "not endemic to the whole organization"? He found not less than FIVE outlets willing to look the other way (and assist with advice) when confronted by a person making a CLEAR and INARGUABLE expression of intent to not just PROSTITUTE children, but to SEXUALLY ENSLAVE them!

    Hey, it's not "rape rape"…. right?

    WTF is WRONG with you, that you attempt to twist an exposure of an attitude of blatant evil into a moral and ethical crime by the exposer ???

    Boy, not only do you have CRIS, you've managed to get it coming back out the top! You're a freaking CRIS Möbius Strip!

  22. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 26, 2012 @11:09 pm

    Is the person talking like "this" the same one aka as Judge N Jury? Just curious.

    If not, then they are very closely linked. As in "they converse regularly, and share plans and strategies."

    Oh, and they coordinate the stalking and harassment of my girlfriend, all because she once wrote an article about a domestic terrorist and murderer.

  23. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 26, 2012 @11:35 pm

    I'm sorry, I was inartful in my wording…

    A convicted domestic terrorist and perjurer, whose bombs led to a man taking his own life to end the pain of the injuries he sustained, and who was suspected to have committed said bombings to cover up the murder of a woman.

  24. anarchic teapot  •  Mar 27, 2012 @3:35 am

    Bloody hell, Ken, you should be more careful when doing the Spring cleaning. That's a really disgusting piece of gunk that crawled out from behind the woodwork there.

  25. Judge N. Jury  •  Mar 27, 2012 @6:06 am

    Nothing to do with OccupyRebellion, whatever that is.

    Patterico has definitely influenced people to be sympathetic to O'Keefe, but I have no way of knowing whether or not he does it at work. I asked because Naffe and others before her have noted that it's so unusual to find someone splitting his time this way.

    If you're dismissing Naffe as mentally ill because she takes meds, remember thousands in active military do too, and God knows who else.

    Blogs can be of great consequence, they can taint juries – blogs can alter public perception, intimidate, harass, misinform, embarrass, obfuscate, distract, etc. This was exactly what Naffe used against O'Keefe, for example, blogging instead of suing. Wouldn't you agree it can be upsetting, damaging or even career-ending without any need to adhere to the most basic legal standards of evidence? And don't forget manufactured support through feeder sites and faked multiple accounts.

    Normal, stable people might understand that folks can have strong political opinions in their private life and yet carry on a job and live by the rules in their public lives – right up until it's them or a family member's ass on the line. Then, they look for the slightest instance of subjectivity and cry bloody murder.

    For example, Mark Fuhrman's private views on race seem to have tipped the entire O.J. trial, making greater objectivity in the future an imperative goal for all law enforcement and prosecutors (who are stable and normal).

    People have been paying to be told what they want to hear as long as there has been language, and there has also been wanton rape and pillaging during all that time – the question is whether we are now in an enlightened period or not and reject media-made-to-order for the rich. Do you feel intentional deception is okay because others do it, or do you think all propaganda should be opposed for the sake of our kids?

    Michael Moore is not the left wing version of this – he may edit in bias but he doesn't pose as a criminal while taping them without consent. Of course the rules are the same for all – if someone investigates the Bush administration and comes up with 1 case of wrongdoing out of 20 in primary research, they ethically need to disclose this.

    Funny you bring them up because they are a great example of corruption that really was top-down though, for example, the Abu Ghraib rapes and torture attributed to a few bad apples until a leaker told Sy Hersh it was ordered by the undersecretary at DOD. Same thing with the Halliburton gang rapes, defended by their top executives and lobbyists in the form of legislation keeping it out of US courts.

    One applicable "legal" case supporting the assertion O'Keefe exceeded his free speech rights in injuring others is Vera v. O'Keefe. Other authorities who have censured O'Keefe's videos are the CA AG's office and multiple Congressionally sponsored investigations who all ruled there was deceptive editing.

    In Wisconsin, there were DAs who recused themselves from cases against right-wing defendants because they had taken part in after-hours protests against Scott Walker's anti-union bill.

    This was exposed by Breitbart-approved "media" groups funded by right wing donor organizations, making the opposite argument as you – they say DAs indeed must be scrutinized and removed if it appears they could mix privately expressed opinions with their work. So do you denounce their view or want to refine your position?

    "Can you point to any political blog that does offer the "transparency" you talk about?" Yes, there is an example at http://nycga.net

    "In which case has Patterico blogged about a case in which he is the prosecutor?" One example seems to be the Roman Polanski case but I honestly haven't done much checking.

    Your First Amendment rights end where you impinge on other people's rights, or if you take a certain job. There are millions of examples requiring discretion or total gags as a condition of employment, including the military, doctors, lawyers, cops, teachers, politicians, media, financial firms, show biz, and nowadays, even low-level workers at insurance companies, fast food chains, etc.

    Ironically, O'Keefe requires 'strictest confidentiality' in his own job postings, limiting the free speech and liberty of his employees.

    I guess Patterico's job doesn't limit his free speech, but it seems it's posing a problem for him if Naffe is reporting him to the bar.

    "I hope your kids grow up to avoid your level of dishonesty and idiocy." Please challenge anything I said without stooping to insults. Just make your case and the insults, you'll find, are not only not needed, they expose a regrettable emotional tendency that could cloud your best reasoning.

    Our kids see if we abandon civility, and they learn this behavior – the most important reason we fight is because we want better for them, right? I look forward to civil replies – this could actually be interesting. I don't hate you people, I am listening to you and value your opinions but disagree with this point because you seem to have extremely low expectations and are excusing your media heroes based on a false equivalence or "offsetting" bad behavior.

    This can be and should be much better because we need to fix our country.

  26. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 27, 2012 @6:14 am

    Terribly sorry the crazy followed me here, Ken.

  27. Ken  •  Mar 27, 2012 @7:01 am

    Terribly sorry the crazy followed me here, Ken.

    Whatever you say, there, Tyler Durden.

  28. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 27, 2012 @7:04 am

    Where the fuck are my flowers? :p

  29. Dan Weber  •  Mar 27, 2012 @7:47 am

    but ethically, it's not okay to intentionally suppress relevant mention of the positive work they also do,

    What in the world is this?

    I'm more open than the most people here to the idea that non-governmental forces can suppress speech. But merely not mentioning something doesn't come anywhere close to suppressing speech.

  30. Ken  •  Mar 27, 2012 @7:58 am

    Nothing to do with OccupyRebellion, whatever that is.

    Uh-huh.

    Patterico has definitely influenced people to be sympathetic to O'Keefe,

    OMG! An American citizen, expressing himself about public figures involved in events of public interest, has influenced the way his readers think! How scandalous!

    but I have no way of knowing whether or not he does it at work. I asked because Naffe and others before her have noted that it's so unusual to find someone splitting his time this way.

    So: you're pulling it out of your ass. You're "just asking questions," like Glenn Beck. And protip: saying "well, I don't have actual evidence, but Nadia Naffe and unnamed other people think so" is not the road to credibility. Also: to the extent Naffe, or anyone else, thinks that it is unusual for people with time-consuming jobs to blog extensively, they are full of shit. I note, however, that I've seen the "you can't be a real blogger or real lawyer if you blog a lot" argument before — from our troll-friend Marc Stephens. Seems to be a typical troll argument.

    If you're dismissing Naffe as mentally ill because she takes meds, remember thousands in active military do too, and God knows who else.

    Actually, I was suggesting she's mentally ill because of the nutty thought patterns you were attributing to her. That was unfair. You could just be pulling that out of your ass, like everything else you say.

    Blogs can be of great consequence, they can taint juries – blogs can alter public perception, intimidate, harass, misinform, embarrass, obfuscate, distract, etc.

    (1) How does that distinguish them from any other form of human expression? (2) I know people immersed in the blog culture feel it is omnipresent, but how many potential jurors do you think actually read political blogs? What evidence do you have for that proposition? (3) How is it wrong for a form of human expression to alter public perception? Isn't that the point of self-expression about any public issue? Aren't you trying to alter public perception on the issues you are ineffectually arguing about? Also: where is the evidence that anything that Patterico has written on this topic is factually incorrect, such that it misinforms? Also, what is wrong with embarrassing someone, if that means pointing out behavior that they should be embarrassed about? If my reference to O'Keefe's creepy sex-boat gag embarrasses him, would you be complaining? And by "obfuscate and distract," you mean "focus on issues that I personally don't think are the most important issues," right?

    This was exactly what Naffe used against O'Keefe, for example, blogging instead of suing.

    Where are your comments criticizing Naffe, then? Can you link to them on her site?

    Wouldn't you agree it can be upsetting, damaging or even career-ending without any need to adhere to the most basic legal standards of evidence?

    Sure. Any information publicized about a person or his or her conduct can be upsetting, damaging, or career-ending. Sometimes it ought to be. But "legal standards of evidence" do not apply to free expression under the First Amendment. Legal standards of evidence apply to court proceedings. A speaker may incur civil liability if they commit defamation — which, in the case of a public figure, means uttering false and harmful facts maliciously (meaning, with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard to their truth). What specific facts has Patterico uttered that are false and malicious? What is your evidence for the claim?

    And don't forget manufactured support through feeder sites and faked multiple accounts.

    What does this have to do with Patterico and the threats against him? What evidence — EVIDENCE — do you have that he uses feeder sites and faked multiple accounts?

    Normal, stable people might understand that folks can have strong political opinions in their private life and yet carry on a job and live by the rules in their public lives – right up until it's them or a family member's ass on the line. Then, they look for the slightest instance of subjectivity and cry bloody murder.

    So? What's your point? What's your evidence that Patterico is biased in any of the cases he prosecutes? Can you even name any cases he has prosecuted? Can you name any defendants who have asserted improper subjectivity against him? Are you under the impression that hardcore gang members are Democratic Party operatives?

    For example, Mark Fuhrman's private views on race seem to have tipped the entire O.J. trial, making greater objectivity in the future an imperative goal for all law enforcement and prosecutors (who are stable and normal).

    Really? So a police officer using racial invective about blacks is equivalent of expressing your political opinion about the issues of the day? Again — do you have any California state or local bar ethics opinion, any California published case, any statute or rule or policy saying that prosecutors can't blog about political issues? Do you have any case where a defense attorney brought a motion to recuse a prosecutor in a criminal case because the prosecutor blogs? (As a defense attorney myself, unless a prosecutor was blogging about my own client's specific case, I can tell you I wouldn't risk sanctions or my client's favor with the judge by filing such an idiotic motion.)

    People have been paying to be told what they want to hear as long as there has been language, and there has also been wanton rape and pillaging during all that time – the question is whether we are now in an enlightened period or not and reject media-made-to-order for the rich. Do you feel intentional deception is okay because others do it, or do you think all propaganda should be opposed for the sake of our kids?

    Oh, this paragraph is just so you. Associating writing about public issues with rape and pillaging, using the meaningless buzzwords "media made to order for the rich," crying "won't anyone think of the children." Dude. Have some self-respect.

    What does it mean to reject "media made for the rich?" Does that mean "rejecting" media that runs stories you disagree with and that put people in a light you disagree with? Can't you do that by changing the channel or not visiting a web site? Also, help me out here — I'm trying to find a difference between your cry and the typical conservative boo-hoo-the-media-is-too-liberal. I can't. Can you explain the difference?

    Also, please point to what evidence you have that Patterico has engaged in "intentional deception" or that his work is "propaganda" in any meaningful way (that is, in any way other than the insipid "he writes about political issues and comes to conclusions I don't like.")

    Michael Moore is not the left wing version of this – he may edit in bias but he doesn't pose as a criminal while taping them without consent. Of course the rules are the same for all – if someone investigates the Bush administration and comes up with 1 case of wrongdoing out of 20 in primary research, they ethically need to disclose this.

    Funny you bring them up because they are a great example of corruption that really was top-down though, for example, the Abu Ghraib rapes and torture attributed to a few bad apples until a leaker told Sy Hersh it was ordered by the undersecretary at DOD. Same thing with the Halliburton gang rapes, defended by their top executives and lobbyists in the form of legislation keeping it out of US courts.

