Let's talk about an unusually despicable, ridiculous, bigoted, and potentially dangerously unbalanced and violence-threatening lawyer — Jason Lee Van Dyke.
Why do I say those things about him?
Potentially dangerously unbalanced and violence-threatening:
Jason L. Van Dyke