    Uh . . . ok. Other than showing your own political biases, what does that have to do with the topic at hand, which is whether Patterico has done anything wrong by exercising his First Amendment rights to discuss public figures and their behavior?

    One applicable "legal" case supporting the assertion O'Keefe exceeded his free speech rights in injuring others is Vera v. O'Keefe. Other authorities who have censured O'Keefe's videos are the CA AG's office and multiple Congressionally sponsored investigations who all ruled there was deceptive editing.

    I like how you put scare quotes around legal; it's terribly telling. Law is just politics by other means for you, right? Anyway — what does a federal district court case against O'Keefe still in the discovery phase have to do with the question of whether Patterico has committed some sort of misconduct? If you were able to cite the order denying O'Keefe's motion for judgment on the pleadings and tie it to some specific post Patterico had written about the case, you might be able to make a convincing argument that Patterico's analysis of the legality of O'Keefe was incorrect. But you don't do that, and even if you did, what does it have to do with the question of whether a blogger commits some sort of ill-defined misconduct by writing about a public issue?

    In Wisconsin, there were DAs who recused themselves from cases against right-wing defendants because they had taken part in after-hours protests against Scott Walker's anti-union bill.

    (1) Cite, please. (2) If this is true — and I suspect it is, at a minimum, an incompetently summarized event — what case, rule, or statute were they following? What is the parallel case, rule, or statute in California? (3) How do you determine whether a defendant is "left wing" or "right wing" for purposes of such recusal? Specifically, in Patterico's context, how do you assess the political position of gang members?

    This was exposed by Breitbart-approved "media" groups funded by right wing donor organizations, making the opposite argument as you – they say DAs indeed must be scrutinized and removed if it appears they could mix privately expressed opinions with their work. So do you denounce their view or want to refine your position?

    (1) Cite, please. (2) "Breitbart-approved media groups" is a conspicuously conspiracy-theory-nutty term. Who do you mean? (3) It's impossible to answer this question because your terms are so vague and you provide no evidence. But if the scary scary thoughtcriminal conspiracy was saying that prosecutors who blog in their private capacity on public issues must assess each defendant for political leanings and then recuse themselves if they have written in a manner critical to those political leanings, then the scary scary thoughtcriminal conspiracy is full of shit. It's a matter of indifference to me whether the notion comes from them, or from someone like you, because unlike you, I'm not a sip-sip lapdog for some political movement.

    "Can you point to any political blog that does offer the "transparency" you talk about?" Yes, there is an example at http://nycga.net

    Okay. You found a blog. I'll take your word, for sake of argument, that it shows transparency in how web donations are spent, because I found it terribly designed and impenetrable. How common is such transparency? Do you go around criticizing liberal/Democratic-leaning blogs that don't do it? Or only blogs that feature expression you don't like?

    And, let's be frank here — isn't the reason you want transparency so you and your ilk can harass people who donate money to blogs featuring expression you disagree with? Do you doubt for a moment that your equivalents on the conservative side will be don't that?

    "In which case has Patterico blogged about a case in which he is the prosecutor?" One example seems to be the Roman Polanski case but I honestly haven't done much checking.

    So, once again, you pulled the accusation out of your ass? My, what a capacious posterior you have. What is your evidence that Patterico participated in any way in the Polanski case? Is Polanski a Compton hardcore gang member and I missed it?

    Your First Amendment rights end where you impinge on other people's rights, or if you take a certain job.

    That's a vague and dim summary. The "impinge on other people's rights" might be true, but that doesn't mean what you suggest it means. Defamation law is well-established, and it doesn't mean "he said mean things about me and I wish he hadn't" or "he disagrees with me politically and that's just wrong." Also, public employees have more rights to express themselves without workplace consequences, not less, at least in at-will states like California. You'd know that, if you had the faintest grasp of the subjects you talk about, or if you were an honest advocate.

    There are millions of examples requiring discretion or total gags as a condition of employment, including the military, doctors, lawyers, cops, teachers, politicians, media, financial firms, show biz, and nowadays, even low-level workers at insurance companies, fast food chains, etc.

    What relevance do private jobs have to public jobs? As anyone even minimally informed about the relevant law knows, the First Amendment extends more protection to public employee speech than to private employee speech. How do the actually relevant Supreme Court cases on public employee speech support your position?

    Ironically, O'Keefe requires 'strictest confidentiality' in his own job postings, limiting the free speech and liberty of his employees.

    What does that do with whether Patterico has committed some sort of ill-defined misconduct by expressing his views on the conduct of public figures?

    I guess Patterico's job doesn't limit his free speech, but it seems it's posing a problem for him if Naffe is reporting him to the bar.

    This is like saying "I guess Patterico's job doesn't limit his free speech, but it seems it's posing a problem for him if I'm slashing his tires in the parking lot because his speech makes me all butthurt." The entire point of the post is that Naffe — and her allies — are making frivolous, legally unsupportable, malicious complaints to chill and retaliate against speech they don't like. That makes them censorious vermin — and you an apologist for censorious verminitude. Yes, Patterico's speech is causing a "problem" in that it is attracting the ire of vermin. That's the point, dimwit.

    "I hope your kids grow up to avoid your level of dishonesty and idiocy." Please challenge anything I said without stooping to insults. Just make your case and the insults, you'll find, are not only not needed, they expose a regrettable emotional tendency that could cloud your best reasoning.

    You're not fooling anyone, you know.

    Our kids see if we abandon civility, and they learn this behavior – the most important reason we fight is because we want better for them, right? I look forward to civil replies – this could actually be interesting. I don't hate you people, I am listening to you and value your opinions but disagree with this point because you seem to have extremely low expectations and are excusing your media heroes based on a false equivalence or "offsetting" bad behavior.

    Who, exactly, are my "media heroes?" I suspect that you are trying to set up the argument — as you have throughout your comments — that O'Keefe and Breitbart are my "media heroes" simply because I wrote a piece in which I criticized malicious and groundless legal threats made to retaliate against and chill Patterico's expression. That assertion demonstrates either an utter lack of reading comprehension on your part, or continuing dishonestly. My money is on a mix of the two.

    I hold no brief for either O'Keefe or Breitbart. I mock and criticize O'Keefe in this very post, and I've mocked and criticized Breitbart on this blog. But censorious douchebaggery is censorious douchebaggery, even if it is employed against people you disagree with. Dishonest people are employing censorious douchebaggery against Patterico, and they ought to be called out for it, even if I disagree with Patterico on politics more often than not. You, on the other hand, seem to be an apologist for "my side, right or wrong."

  31. Dustin  •  Mar 27, 2012 @8:04 am

    This little crew of people cry about astroturf but operate with a huge series of sockpuppets to smear people and attack their livelihood.

    It's disgusting.

    I'm just amazed Ken was patient enough to fisk this commenter that much.

    It sounds like Occupy Rebellion to me, but it doesn't actually matter. These people are all thugs. The moaning all boils down to 'I'm trying to censor them by any means necessary'.

  32. SPQR  •  Mar 27, 2012 @8:15 am

    Cool, a Seymour Hersh non sequitur. Pure nutball territory.

  33. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 27, 2012 @8:27 am

    And don't forget manufactured support through feeder sites and faked multiple accounts.

    *coughcough*Projection*coughcough*

  34. Josh  •  Mar 27, 2012 @8:57 am

    @Ken:

    Whatever you say, there, Tyler Durden.

    Hey, at least he's not bothering us here in Delaware anymore!

    @Smock Puppet:

    Funny how NO ONE ON THE LEFT ever seems to consider this possible about THEIR partisans commenters in the government.

    That's a mighty broad brush you've got there…Care to offer up some citations to prove that negative? I could say the same thing about the Right. Remember: When your side does it, it's advocacy. When the other side does it, it's a conflict of interest. Just sayin'.

    Now, if the official in question has some actual skin in the game, be it a friend, family member, or some financial interest, THEN we can start talking about a conflict of interest. Until then, as distasteful as this particular leftist might find it, it's not a conflict of interest.

  35. Jess  •  Mar 27, 2012 @10:37 am

    Thanks Scott, reason I asked was Ken's reply on the 26th at 9:13pm and this person's comments below.

    "You block me because you're a fucking coward. Most republicans are racist criminals. Have a nice life rotting in hell bitch"

    "If God came down and kicked your racist ass telling you Trayvon Martin is innocent, you wouldn't give a shit. Fuck off cunt."

    As far a the first statement I was assuming they were referring to being blocked on Ken's blog. And, if they are referring to Kens blog they need to learn how to read. He’s been pretty clear, his blog his rules. Don’t like it go post somewhere else. On a second note, I happen to be a Libertarian, but I generally find whenever someone makes sweeping statements labeling a very large segment of the population as racist criminals, they do so because they have no facts to support their original underlying argument. Name calling in that context is just that – a childish response by someone who hasn’t got the intellect to form an intelligent argument to support their position.

    I seriously don’t even know how to address the stupidity of the second comment. Other than God him/herself there are only two other people that definitively know wether Trayvon was innocent or not – Trayvon himself and Zimmerman. Trayvon being deceased obviously cannot tell us and since any trial for Zimmerman has not come to conclusion, I suspect Zimmerman will not be saying anything per the advice of his attorney. The only certain fact at this point is that we, the public, do not know all of the facts. Nor for that matter will we, until the trial is over and the information is made available for review. Until then statements regarding either Trayvon or Zimmerman’s innocence are nothing but pure conjecture and speculation. Taking a firm stance on this without all the facts would seem to be – well – foolish.

  36. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 27, 2012 @11:05 am

    As far a the first statement I was assuming they were referring to being blocked on Ken's blog. And, if they are referring to Kens blog they need to learn how to read.

    I think Ken was just quoting tweets in general, not tweets to him specifically.

  37. Beldar  •  Mar 27, 2012 @12:11 pm

    The name and vocation of the lawyer-blogger who writes as "Patterico," Patrick Frey, has been extremely obvious since at least 2004, when (with his express prior written permission), I linked and included him by name among the "allegedly pajamas-wearing" blogswarm of Rathergate bloggers who were busy exposing Rather's and CBS' attempt to discredit George W. Bush and elect John Kerry using fraudulent, forged documents. I've been a daily reader of his blog and occasional email correspondent with him since 2003, and I've seen dozens of occasions on which he consciously and conspicuously has tailored his blogging to carefully avoid creating any conflicts, real or perceived, between his blogging and his very important day job. His ethics, both as a blogger and (much more importantly) as a prosecutor, are beyond reproach.

  38. Dustin  •  Mar 27, 2012 @12:11 pm

    "Most republicans are racist criminals. Have a nice life rotting in hell bitch"

    Jeez. They gotta really stay stoked and angry to justify the way they treat people. It's like the crusades. Slayers think they are justified because they have a righteous endorsement to be angry at the incessantly dehumanized enemy.

  39. EricPWJohnson  •  Mar 27, 2012 @1:46 pm

    "I've seen dozens of occasions on which he consciously and conspicuously has tailored his blogging to carefully avoid creating any conflicts, real or perceived, between his blogging and his very important day job. His ethics, both as a blogger and (much more importantly) as a prosecutor, are beyond reproach"

    Very true Beldar, why people think that Pat has no right to his opinions are losing the entire meaning of our free society

  40. libarbarian  •  Mar 27, 2012 @2:14 pm

    Aren't you aware that, at least according to Naffe, O'Keefe is the one who synched her phone to his email account and left it logged in when he returned it to her and therefore, intentionally or not, GAVE her access. The woman has no background that would make one suspect that she was capable of hacking his account, and O'Keefe's filing didn't even accuse her of getting the emails in any improper fashion.

  41. Ken  •  Mar 27, 2012 @2:22 pm

    @libarbarian:

    Presumably Naffe is getting good legal advice, as anyone in her circumstances should. Part of that advice should be the significance of "exceed authorized access" under 18 U.S.C. section 1030. It's possible to be given access and exceed the scope of authorization — if, for instance, the right to access is terminated, or if you exceed the type of access given.

  42. McGehee  •  Mar 27, 2012 @3:08 pm

    I'm no great fan of Patterico, but the Naffe "case" against him is a howler right up there with the campaign to ban dihydrogen monoxide. I'm sure he's losing no sleep over it, nor should he be.

    Unless he's just lying awake laughing. Which, I wouldn't blame him.

  43. Fred  •  Mar 27, 2012 @3:21 pm

    Ken,
    I'm right of center, and probably disagree with you more often than not, but reading this, and your thorough dismantling of Mr. Jury….I think I love you.

  44. Ken  •  Mar 27, 2012 @3:51 pm

    Indirect Istalanche, through Patterico.

    Instapundit would never link directly to us, because of that whole temporary restraining order thing. It was really a mutual misunderstanding.

  45. Ken  •  Mar 27, 2012 @3:52 pm

    Incidentally now apparently I have earned the undying enmity of the sort of people who hate Patterico.

    Better pick up some air freshener.

  46. Greg Q  •  Mar 27, 2012 @3:54 pm

    "Boy, not only do you have CRIS, you've managed to get it coming back out the top! You're a freaking CRIS Möbius Strip!"

    Wow! Thank you, I'm stealing that. :-)

  47. redc1c4  •  Mar 27, 2012 @4:36 pm

    "If you're dismissing Naffe as mentally ill because she takes meds, remember thousands in active military do too, and God knows who else."

    from the rest of that post, it is obvious that at least one person who needs meds isn't getting them…

  48. Dan Weber  •  Mar 27, 2012 @6:31 pm

    I haven't found much at Patterico I couldn't get at a dozen other right-wing sites. But I will be scanning his blog regularly to see how he defends himself against this crackpot. So he's got at least 1 temporary reader out of this.

  49. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 27, 2012 @6:39 pm

    Despite my issues with Patrick, he's a decent blogger who acquits himself well in his posts, and he's usually very good about remaining fair and at least TRYING to have honest discussions with people who disagree, even when they are obviously being trolls.

  50. Dustin  •  Mar 27, 2012 @6:54 pm

    "Instapundit would never link directly to us, because of that whole temporary restraining order thing. It was really a mutual misunderstanding."

    I didn't know there was drama between you and Reynolds. That's a shame. I was wondering why he didn't just directly link this awesome post.

    "Aren't you aware that, at least according to Naffe, O'Keefe is the one who synched her phone to his email account"

    That's her side of the story. But she was acting bizarrely and suggesting she was holding this material over his head. She also claimed some girl had awesome oral skills (sexually) and even specifically noted who this was while saying she knew some pictures or video was taking secretly (I don't see how she could know this based only on the existence of the pictures).

    Anyway, it just got to the point where she was acting very thuggish. There are a lot of holes in her account and she did not respond well to these being pointed out.

    It seems rather obvious to me that O'Keefe did not mean for her to archive seven years of every private email he ever had. I have repaired computers for friends many times. I could easily get all their emails and then one day hold that over their head publicly, but of course that would be unbelievably scummy. It would be a fundamental breach of trust. It would show that no one can trust anything I say, ever. I don't think anyone can trust Nadia, based on her own claims about her conduct.

  51. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 27, 2012 @6:57 pm

    (I don't see how she could know this based only on the existence of the pictures)

    No kidding…

    All blow jobs look the same, regardless of their quality…

  52. Patterico  •  Mar 27, 2012 @7:41 pm

    Dustin,

    I love you, man, but I think Ken's joke might have flown over your head.

    I also think this post was worth a direct link. The Glenn works in mysterious ways.

  53. SPQR  •  Mar 27, 2012 @8:47 pm

    Yeah, right over your head, Dustin, because you don't have to worry about restraining orders until they've actually managed to serve you with them …

  54. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 27, 2012 @8:53 pm

    I always wondered why Ken lived in that RV… Now I know…

  55. SPQR  •  Mar 27, 2012 @9:16 pm

    Well, the sign "Free Candy" on the side should have been a clue …

  56. Judge N. Jury  •  Mar 28, 2012 @12:25 pm

    "Actually, I was suggesting she's mentally ill because of the nutty thought patterns you were attributing to her."

    So now you say Naffe is mentally unwell because of behavior you dislike, not pharma-cocktails? So which behavior impeached her mental health to you?

    "Where is the evidence that anything that Patterico has written on this topic is factually incorrect, such that it misinforms?"

    His assertion that Vera sought to join O'Keefe's sex trafficking ring is considered false – local news reported that a 5 month investigation found Vera was simply playing along and encouraged a civil suit.

    "Where are your comments criticizing Naffe, then?"

    That's well covered by others, but I did originally say:

    Naffe is a loose cannon…only is newsworthy because she was once a trusted colleague of Breitbart and O'Keefe…the MSM doesn't trust her.

    Were you trying unsuccessfully to usher me into a pro-Naffe position? No one defended her much at any point, the whole story was always just a trainwreck with no good guys.

    So where are your comments criticizing Patterico? You have some of his sputum still on your chin from Monday night.

    "Wouldn't you agree it can be upsetting, damaging or even career-ending without any need to adhere to the most basic legal standards of evidence?

    "Sure."

    So we agree.

    "What specific facts has Patterico uttered that are false and malicious? What is your evidence for the claim?"

    Well, the comments about Naffe underneath his articles are malicious (slut, scumbag, etc.). So a crafty lawyer could potentially try convincing a court he "published" them, right? He did not moderate them while he did selectively remove comments by liberals (and banned the user). So if he allows personal attacks against Naffe under the guise of free speech but censors comments that paint him in a bad light, he could be painted as endorsing the attack comments.

    He also called me a thug – a descriptive like thug carries a criminal, violent or threatening connotation. I came looking for interesting debate on the issue of "the partisan blogger/active DA" which is newsworthy because it's so rare. I offered civil point by point refutation and you called me a dimwit and douchebag – this maliciousness assailed my delicate sensitivities.

    Doesn't name calling without provocation also chill speech and degrade the quality of conversation? Do you care if the next generation sees your blog and learn from you to insult people you disagree with?

    "Normal, stable people might understand that folks can have strong political opinions in their private life and yet carry on a job and live by the rules in their public lives – right up until it's them or a family member's ass on the line. Then, they look for the slightest instance of subjectivity and cry bloody murder."

    "So? What's your point? What's your evidence that Patterico is biased in any of the cases he prosecutes? Can you even name any cases he has prosecuted?"

    One link says his office sought the Roman Polanski extradition. Patterico furiously blogged about Polanski. Couldn't this be seized on by Polanski's mouthpiece in trying to complicate the case for Patterico's colleagues?

    And what happens one fine day when a flaming liberal comes through the door who is entitled to evenhanded treatment? Does he just yell "guilty!!" to get it over quick, or does he go through the motions to make a show of it? The hair trigger with which he maligns and disrespects liberals online portends quite a concern.

    If I give you the link to a real DA that was pressured into real recusal because of outside politics, how will you react? Will it actually change your tune? If so, then I'll provide it. But if you want to move the goalposts like you did when I provided a website with transparent donations, why not just put your hands over your ears?

    Media made for the rich involves manufactured narratives, planted guests or ad campaigns like those that tell us the wealthy create jobs, Iraq was involved in 9/11, ACORN was a nationwide sex trafficking ring. We know it exists because such a proposal was recently leaked promising to smear OWS for pay.

    "Also, please point to what evidence you have that Patterico has engaged in "intentional deception" or that his work is "propaganda"

    He vocally supports and enables James O'Keefe, who is a propagandist (defined by deception, cherrypicking, lying about funding, etc.)

    "what does that have to do with the topic at hand, which is whether Patterico has done anything wrong by exercising his First Amendment rights to discuss public figures and their behavior?"

    He has the right to say it, but it already has caused public complaints, detailed over years, and he could be on a collision course for someone he has blogged about to one day come before his purview. Everyone needs to make their own decisions about whether their personal political bent affects their work, causes friction, reduces chances for advancement, etc.

    You can bet that someone like Johnny Cochran would scour everything he ever wrote if he had a client being prosecuted by Frey, but if it this ever caused a shake up during the conclusion of a long, protracted case it would be an awful waste of our taxpayer money.

    "What does a federal district court case against O'Keefe still in the discovery phase have to do with the question of whether Patterico has committed some sort of misconduct?"

    Patterico is trying Vera in the court of public opinion while the case in ongoing. He is quoted as an authority by some blogs because of his position. It may not be illegal, but neither is farting in church.

    "How do you determine whether a defendant is "left wing" or "right wing" for purposes of such recusal?"

    If they have twenty bumper stickers saying "Coexist" they are left wing and if they pop a woody when you show them an 8 x 10" of Reagan, they are right wing.

    "How common is such transparency? Do you go around criticizing liberal/Democratic-leaning blogs that don't do it? Or only blogs that feature expression you don't like?"

    I believe in across the board transparency for anyone soliciting donations for political speech, to prevent corruption and better inform the taxpaying voter.

    "isn't the reason you want transparency so you and your ilk can harass people who donate money to blogs featuring expression you disagree with?"

    Are you accusing me of something without EVIDENCE?

    That is the excuse given for defenders of SuperPACs – that the rich donors are afraid of reprisals, like unwashed pitchfork mobs showing up in their fancy neighborhoods. My suggestion is for civil discussion at all times, as you already know. But how do we ensure that for-profit propaganda mills, PR firms, SIGS, PACs and think tanks aren't being secretly funded by the Russians? By the mob? By oil cartels, neo-nazis, armageddonists, or dare I say…Canadians? The one group we know isn't bankrolling anyone is the struggling American worker.

    "The "impinge on other people's rights" might be true, but that doesn't mean what you suggest it means."

    Is this where you tell me what I actually mean?

    "How do the actually relevant Supreme Court cases on public employee speech support your position?"

    It depends whether they "cross that line" – the Morris Davis case protects political speech outside official capacities, but Garcetti v. Ceballos held that public employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes when they engage in speech tied to their official duties.

    "Naffe — and her allies — are making frivolous, legally unsupportable, malicious complaints to chill and retaliate against speech they don't like."

    Naffe is doing to O'Keefe what O'Keefe did to Vera, what Breitbart did to the average OWS member. Breitbart even admitted it was retaliation, points for honesty. The difference is that O'Keefe has pro-bono legal help from the deep-pocketed institutions on the right – look how they have dragged out the Vera case.

    "I hold no brief for either O'Keefe or Breitbart. I mock and criticize O'Keefe in this very post, and I've mocked and criticized Breitbart on this blog."

    Interesting – how do you feel about the ACORN videos in which O'Keefe made his neocon bones?

  57. Ken  •  Mar 28, 2012 @2:15 pm

    "Actually, I was suggesting she's mentally ill because of the nutty thought patterns you were attributing to her."

    So now you say Naffe is mentally unwell because of behavior you dislike, not pharma-cocktails? So which behavior impeached her mental health to you?

    Well, Judge, I guess to be technical you're the one saying she's crazy, since you are attributing bizarre legal arguments to her. Plus, her behavior right now does strike me as rather erratic. But I'm not a doctor.

    "Where is the evidence that anything that Patterico has written on this topic is factually incorrect, such that it misinforms?"

    His assertion that Vera sought to join O'Keefe's sex trafficking ring is considered false – local news reported that a 5 month investigation found Vera was simply playing along and encouraged a civil suit.

    Your request to a call for evidence to back up your claims is a one-sentence conclusory statement about one sub-issue, without links or documents? Really?

    So where are your comments criticizing Patterico? You have some of his sputum still on your chin from Monday night.

    I love this comment. I suggests that either (1) you're saying I gave Patrick a blow job, as part of a series of posts complaining about lack of civility, but you're too much of a pussy to say "cum" on my chin instead of "sputum," [Unless you're suggesting that blowing Patrick is such a spectacular experience that I'd drool on myself], or (2) you're saying I gave Patrick a blow job, as part of a series of posts complaining about a lack of civility, but you don't know what "sputum" means, you just think it sounds gross, in which case I pity the nurse who has to ask you for a sputum sample.

    Also, since you have poor reading comprehension, you ignore the fact that I said I often disagree with Patrick.

    "Wouldn't you agree it can be upsetting, damaging or even career-ending without any need to adhere to the most basic legal standards of evidence?

    "Sure."

    So we agree.

    Gee, dishonest truncating of my statement. What a surprise from a relentlessly dishonest commenter.

    Well, the comments about Naffe underneath his articles are malicious (slut, scumbag, etc.). So a crafty lawyer could potentially try convincing a court he "published" them, right? He did not moderate them while he did selectively remove comments by liberals (and banned the user). So if he allows personal attacks against Naffe under the guise of free speech but censors comments that paint him in a bad light, he could be painted as endorsing the attack comments.

    That would be a truly persuasive and insightful comment, but for the fact that it's a completely incorrect statement of the law under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the single most important law about comments on internet sites, which everyone who is even minimally informed about the subject knows about. So, no.

    He also called me a thug – a descriptive like thug carries a criminal, violent or threatening connotation. I came looking for interesting debate on the issue of "the partisan blogger/active DA" which is newsworthy because it's so rare. I offered civil point by point refutation and you called me a dimwit and douchebag – this maliciousness assailed my delicate sensitivities.

    Gosh! Your delicate sensibilities were so harmed you almost couldn't make a "anyone who disagrees with my enemy is giving him blow jobs" joke. Also, thug, dimwit, and douchebag are all classic examples of opinion, not fact, thus not susceptible to defamation analysis, and absolutely protected under the First Amendment.

    Doesn't name calling without provocation also chill speech and degrade the quality of conversation? Do you care if the next generation sees your blog and learn from you to insult people you disagree with?

    I think dishonest and contrived pearl-clutching and couch-fainting chills speech and degrades the quality of conversation, but I'm going to nut up and take it. Robust speech sometimes includes insults. Deal with it. I'm more worried about future generations reading your comments and becoming snivelers and trolls.

    One link says his office sought the Roman Polanski extradition. Patterico furiously blogged about Polanski. Couldn't this be seized on by Polanski's mouthpiece in trying to complicate the case for Patterico's colleagues?

    There are two possibilities here: (1) you found and read the posts in which Patterico talked about the Polanski case after specifically linking each time to a disclaimer that he does not speak for the office, and you're now just being a dishonest troll, or (2) you're too stupid and/or lazy to find the posts before flapping your moth about them in the abstract.

    In either case: snort my taint, troll. The disclaimer is clear and sufficient.

    And what happens one fine day when a flaming liberal comes through the door who is entitled to evenhanded treatment? Does he just yell "guilty!!" to get it over quick, or does he go through the motions to make a show of it? The hair trigger with which he maligns and disrespects liberals online portends quite a concern.

    I like how you used important words like "maligns" and "portends" as if you were doing anything other than wanking. Words are fun!

    Anyway, no, the fact that someone expresses strong opinions about national politics in their private capacity does not portend that they can't be fair to huge, ill-defined swaths of humanity in their public capacity. You haven't pointed to any post having anything do to with anyone Patterico has prosecuted. If you can prove it, post it. Otherwise, you're full of shit. As far as I know, hardcore gang members generally don't arrive in court wearing "Obama 2012" t-shirts.

    If I give you the link to a real DA that was pressured into real recusal because of outside politics, how will you react? Will it actually change your tune? If so, then I'll provide it. But if you want to move the goalposts like you did when I provided a website with transparent donations, why not just put your hands over your ears?

    This is where you prove, once again, that you are a dishonest troll. If you have proof of your positions, why don't you post it all, instead of playing games? Also, speaking of moving goalposts, note that I have never challenged you to prove proof that some prosecutor, somewhere, was pressured into a political recusal. I challenged you to find law. Find me a California case, a California statute, a California state bar rule or state bar opinion, a rule of state or county employees, that proves your point. Something that happened to some other prosecutor somewhere is not law, unless it resulted in a published case.

    Media made for the rich involves manufactured narratives, planted guests or ad campaigns like those that tell us the wealthy create jobs, Iraq was involved in 9/11, ACORN was a nationwide sex trafficking ring. We know it exists because such a proposal was recently leaked promising to smear OWS for pay.

    All of this is irrelevant to the question of whether Patterico committed misconduct by hurting your fee-fees or disagreeing with you, or by making political arguments you think are wrong. Rather, it pushes you further into the camp of the censors by implying "big media is too conservative, and Patterico is too conservative, and therefore he ought to be regulated like I think big media should be." Bollocks.

    If media is pushing false narratives — and it is, we probably just disagree about which ones — the remedy is more speech, not thuggish censorship of people who make you mad by agreeing with the media. Of course, if you were incoherent, I could see how that would be a challenge.

    "Also, please point to what evidence you have that Patterico has engaged in "intentional deception" or that his work is "propaganda"

    He vocally supports and enables James O'Keefe, who is a propagandist (defined by deception, cherrypicking, lying about funding, etc.)

    So, again, your response to a call for evidence is a single conclusory sentence — a sentence so lame that it only suggests that Patterico is guilty of propaganda by supporting someone guilty of propaganda. Oh, gosh, no, you're no censor.

    "what does that have to do with the topic at hand, which is whether Patterico has done anything wrong by exercising his First Amendment rights to discuss public figures and their behavior?"

    He has the right to say it, but it already has caused public complaints, detailed over years, and he could be on a collision course for someone he has blogged about to one day come before his purview. Everyone needs to make their own decisions about whether their personal political bent affects their work, causes friction, reduces chances for advancement, etc.

    You can bet that someone like Johnny Cochran would scour everything he ever wrote if he had a client being prosecuted by Frey, but if it this ever caused a shake up during the conclusion of a long, protracted case it would be an awful waste of our taxpayer money.

    Are you suggesting that you're actually in this because you're worried about Patterico, and his career? Gosh, that's so sweet. Or are you making the circular argument that because censors have complained about him, censorious complaints against him have merit? Because that's notably lame even for you.

    Yes, but for the fact that Johnny Cochran is dead, and that nobody has ever shown that Patterico is blogging about people he is prosecuting, and no actual lawyers have ever filed such a motion even though his identity has been well known for a decade, and you can't cite any authority in support of your proposition, your argument is totally persuasive.

    "What does a federal district court case against O'Keefe still in the discovery phase have to do with the question of whether Patterico has committed some sort of misconduct?"

    Patterico is trying Vera in the court of public opinion while the case in ongoing. He is quoted as an authority by some blogs because of his position. It may not be illegal, but neither is farting in church.

    Except "trying the case in the court of public opinion" is how morons say "exercising First Amendment rights." There is no court of public opinion — that's a phrase people use to construct arguments to deter people from expressing their views about public events and figures.

    Also, you're not defending people criticizing Patterico's decorum. You're trolling, dishonestly, in defense of people making bogus misconduct complaints about him. If Patterico is farting in church, you're shitting on the Constitution.

    "How do you determine whether a defendant is "left wing" or "right wing" for purposes of such recusal?"

    If they have twenty bumper stickers saying "Coexist" they are left wing and if they pop a woody when you show them an 8 x 10" of Reagan, they are right wing.

    That's an excellent point. The next time Patrick prosecutes a Rolling 60s Crip for attempted murder, perhaps he'll consider recusing himself if the Crip has a "Coexist" sticker on his Prius.

    "How common is such transparency? Do you go around criticizing liberal/Democratic-leaning blogs that don't do it? Or only blogs that feature expression you don't like?"

    I believe in across the board transparency for anyone soliciting donations for political speech, to prevent corruption and better inform the taxpaying voter.

    Uh-huh. Can you link me to comments at liberal blogs where you have pestered them to be transparent?

    Also: blogs are private, not public. Bloggers have no obligation to report anything. Don't like it? Find another blog to read. Also, the fact that an OWS site might or might not do something – honestly the site was so badly designed that I couldn't tell — is not a persuasive argument that the thing is necessary or proper. OWS shits on police cars, but I think I'll give that a pass, too.

    Naffe — and her allies — are making frivolous, legally unsupportable, malicious complaints to chill and retaliate against speech they don't like."

    Naffe is doing to O'Keefe what O'Keefe did to Vera, what Breitbart did to the average OWS member. Breitbart even admitted it was retaliation, points for honesty. The difference is that O'Keefe has pro-bono legal help from the deep-pocketed institutions on the right – look how they have dragged out the Vera case.

    Which doesn't explain why you're an apologist for her and her allies making frivolous complaints to chill speech.

    If Breitbart — or anyone associated with him — filed bogus misconduct complaints against OWS bloggers based on protected speech in order to chill speech, I would absolutely denounce that. Have they? Do you have a specific cite, with a link?

    "I hold no brief for either O'Keefe or Breitbart. I mock and criticize O'Keefe in this very post, and I've mocked and criticized Breitbart on this blog."

    Interesting – how do you feel about the ACORN videos in which O'Keefe made his neocon bones?

    I'm not going to reward your dishonesty, lack of reading comprehension, or unwillingness or inability to search or follow links.

  58. Dustin  •  Mar 28, 2012 @2:47 pm

    "I love you, man, but I think Ken's joke might have flown over your head."

    SPQR, Patterico,

    Whoosh. This happens to me with dry humor a lot.

    Damn the repeated fiskings are actually getting more awesome.

  59. Sarahw  •  Mar 28, 2012 @2:47 pm

    Yay! Section 230, my favorite!

  60. daleyrocks  •  Mar 28, 2012 @2:55 pm

    What a colossal douchebag thug!

  61. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 28, 2012 @3:51 pm

    If you can prove it, post it. Otherwise, you're full of shit.

    If everyone would take a moment to go to the twitter account of OccupyRebelion, you will see that this is the entirety of her shtick. She makes a claim, continues making the claim, and then fails to even attempt to back up her claim.

    Go ahead, read.

    Read the stuff between her and AblativMeatshld (me). It's quite entertaining.

  62. SPQR  •  Mar 28, 2012 @4:29 pm

    Dustin, but its all said with such love.

  63. Laura K  •  Mar 28, 2012 @4:53 pm

    "I pity the nurse who asks you for a sputum sample…"

    This made my night. Thank you

  64. Ghost  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:32 pm

    "if Patterico is farting in church, you're shitting on the constitution."

    I… I think I love you… No homo.

  65. Patterico  •  Mar 28, 2012 @8:53 pm

    "Well, the comments about Naffe underneath his articles are malicious (slut, scumbag, etc.). So a crafty lawyer could potentially try convincing a court he "published" them, right? He did not moderate them while he did selectively remove comments by liberals (and banned the user)."

    In addition to Ken's observations about section 230, I should note that the commenter here is lying about my selectively removing comments by liberals and banning the user. I do not remove comments because they are liberal, or ban commenters because they are liberal, and I challenge this commenter to prove what he is saying with respect to the Naffe threads. He won't, of course, because his comments are filled with assertions that are not substantiated — because they cannot be.

  66. Ken  •  Mar 28, 2012 @9:02 pm

    You're just here for another blow job.

  67. Patterico  •  Mar 28, 2012 @11:31 pm

    You're just looking for more sputum on your chin.

  68. Ken  •  Mar 29, 2012 @9:55 am

    Dear S.:

    If you try to drop four comments at once, I'm probably going to treat you like a spammer or troll, until I am convinced otherwise.

  69. Ken  •  Mar 29, 2012 @10:21 am

    I note that merely writing a post like this — and merely engaging in a dialogue like the one above — puts me, in the feeble minds of certain ideologues, into a "Breitbart advocate" category, and gets me Twitter spam from anti-Breitbart trolls.

    Never mind that I've criticized the late Mr. Breitbart, have advocated positions here that he probably would have disagreed with, and have made fun of him and some people "associated" (in the minds of they're-all-in-it-together folks) with him.

    Never mind that I continue to do so.

    By disagreeing with the anti-Breitbart trolls in one instance, I'm marked in their narrow little categorical minds.

    Part of this, I suspect, is that I'm friendly with some people online who were friendly to Mr. Breitbart. I'm also friendly online with some people who were unfriendly to Mr. Breitbart and uncomplimentary of him. I can be friendly with people with whom I disagree, in a great many cases. This mystifies a certain adolescent mindset. (And, let me add, that adolescent mindset appears on both sides of the spectrum, and is at the heart of the guilt-by-association narrative common on both sides.)

    Losers.

  70. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 29, 2012 @10:48 am

    I will give you a whole quarter if you share with me these comments of S's that you have kept to yourself…

    Pretty please?

  71. Dustin  •  Mar 29, 2012 @11:20 am

    "I do not remove comments because they are liberal, or ban commenters because they are liberal"

    That's the truth. In fact, liberals are often asked to stick around and fight against the echo chamber. It's in everyone's interest that political discussion threads aren't dull echo chambers.

    The only 'liberal' I can think of who got banned was the one who posted an address and claimed it was Patterico's. I don't think discussing where people live in threads about bombers is actually a 'liberal' position. It's a thug position.

  72. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 29, 2012 @11:54 am

    There have been a couple. One of them went full out NUTS and started attacking DRJ.

    And over time he's banned those who directly assault his job – questioning that is frequently bannable.

    And then there are the couple of guys who utterly refused to actually debate – your classic specimen of Bloggus Trollus.

    In total over the years, maybe half a dozen have been sent away. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they don't.

  73. Judge N. Jury  •  Mar 29, 2012 @2:32 pm

    "…you are attributing bizarre legal arguments to her. Plus, her behavior right now does strike me as rather erratic. But I'm not a doctor."

    Seems a walk back of your "mentally ill" and "unbalanced" statements by now saying you're not a doctor. I was hoping you'd offer some kind of yardstick to ascertain mental illness, so we could apply it to both sides, but I guess you're disclaimered now that you downgraded to "rather erratic".

    "His assertion that Vera sought to join O'Keefe's sex trafficking ring is considered false – local news reported that a 5 month investigation found Vera was simply playing along and encouraged a civil suit."

    "Your request to a call for evidence to back up your claims is a one-sentence conclusory statement about one sub-issue, without links or documents?"

    The ACORN videos are central for putting O'Keefe into the spotlight by posing as a criminal to manufacture a story, for pay. Frey is a sitting DA publicly and emphatically cheerleading for O'Keefe in a specific ongoing lawsuit against Mr. Vera. Before he died, Breitbart was subpoenaed as well, looking to prove or disprove possible foreknowledge or offering monetary rewards for surreptitious taping in CA. Vera had already faced legal firepower against O'Keefe's that amounted to a David vs. Goliath scenario.

    So yes, I'll just stick with that one sentence and if it's that insignificant to you, maybe we are not so far apart.

    "So where are your comments criticizing Patterico? You have some of his sputum still on your chin from Monday night."

    "I love this comment."

    I apologize for the incivility, but I was trying to include some humor to use the 'entertainment' loophole so no one mistakes my posts as "legal advice". I did notice you and Frey congratulating eachother for the take-down of me, but I should have said 'get a room' instead to keep the conversation more family friendly. Personally, I considered your reply a lot of peppering with irrelevant questions and some evasiveness, so I got a bit plucky.

    I looked for your previous comments faulting Frey but couldn't find any. In all this, I am just hoping to find useful information, and perhaps others can as well if we discuss this case and compare it to others – we know people are listening, because they all called me mean names.

    You brought up cases where free speech for public workers was expanded, but the main decision there was based on private-time statements made by a Library of Congress employee, not a DA.

    Many people complained when Obama weighed in on Bradley Manning, making public statements that assumed guilt before trial. Frey's position carries clout too – no doubt to a lesser degree than the President, but perhaps more than the archivist from the precedent-setting case. This would be pretty big news if it was a Congressman doing this, right? What about a state senator? Chief of police? A judge?

    Maybe all public workers have the same rights, but not all public workers are perceived as equal in the expectation of neutrality they should outwardly show for ongoing court cases, decorum, privacy or attention-seeking.

    As I said already, this is magnified exponentially for anyone actually in Frey's articles (like Naffe) or a potential defendant in his jurisdiction. People in trouble will do or say anything for leverage and will try to exploit Patterico's off-time activism to make hay. So Naffe is characterizing his posts as "legal advice", complaining he is wielding his clout in a cyber-attack campaign against her.

    Frey got "exclusive" access to transcripts of Naffe's criminal complaint testimony and published them within hours of O'Keefe's lawsuits dropping, which she will probably speculate smacks of coordination with O'Keefe.

    This deliberately and specifically expanded the case in the court of public opinion. But Naffe is doing exactly the same thing, so this is quite a spectacle for the rest of us to watch..

    I doubt she cared at all about Frey until he became O'Keefe's most outspoken online champion against her. But we should not confuse "silencing someone" with specifically getting their boot off your neck after a series of attacks. Perhaps a minor point, but Frey stepped up as a faithful, loyal O'Keefe surrogate, and Naffe may see promise in publicizing Patterico's dual roles in her angling.

    We also discussed another case where free speech for public workers was constrained because it overlaps with one's official duties. So Naffe may try to retrofit something Patterico said to something Frey worked on, searching for any vulnerability. This parses your premise – is Naffe trying to shut Patterico down for "the public good", or just trying to stop him from fomenting bad PR against her.

    Perhaps it's fitting for her, after her airing of O'Keefe's most intimate dirty laundry in the same way. Who went to the media first in this? I think she leaked something small to Politico after their falling out, and then O'Keefe retaliated with an online video. Then news of the hearing hit TV and it escalated from there.

    "Also, since you have poor reading comprehension, you ignore the fact that I said I often disagree with Patrick."

    I read that, but on what do you disagree?

    "Gee, dishonest truncating of my statement. What a surprise from a relentlessly dishonest commenter."

    Your full statement is fully visible right above. Anyone can see we expanded on the same topic (standards of evidence in court vs. blogs) below, right? There was nothing taken out to deceive – and we did agree, right?

    But now you are on record: if truncating equals dishonesty, how does that translate to O'Keefe? Is he dishonest for truncating upstanding respondents out of his sting videos, or is it only me when I truncated (something that was never in dispute).

    The difference between disparaging blog speech, and the standards of evidence needed for legal burdens of proof in a courtroom is pretty plain. Patterico, perhaps more than any other, should be acutely aware of both criteria, so he knows what he is doing, but his targets are again crying foul.

    "That would be a truly persuasive and insightful comment, but for the fact that it's a completely incorrect statement of the law under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the single most important law about comments on internet sites, which everyone who is even minimally informed about the subject knows about. So, no."

    Thanks for that useful info, I read up on it and it seems to me that law would apply if Naffe was suing Patterico's web hosting company.

    I see the Act differentiates between "blind" ISPs and content providers, upholding immunity for those who simply provide tools for communication and denying immunity for those who specifically curate the speech, if the speech is applicably injurious to the plaintiff.

    Immunity was denied for publishers that cherrypicked speech if it came into conflict with other applicable laws, or in the case of a site that badmouthed corporations, for instance. Also, the Act applies only to defendants, without mentioning grounds for recusal of counsel, making Frey's case that much more uncommon (from what I understand).

    "Thug, dimwit, and douchebag are all classic examples of opinion, not fact, thus not susceptible to defamation analysis, and absolutely protected under the First Amendment."

    I never said it was illegal, just malicious – and only because you asked. Did you think I mistakenly believed the insults were grounds for a lawsuit? Did you move the goalposts because there were indeed examples showing ill will?

    "Robust speech sometimes includes insults. Deal with it. I'm more worried about future generations reading your comments and becoming snivelers and trolls."

    Time will tell. But you know well that a comprehensive public/private anti-bullying regimen has been foist on school age kids for something like ten years now. They are specifically being trained in all kinds of self-awareness, civility, conflict resolution, anger management and empathy, etc. Some kids are rightly saying we are hypocrites for putting them through all that mumbo jumbo while we tee off on anyone who so much as looks at us askance.

    In politics, it's all-time low approval ratings for both parties, specifically because of divisiveness and never-ending cycles of inflammatory rhetoric.

    So I can deal with it, obviously, but it's not healthy.

    I'm against legislating anti-bullying, because it's an unenforceable waste of taxpayer money, but I'm not against others teaching kids to be better then this stupid, angry, corrupt generation. The government is the last one that should be doing this, because they are bought off. But there is a need to stop the destructive bickering. Can't we stress substance anymore and avoid attacking the messenger? Isn't the personal attack usually a defense mechanism for a lacking argument?

    "As far as I know, hardcore gang members generally don't arrive in court wearing "Obama 2012" t-shirts."

    That's funny, Obama shirts are three for $10 in the 'hood. Plus, that's not what the righty sites are saying – they say the New Black Panthers are staking out poll sites on a platform of black racism planning for violent intimidation. I don't know about Patterico's case load and never pretended to.

    People in a lot of situations simply avoid projecting politics these days. I don't bring up politics when I meet parents of my kids friends, lest we disagree and things get awkward.

    This is a testament to Frey's passion though – he posts so frequently, thoroughly and in-depth. He must really look forward to clocking out every day so he can partake in his other love, being on the edge of the spear in partisan media wars.

    "I challenged you to find law. Find me a California case, a California statute, a California state bar rule or state bar opinion, a rule of state or county employees, that proves your point. Something that happened to some other prosecutor somewhere is not law, unless it resulted in a published case."

    But I never said there was such a law. Is it okay if I just stick to my original premise? I said someone may eventually bring this up as an argument for recusal, a mistrial, or to attract publicity. The complaints including this recent one by Naffe have been accumulating. I get that you've surmised all the complaints are frivolous, but if Frey's superiors have to sort out the complaints that his sideline is generating in order to come to that same conclusion each time, isn't it costing taxpayers more than other DAs who don't have political blogs?

    "the remedy is more speech, not thuggish censorship of people who make you mad by agreeing with the media"

    I agree – I believe in old-fashioned, equitable, civil debate that gets to the core of the issue. This benefits everybody. But unlike a legal commentator you might see on Court TV who has hosts and producers playing devil's advocate, Patterico's speech on this issue is acutely one-sided and pre-determined with insults hurled at anyone who would politely deign to question his conclusions. Do you disagree?

    He is missing an opportunity to use his blog to educate and inform the reader on the merits and vulnerabilities of both sides. Instead he serves as O'Keefe's media concierge, alternating attacks and damage control to persuade everyone this case can only have one outcome. Allegations of misconduct by O'Keefe have been made but not explored, even to debunk. The AFP funding, x-rated taping, probation violations, wiretaps, etc.

    "He vocally supports and enables James O'Keefe who is a propagandist (defined by deception, cherrypicking, lying about funding, etc.)"

    "So, again, your response…only suggests that Patterico is guilty of propaganda by supporting someone guilty of propaganda."

    If that works for you, okay, let's couch it that way. I'm not well versed in the vast majority of his writing, remember, I've probably only read some of his stuff.

    "Are you suggesting that you're actually in this because you're worried about Patterico, and his career? Gosh, that's so sweet. Or are you making the circular argument that because censors have complained about him, censorious complaints against him have merit?"

    I'm worried about the taxpayer and the downhill slide of media due to secret donors. Interestingly, I wasn't aware he was a sitting DA till Naffe publicized it just recently. I find it fascinating because of how unusual it is.

    "Except "trying the case in the court of public opinion" is how morons say "exercising First Amendment rights."

    And First Amendment rights also include crashing military funerals, crushing animals on film and burning the flag. So again, we're back to 'impinging on others'. If you had a kid accused of rape, would you want him to go to court to defend himself, or would you prefer all his friends and enemies take all their conjecture online with photos, tweets, emails that no one can tell are real or not. This way the jury will be primed for the tell-all book and Oprah interview, right?

    "Uh-huh. Can you link me to comments at liberal blogs where you have pestered them to be transparent?"

    The left wings sites are already fighting for transparency, the DISCLOSE Act, Sunlight Foundation, an end to Citizens United, etc. They issue annual reports or update subscribers via email during fundraising where their funding levels are. If you are saying you are happy that George Soros could be calling Media Matters to "order up" some hit pieces while potraying themselves as reader-supported, then let's leave it there, I disagree and think secrecy opens up opportunities for a lot of types of manipulation and exploitation.

    "OWS shits on police cars, but I think I'll give that a pass, too."

    Don't think of an elephant? You should have seen the aftermath after St. Patties this year, by your logic does this mean the entire race of Irish people are vomit-spewing vagrants? You didn't list the actual proportion of OWS people shitting on police cars compared to those in the "movement" who would never condone that and were there protesting corruption.

    Let us not forget that the same applies to Wall Street executives who shit on innocent people's food. So can we disproportionally broadbrush all of Wall Street for this?

    "The president of an investment banking company is facing criminal charges after police say he defecated on a service cart and assaulted a flight attendant on a flight from Buenos Aires to New York. TCW Americas President Gerard Finneran, 58, of Greenwich, Conn., was arraigned in federal court in Brooklyn late yesterday after the disturbance on a United Airlines flight Friday into John F. Kennedy Airport. According to the complaint, Finneran drank excessively during the flight and allegedly pushed a female flight attendant who refused to serve him. He then allegedly defecated on a service cart and tracked feces throughout the airplane. (RNS)

    "Which doesn't explain why you're an apologist for her and her allies making frivolous complaints to chill speech."

    What specifically makes you think I am an apologist for Naffe? Would the same yardstick make you an apologist for O'Keefe and his squires? How come my speech isn't it appropriate 1st Amendment speech according to your above logic?

    Isn't the bigger question where the line is for blog speech to immorally (not illegally) muck up the process of administering justice? We know the 1st Amendment is so broad it makes perfectly legal a raft of horrendously detestable behaviors, but I see Naffe and O'Keefe as completely offsetting eachother, trying to chill eachothers' speech, sliming eachother, making embarrassing allegations, etc. The MSM has yawned over the whole thing because it's so sordid and convoluted (which gives an advantage to O'Keefe who raises money based on publicity).

    "If Breitbart — or anyone associated with him — filed bogus misconduct complaints against OWS bloggers based on protected speech in order to chill speech, I would absolutely denounce that. Have they? Do you have a specific cite, with a link?"

    Don't move the goalposts – Breitbart called them rapists on viral videos and has churned out deceptive anti-OWS screeds steadily since accepting millions in secret multimillionaire backing a week after OWS started.

    "Interesting – how do you feel about the ACORN videos in which O'Keefe made his neocon bones?"

    "I'm not going to reward your dishonesty, lack of reading comprehension, or unwillingness or inability to search or follow links."

    Forgive me for not taking you at your word just because you decided you were so perfectly objective you don't dignify anyone questioning this.

    If you're saying I'm lazy because I won't search your site for "O'Keefe" references, I asked only after your site denied such searches as "Forbidden" — "Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request."

    For Patterico, I distinctly remember you saying you deleted comments for attacking you. I'll try to find the exact quote when I have a sec. If it was someone falsely using your name, I'll apologize but I just read this the other day.

  74. Ken  •  Mar 29, 2012 @3:52 pm

    Seems a walk back of your "mentally ill" and "unbalanced" statements by now saying you're not a doctor. I was hoping you'd offer some kind of yardstick to ascertain mental illness, so we could apply it to both sides, but I guess you're disclaimered now that you downgraded to "rather erratic".

    Oh, JudgeNJury. I think our readers can judge who is walking back. You wouldn't be fishing, would you, JudgeNJury? Fishing for some sort of statement that you and your little crew can seize upon as the basis for some sort of frivolous lawsuit or bar complaint or something? Fish elsewhere, JNJ.

    "Your request to a call for evidence to back up your claims is a one-sentence conclusory statement about one sub-issue, without links or documents?"

    The ACORN videos are central for putting O'Keefe into the spotlight by posing as a criminal to manufacture a story, for pay. Frey is a sitting DA publicly and emphatically cheerleading for O'Keefe in a specific ongoing lawsuit against Mr. Vera. Before he died, Breitbart was subpoenaed as well, looking to prove or disprove possible foreknowledge or offering monetary rewards for surreptitious taping in CA. Vera had already faced legal firepower against O'Keefe's that amounted to a David vs. Goliath scenario.

    So yes, I'll just stick with that one sentence and if it's that insignificant to you, maybe we are not so far apart.

    So I ask you for proof of falsity of things Patterico has said, you respond with a conclusory sentence without links or docs about a single incident, I call you on it, and you respond not with proof, but with further conclusory argument of why the incident is important?

    QED. See, JudgeNJury, your crew has tells. This is one of them. You've trained, sort of, but you're just not very good at it.

    I apologize for the incivility, but I was trying to include some humor to use the 'entertainment' loophole so no one mistakes my posts as "legal advice". I did notice you and Frey congratulating eachother for the take-down of me, but I should have said 'get a room' instead to keep the conversation more family friendly. Personally, I considered your reply a lot of peppering with irrelevant questions and some evasiveness, so I got a bit plucky.

    I'm not offended. I'm amused. Again, it's about you being not very good at this. You embarked on a plan to try to pose as a reasonable and mild person and to elicit some sort of statement from me that you could then use, to the best of your ability, to chill me, but because of who and what you are, you can't do it. You cannot conceal your nature.

    I looked for your previous comments faulting Frey but couldn't find any. In all this, I am just hoping to find useful information, and perhaps others can as well if we discuss this case and compare it to others – we know people are listening, because they all called me mean names.

    Uh-huh. It's funny because it's all about the personalities for you and your crew, isn't it? God knows that's a problem on both sides.

    See, JNJ, I don't call Patrick out every time I disagree with him, and to the extent he reads this blog, he doesn't call me out. Nevertheless, I doubt Patrick would appreciate or agree with much under the "Cops" tag, for instance, or the posts about prosecutorial misconduct.

    But it's not about issues to your crew, is it? It's about us vs. them.

    You brought up cases where free speech for public workers was expanded, but the main decision there was based on private-time statements made by a Library of Congress employee, not a DA.

    I see. And the published case applying a different or lower standard to a DA speaking in his private capacity [as opposed to workplace speech about his job] is . . . where?

    Many people complained when Obama weighed in on Bradley Manning, making public statements that assumed guilt before trial. Frey's position carries clout too – no doubt to a lesser degree than the President, but perhaps more than the archivist from the precedent-setting case. This would be pretty big news if it was a Congressman doing this, right? What about a state senator? Chief of police? A judge?

    This is typical of your style of argument — make broad generalizations about political events rather than citing actual law. Yes, people objected to Obama's statements about Manning — someone being prosecuted under his command. Who has Patrick written about who is being prosecuted under his command?

    As I said already, this is magnified exponentially for anyone actually in Frey's articles (like Naffe) or a potential defendant in his jurisdiction. People in trouble will do or say anything for leverage and will try to exploit Patterico's off-time activism to make hay. So Naffe is characterizing his posts as "legal advice", complaining he is wielding his clout in a cyber-attack campaign against her.

    I avoid the term "concern trolling," because I think 99% of the time it is a way to say "don't say anything is wrong with my side," but I think you are an actual one percenter, JNJ. See, you don't care about Patterico — or rather you do, because you despise him as someone who makes arguments you disagree with, who is a thoughtcriminal.

    You'd be thrilled if someone succeeded in making a motion to have Patterico thrown off a case. But nobody has. His identity has been known for nearly a decade, trolls more effective and articulate than your pitiful crew have done what they could, but it hasn't happened — probably because, unlike you and your crew, the defense lawyers in question have too much self-respect and respect for the rule of law to file a patently frivolous motion.

    This deliberately and specifically expanded the case in the court of public opinion. But Naffe is doing exactly the same thing, so this is quite a spectacle for the rest of us to watch.

    "Deliberately and specifically expanded the case in the court of public opinion" as if that's a bad thing — again, how typical of you. Refer to my earlier comments about how "court of public opinion" language is censor-apologist bullshit. And, yes, it's clear that you think that frivolous complaints calculated to chill the speech of people you disagree with are a "spectacle."

    But now you are on record: if truncating equals dishonesty, how does that translate to O'Keefe? Is he dishonest for truncating upstanding respondents out of his sting videos, or is it only me when I truncated (something that was never in dispute).

    It's been years since I viewed any of the videos. I remember some arguing that they were dishonestly edited to change the meaning of statements or create a false impression. I don't recall if I ever saw raw tape that convinced me that he did so. If he did that, then yes, it's dishonest, and worthy of condemnation.

    I'm not engaged in a broad defense of O'Keefe. An honest person, or someone with adequate reading comprehension, would have grasped that from this post alone.

    Thanks for that useful info, I read up on it and it seems to me that law would apply if Naffe was suing Patterico's web hosting company.

    So (1) you admit, in effect, that you were bloviating about something about which you know nothing (not a surprise, on your crew — other than the admission part, I mean), and (2) you can't read a straightforward statute or description thereof, because here and in your subsequent paragraphs you get it completely wrong.

    I never said it was illegal, just malicious – and only because you asked. Did you think I mistakenly believed the insults were grounds for a lawsuit? Did you move the goalposts because there were indeed examples showing ill will?

    Dodge! Evade! Weave! If you're not arguing it is illegal or defamatory, why have you talked about First Amendment rights being limited, and why are you talking about "ill will"?

    But there is a need to stop the destructive bickering. Can't we stress substance anymore and avoid attacking the messenger? Isn't the personal attack usually a defense mechanism for a lacking argument?

    Sorry, could you repeat that? I was distracted thinking about how you said I was giving Patterico a blow job because I wrote a post criticizing people who make false misconduct allegations to his employer because they don't agree with his politics. You were saying something about personal attacks?

    I don't know about Patterico's case load and never pretended to.

    Yep. Except for the part where you repeatedly speculate about how the case load must be full of people with political stances he can detect and how they must have recusal arguments and about how he must be biased against them.

    This is a testament to Frey's passion though – he posts so frequently, thoroughly and in-depth. He must really look forward to clocking out every day so he can partake in his other love, being on the edge of the spear in partisan media wars.

    It just makes you and your little crew so furious that there are people like that who don't agree with your politics, huh?

    But I never said there was such a law. Is it okay if I just stick to my original premise? I said someone may eventually bring this up as an argument for recusal, a mistrial, or to attract publicity. The complaints including this recent one by Naffe have been accumulating. I get that you've surmised all the complaints are frivolous, but if Frey's superiors have to sort out the complaints that his sideline is generating in order to come to that same conclusion each time, isn't it costing taxpayers more than other DAs who don't have political blogs?

    So, even at the very most charitable interpretation in which I believe you — which I don't — you're saying that people like Patrick should not express themselves about controversial subjects, because people will make frivolous complaints, and that will cost the taxpayers money? What a strong supporter of American values you are.

    But that's not what you are saying. It's a threat, very badly concealed in a rhetorical statement, that you and your friends will continue to make frivolous complaints. Noted.

    I agree – I believe in old-fashioned, equitable, civil debate that gets to the core of the issue. This benefits everybody. But unlike a legal commentator you might see on Court TV who has hosts and producers playing devil's advocate, Patterico's speech on this issue is acutely one-sided and pre-determined with insults hurled at anyone who would politely deign to question his conclusions. Do you disagree?

    Your description of televised media as having balance because of the existence of hosts and producers is hilarious.

    I'm sure some people will argue that Patterico is one-sided, but frankly I don't give a shit. He's less one-sided than other conservative bloggers I have seen, which is why he has my respect. I think he's dismissive of other viewpoints and other "sides" sometimes, but I'm not going to throw the first stone, because so am I. Private blogs are private soapboxes. Concern trolls, pearl-clutchers, and couch-fainters should go read USA Today.

    He is missing an opportunity to use his blog to educate and inform the reader on the merits and vulnerabilities of both sides. Instead he serves as O'Keefe's media concierge, alternating attacks and damage control to persuade everyone this case can only have one outcome. Allegations of misconduct by O'Keefe have been made but not explored, even to debunk. The AFP funding, x-rated taping, probation violations, wiretaps, etc.

    Taking this argument as true for the moment — because I don't really care if Patterico has blinders on O'Keefe or not — there's an infinite supply of new blog spaces out there in which you can counteract them. Go start one. For that matter, even taking your suggestion of bias and water-carrying as true — and again, I don't particularly care at this juncture — it's trivially easy to find biased blogs on every side of the spectrum.

    But you don't care about actual fairness. You're using the Rovian tactic of accusing others of doing what you're doing. You're part of an astroturf and propaganda team.

    I'm not well versed in the vast majority of his writing, remember, I've probably only read some of his stuff.

    And yet you make all sorts of broad generalizations about it. Speaks to your honesty, no?

    I'm worried about the taxpayer and the downhill slide of media due to secret donors. Interestingly, I wasn't aware he was a sitting DA till Naffe publicized it just recently. I find it fascinating because of how unusual it is.

    I think you're lying. But even if you were not, the fact that you were ignorant of something does not make it a secret.

    "Uh-huh. Can you link me to comments at liberal blogs where you have pestered them to be transparent?"

    The left wings sites are already fighting for transparency, the DISCLOSE Act, Sunlight Foundation, an end to Citizens United, etc. They issue annual reports or update subscribers via email during fundraising where their funding levels are. If you are saying you are happy that George Soros could be calling Media Matters to "order up" some hit pieces while potraying themselves as reader-supported, then let's leave it there, I disagree and think secrecy opens up opportunities for a lot of types of manipulation and exploitation.

    I think I can read Media Matters and make assessments about credibility by myself, thank you. I don't think I need you to help me by making insipid arguments for regulation of small private blogs based on arguments about big media, all of which tend to reduce to "they say stuff I don't agree with."

    What specifically makes you think I am an apologist for Naffe? Would the same yardstick make you an apologist for O'Keefe and his squires? How come my speech isn't it appropriate 1st Amendment speech according to your above logic?

    I think you're an apologist for Naffe because, in a post criticizing her and her crew for filing frivolous and malicious misconduct reports against somebody because they don't like his free expression, you showed up and vomited a 858-word diatribe about Patterico, Brietbart, O'Keefe, and possibly CIA mind beams (I kind of drifted off towards the end), because you continue to make factual claims without support, because you continue to make legal arguments without support, and because you are not as clever at concealing your identity as you suppose you are.

    But yes — you have me. In a post in which I described O'Keefe as practicing skit journalism, in which I said I didn't know whether allegations against him are true, and in which I linked to a past thing he did that creeped me out, and called him creepy, I was totally being his apologist. You're terrible perspective. He and I have having tea this afternoon at the Legion of Doom building, with Dick Cheney and Ming the Merciless. I'll tell them you said hey.

    Isn't the bigger question where the line is for blog speech to immorally (not illegally) muck up the process of administering justice?

    The bigger question for whom? No, in a post about frivolous complaints wielded to censor, I don't think that's the question. I think that's an apologia for the censorship.

    Don't move the goalposts – Breitbart called them rapists on viral videos and has churned out deceptive anti-OWS screeds steadily since accepting millions in secret multimillionaire backing a week after OWS started.

    So. I decried filing false and malicious complaints with a blogger's employer to chill his speech. You said "Breitbart did it first." I said prove it. You offer this conclusory statement, which I think might possibly suggest that Breitbart falsely accused people of rape because they protested as part of OWS. Of course, no links, no docs, no proof.

    If Breitbart, or anyone associated with him, made false complaints of rape (or any other crime) against a person to retaliate against their speech, that would be thuggish. But somehow I don't think you have any examples of complaints made to employers or law enforcement about specific individuals based on their expression. I think you are arguing that people associated with Breitbart made generalizations about OWS people that you think aren't true. Right?

    JNJ, JNJ, you're malicious, you're a troll, you're not very good at it, and now you've bored me. Please go away and don't come back.

    I know you and your crew love IP games and such so I'm not going to bother to IP ban you. But fair warning — henceforth, I'm going to edit your comments so that they voice my views on some obscure topic on my mind.

  75. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 29, 2012 @6:40 pm

    To be fair, JNJ might be talking about the list of rapes that have been committed at OWS, and the culmination at CPAC where Andrew went out and yelled at the gathered crowd of unwashed, unemployable nitwits…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ILZQSmE5Uu0

    Not exactly "filing a complaint", and frankly, I think it falls well within the bounds of "satire" – something that goes right over the heads of these loony-toon assholes.

  76. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 29, 2012 @6:47 pm

    Also, let's just point out something – Patrick assuming guilt on the part of the defendant is part of his job. The prosecution isn't supposed to think about the possible innocence of the defendant – it is his job to prove them guilty so they can put the person in jail.

  77. Ken  •  Mar 29, 2012 @6:48 pm

    Well, no, Scott. Not really. But that's an argument for a different time and place.

  78. Dustin  •  Mar 29, 2012 @8:26 pm

    I recall Patterico sharing a story about how he dropped charges against some guy because the case just didn't seem accurate. He didn't wait for the defense attorney to make the case, and I believe his story was that the defense did not figure this out. He seemed proud of that.

    I think that would make it easier to be a prosecutor than a defender. Hopefully (in a very idealist imagination), the prosecutor just pursues the truth. He doesn't have to push a case unless he believes it. The defender has to provide the defense even for folks he's convinced are guilty. I would hate to do that. I can't compartmentalize the limited government and civil rights merits of doing that out of defending a criminal.

  79. daleyrocks  •  Mar 29, 2012 @11:46 pm

    JNJ is a colossal verbose douchebag thug.

  80. scrubone  •  Mar 30, 2012 @12:44 am

    JNJ, JNJ, you're malicious, you're a troll, you're not very good at it, and now you've bored me. Please go away and don't come back.

    Aw, I just got here!

    Gotta love the "you're being paid" shtick. Over here in NZ we have a big union fight, and the pro-union blogs are complaining that the anti-union blogs are being paid to post against the union.

    It's funny, because it never seems to occur to them that kicking their precious arses is something we'll do just for the fun of it.

  81. Machinist  •  Mar 30, 2012 @1:59 am

    "By disagreeing with the anti-Breitbart trolls in one instance, I'm marked in their narrow little categorical minds."

    To disagree selectively implies you are thinking for yourself. That is strictly forbidden in those circles. Resistance is futile.

    Patterico's is the only site where I even read the comments regularly and I read them daily. He has set the standard by which I measure other bloggers. He is scrupulously fair and any commenter that has gotten banned or even put in moderation has more than earned it by repeated unconscionable actions, not their opinions.

    Some commenters consider me a troll and even Pat has taken strong exception to some of my remarks but he has always treated me with courtesy and respect and has even spoken up for me to others. This troll's smears are iniquitous.

  82. JRM  •  Mar 30, 2012 @6:44 am

    This is an OT meander on "an argument for another time," but the degree of Scott Jacobs' wrongness on the prosecutor's-only-look-at-guilt thing ought be addressed, says me.

    It's absolutely part of the prosecutor's job to consider the actual innocence of the defendant. It's a critical part – remember, prosecutors issue cases, bring them through pretrial, and bring them to hearings and trials. Sometimes prosecutors develop their own evidence creating a significant doubt of the defendant's innocence; then the defendant gets let go (well, mostly; Mr. Nifong may differ). Sometimes legal errors are made early in the process. Sometimes new evidence comes up.

    Sometimes defense counsel provides good quality exculpatory evidence, and the prosecutor dismisses the case outright. This is on cases from petty theft to murder. (Much more rarely, there's strong evidence of innocence such that it is overwhelmingly likely the defendant is innocent; I've agreed to stipulations of actual innocence in those case.)

    If a prosecutor doesn't care if the person they have is the person who committed the crime, they should get another job, like Professional Knitter or Taint Snorter.

    Quick story: When I was newish, I had a Three Strikes domestic violence case with (like most DV cases) a recanting victim. But this one I thought may well be truthful; went to my boss and because I thought she was plausible, we dismissed the case that day. No muss, no fuss. As it should be.

  83. Dan Weber  •  Mar 30, 2012 @7:38 am

    The defender has to provide the defense even for folks he's convinced are guilty

    Just like the prosecutor's job isn't to get a conviction, the defense attorney's job isn't to prove or even believe his client innocent. His job is to make sure the state has to work as hard as possible to convince a jury of the client's peers that the client is guilty.

  84. Ken  •  Mar 30, 2012 @7:58 am

    I think that would make it easier to be a prosecutor than a defender.

    I've been both. They are difficult in different ways. I'm not sure one is easier than the other; just different.

    [Unless you figure in "keeping the lights on" as a defense attorney.]

  85. mojo  •  Mar 30, 2012 @8:40 am

    Ah, I've spotted the problem: Shallow learning curve.

  86. Leviticus  •  Mar 30, 2012 @9:28 am

    I'm pretty dang liberal, and I was commenting like crazy (like, literally kinda crazy, in hindsight) on a couple of the Naffe/O'Keefe threads. As a liberal of perenially varying civility, I've remained unbanned at Patterico's site since ~2006. Anyone who questions his willingness to tolerate dissenting voices doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. His tolerance for dishonesty is another story.

    Also, I don't know anyone worth respecting who considers Machinist a troll.

  87. Sabba Hillel  •  Mar 30, 2012 @9:33 am

    I am not a lawyer, have been on a jury, and have been dismissed for taking part in a neighborhood watch program. As such, the view from my perch would be that the DA would be ,b>concerned about the defendant's innocence, as well as whether or not the case is strong enough to convince the jury. However, as a prosecutor, he would not be as intent on the "presumption of innocence". After all, if a defendant is presumed innocent, then he would never be prosecuted in the first place. It is the jury that must have the presumption so that the prosecutor must convince them to move from that position.

    Having read Patterico (I prefer to refer to him by his blog name rather than in mundane identity) for years, I can only state that he has always bent over backwards to avoid any problems that might arise with his employment. Indeed, had I not read the external postings, I would probably still not be aware exactly who he was or what he did for a living.

    Having read the Polanski posts, it definitely appears (from memory as well as having just googled some posts), that he was very carful to keep his own views separate from what might be expected of his employer. as he says in one post

    Speaking only for myself (as I always do on this blog)

    Indeed, looking at one of his posts on the matter, , I can see that as always he is very careful to keep everything fact based and objective (as much as possible in an opinion based world). When it is his opinion, he always lets us know that and explains why.

    If I were in the jury for a case that he was trying, I would have to be dismissed because I would trust his statements more than many defending attorneys or even some witnesses (:-).

  88. IGotBupkis, Noter of the Obvious  •  Mar 30, 2012 @10:33 am

    Blogs can be of great consequence, they can taint juries – blogs can alter public perception, intimidate, harass, misinform, embarrass, obfuscate, distract, etc.

    This is also true of The Media. Are you suggesting we eliminate Freedom of the Press, just because it can do these things?

    Wouldn't you agree it can be upsetting, damaging or even career-ending without any need to adhere to the most basic legal standards of evidence?

    It's not a court of Law. It's the court of Public Opinion, which is and has always been a rather fickle court of activity. And as long as the court is open to comment (unlike, say, The Media) it tends to get corrected quickly, barring the blogger being a censorious ass, which I've never seen Patterico be with anyone who was being even vaguely civil. The same cannot be said for many, many liberal blogs. They do LOTS AND LOTS of censoring, whenever it suits them, and regardless of the commenter being quite polite and civil and simply stating facts with attributions.

    And don't forget manufactured support through feeder sites and faked multiple accounts.

    Yeah, most of us have noticed liberals doing this kind of crap a number of times… it's called "Astroturfing". I can't recall ever seeing anyone noting a case of it relating to conservative/right political points, though. Not saying it's never happened, but I have never seen anyone demonstrate it as a fact.

  89. IGotBupkis, Noter of the Obvious  •  Mar 30, 2012 @10:41 am

    >>>> Michael Moore is not the left wing version of this – he may edit in bias but he doesn't pose as a criminal while taping them without consent.

    Oh, PULL THE OTHER ONE.

    Moore is a lying POS — he paints himself as "one of the people" but lives in a multi-million dollar NY condo and sends his stepdaughter to private school, while telling the peeeepul that they can't have school vouchers. He paints himself as "working class" when his parents were very clearly professional and middle class.

    He "edits in bias" is a casual way of saying he lies like a POS — when you cut things to utterly distort things said, things done, or to make a point the exact opposite of what unedited footage shows, that's LYING, not "editing in bias".

    If O'Keefe did anything even a fraction as ridiculously misleading as Moore does, you'd be calling him a liar outright. Hell, you do it even though he doesn't.

  90. Dustin  •  Mar 30, 2012 @10:51 am

    "[Unless you figure in "keeping the lights on" as a defense attorney.]"

    That and the fact you can't be sued for malpractice as a prosecutor are big reasons to respect defenders.

    "His job is to make sure the state has to work as hard as possible to convince a jury of the client's peers that the client is guilty."

    Dan, that's true. I don't want to live in a society where the state isn't forced to prove its case. It's the ultimate limited government issue and I don't mean to disrespect defenders. I just personally wouldn't be able to compartmentalize well enough to pull that off.

  91. IGotBupkis, Noter of the Obvious  •  Mar 30, 2012 @10:59 am

    >>> Doesn't name calling without provocation also chill speech and degrade the quality of conversation?

    Only if you're not just a dimwit and a douchebag, but a spineless weenie to boot.

    So, are you saying you're a dimwitted jellyfish committed to incredible douchebaggery?

  92. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 30, 2012 @11:24 am

    Blockquote>Also, I don't know anyone worth respecting who considers Machinist a troll.*raises his hand*

    worth respecting

    Oh. Well shit.

    ;)

  93. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 30, 2012 @11:24 am

    God damn lack of a "preview" feature…

  94. Ken  •  Mar 30, 2012 @12:40 pm

    Since I have invited J&J not to return, it would be uncouth to talk about J&J further in the thread. Please don't.

  95. DRJ  •  Mar 30, 2012 @1:03 pm

    This is an interesting post and discussion. I wish Ken and Patterico would interact on more topics. I like seeing both sides of issues and not only would they do a good job presenting their points of view, it would undoubtedly be entertaining.

  96. Leviticus  •  Mar 30, 2012 @4:15 pm

    Scott, how on earth could you consider Machinist a troll?

  97. Dustin  •  Mar 30, 2012 @4:33 pm

    I think Scott was being sarcastic, Leviticus. I mean, Machinist is one of the nicest guys I've ever run into online.

  98. Judge N. Jury  •  Mar 30, 2012 @4:51 pm

    Today I would like to discuss a grave evil in America: discrimination against dachshunds.

    Edited: did you think I didn't mean it?

  99. Judge N. Jury  •  Mar 30, 2012 @4:56 pm

    For one thing, dachshunds suffer the scorn of people who are prejudiced against the short and the yippy. You know who you are.

  100. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @5:39 pm

    I asked because Naffe and others before her have noted that it's so unusual to find someone splitting his time this way.

    You mean work and have a hobby? Well, that's unusual.

    Actually the funny thing is you can't even think reasonably on the non-partisan stuff, pointing out problems where none exist. Your partisan ranting is most amusing.

  101. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @6:25 pm

    Ken writes:

    Judge N. Jury • Mar 27, 2012 @6:06 am

    Nothing to do with OccupyRebellion, whatever that is.

    Ken • Mar 27, 2012 @7:58 am

    Uh-huh.

    Judge N. Jury responds:

    Judge N. Jury • Mar 27, 2012 @6:06 am

    "Can you point to any political blog that does offer the "transparency" you talk about?" Yes, there is an example at http://nycga.net

    Now what is the very first text in that blog's header?

    #OCCUPYWALLSTREET

    Funny that that was the first blog he found as his example of transparency. It's almost like Judge N. Jury isn't overflowing with credibility. But lots of truthiness.

  102. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @6:40 pm

    Scott Jacobs • Mar 29, 2012 @6:47 pm

    Also, let's just point out something – Patrick assuming guilt on the part of the defendant is part of his job. The prosecution isn't supposed to think about the possible innocence of the defendant – it is his job to prove them guilty so they can put the person in jail.

    Scott Jacobs, you're a lawyer, right? If so, I am shocked to see you believe this. I mean, I've disagreed with you about a lot of things and didn't find you reasonable a lot of the time, but sometimes you were knowledgeable and I learned a few things off you.

    But this, man, is shocking.

    If you aren't a lawyer and my memory is wrong on that, I'll chalk this up to an understandable if unfortunate mistake. If you are a lawyer, wow.

  103. punslinger612  •  Mar 30, 2012 @6:46 pm

    Anyone remember the British talent show where the cell phone salesman sand incredible opera? One of the judges commented that they created the show just for the chance of someday finding a talent like his.

    I surf constantly looking for interesting argument and discussion. This is the best I have seen in the last 12 months. Thank you Ken.

  104. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @6:57 pm

    "I haven't found much at Patterico I couldn't get at a dozen other right-wing sites."

    It was pretty good selection when DRJ blogged there. She picked up on all sorts of foreign affairs, even military stories and other topics Patterico wasn't so much interested in. I would have preferred she had written more than brief blurbs on them though (that always kind of irked me since I look to blogs more for analysis than news-aggregation), but the stories she picked caught my interest.

    DRJ was always somehow much more interesting and expansive in the comments section. Just her style, I suppose.

  105. SPQR  •  Mar 30, 2012 @7:30 pm

    I didn't think Scott was an attorney but I may be in error.

    As for daschunds, at least they are not chihuahuas.

  106. DRJ  •  Mar 30, 2012 @7:34 pm

    Hi, Christoph. Thanks for your nice comments. I liked picking the topics for people to talk about but I felt it was much more interesting to see what others thought, rather than boring people with my opinions. Of course, there are countless places that provide interesting analysis on the internet, but my current favorites (other than Patterico's posts) are blogs like this one and Aaron Worthing's.

  107. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @7:38 pm

    I didn't think Scott was an attorney but I may be in error.

    In which case my criticism is way overstrong. It's just a common but unfortunate error (of which I'm sure I make several, in a general sense).

    Apologies, Scott. While I'm sure you know it's an error now, my nonplussed reaction was because I thought it was a lawyer making it.

  108. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @7:42 pm

    You're welcome, DRJ.

    Of course, there are countless places that provide interesting analysis on the internet…

    Perhaps. But I always thought on foreign and military affairs, you in particular had a very good sense of things.

  109. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @8:01 pm

    There have been a couple. One of them went full out NUTS and started attacking DRJ.

    You mean because I swore at her once? Meh.

    Not my finest moment; not the massive never-ending deal Patterico made of it either. It isn't even the same degree of swear-word where I come from anyway, as it is down there. In Scotland, it would be positively trivial.

    I've apologized, particularly in light of how you Americans take a word I consider no worse than a–hole (something I've been called umpteen times there, and called others, and seen others call others) with nary a banning in sight.

    But what I did was worse than … well, anything really.

  110. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @8:06 pm

    Still reading the thread.

    I think dishonest and contrived pearl-clutching and couch-fainting chills speech and degrades the quality of conversation, but I'm going to nut up and take it. Robust speech sometimes includes insults. Deal with it.

    All I can say is, "Nooooooo!"

  111. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 30, 2012 @8:34 pm

    I'm talking about someone else entirely. Someone very "special".

    First name started with an L. Ended with an "i".

    And no, I'm not a lawyer. I just expect very little from Prosecutors in general.

  112. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @8:51 pm

    Ah, Scott.

    As far as prosecutors, I don't expect them to always live up to that ideal, but it's in the public's interest that they do since prosecuting someone they know is innocent is immoral as well as being completely pointless—except maybe to a prosecutor's career and ego.

    I do agree that Dustin went overboard when he relayed the story (which I also remember) about the case Patterico rightly didn't prosecute. I believe Patterico, but where I — based on interactions I've had with him over the ears — don't agree is that Patterico is so fair and balanced that he's anything like immune from avoiding a major blind spot.

    I think Patterico (at least usually) tries and recognizes its importance, but I think Dustin overestimates him in that regard. To be fair, it's a hard thing to do, which is why so many problems with prosecutors (and professionals in general) arise.

    I've supported most of what Patterico has done in his media criticism and political and crime blogging career, and I greatly respect his important prosecutorial work (which requires actual physical courage), and etc. But I simply haven't seen the same level of near-perfect objectivity as Dustin sees. Nor would I expect to from most people.

    That's why there should be prosecutorial oversight, etc., which I think is your point.

  113. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @9:11 pm

    Rereading it, I see I unintentionally mischaracterized Dustin's comment. He simply relayed the story, which is complimentary to Patterico, then acknowledged that seeing prosecutors that way in general may be idealistic.

    OK. That's fair.

    It's good that Patterico did the right thing in that case, I don't think he's perfectly objective though, and if he faces that situation again, I hope he continues to make the right call (as I'm sure he hopes too).

  114. Ken  •  Mar 30, 2012 @9:13 pm

    Rereading it, I see I unintentionally mischaracterized Dustin's comment.

    Sorry, Christoph, but that's too little too late. I'm going to have to use you to take the anti-dachshund position against JNJ now.

  115. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @9:22 pm

    Uh huh.

  116. Christoph  •  Mar 30, 2012 @9:37 pm
    But there is a need to stop the destructive bickering. Can't we stress substance anymore and avoid attacking the messenger? Isn't the personal attack usually a defense mechanism for a lacking argument?

    Sorry, could you repeat that? I was distracted thinking about how you said I was giving Patterico a blow job because I wrote a post criticizing people who make false misconduct allegations to his employer because they don't agree with his politics. You were saying something about personal attacks?

    Well, Ken … not for the first time today, or even the second, thanks for the belly laughs.

  117. Jay H Curtis  •  Mar 31, 2012 @12:07 am

    The whole Naffe story was something I just couldn't bring myself to care about.

    Until I read this thread. I can honestly say I have never witnessed a beat down like thew one above. And it was done with such exquisite wit and humor! I will have to admit to chuckling, snorting, and full on roaring with laughter. Enough so that my girlfriend came from the other side of the house to see what was so funny. When I showed her the whole sequence of the blowjob references, she joined me just as enthusiastically. (But, only in laughing, damit)

    Based on what I have read here, I know I will be reading your blog more often. Even though I am politically an extreme right winger, I find that I like the way your mind works even if I won't necessarily agree with all of your conclusions.

  118. Angelo  •  Mar 31, 2012 @10:17 am

    Exquisitely epic

  119. Ken  •  Mar 31, 2012 @12:10 pm

    Someone impervious to sarcasm has been Googling "instapundit and popehat restraining order."

  120. Scott Jacobs  •  Mar 31, 2012 @1:16 pm

    Someone impervious to sarcasm has been Googling "instapundit and popehat restraining order"

    Oh isn't that precious…

  121. VPJ  •  Mar 31, 2012 @3:01 pm

    Wha? You mean it was a jo–er…I knew that. *closing Google tab*

    Besides, I was googling stuff about those stupid dachshunds. I swear.

  122. Dustin  •  Apr 2, 2012 @11:52 am

    I don't think Patterico is perfect or super-objective. I'm not sure where I gave the impression I did.

    I am a fan of his. He's particularly good at the thorough criticism of the outrageously dishonest. Ken is also good at this, but Ken brings a very funny style to it too. There's a large number of bloggers I'm a fan of. I don't expect any of them to be free of bias or anything like that.

  123. Christoph  •  Apr 2, 2012 @10:23 pm

    Well that's good, Dustin. Always good to keep a critical mind. While I'm hardly his biggest fan, he has his strong points including not holding to every party line. He doesn't always hold his finger up to the wind when deciding what he thinks, and I like that in a person.

  124. Russ  •  May 17, 2012 @12:14 am

    Late to the game here, Ken, but those replies of yours to JNJ were things of beauty. Art.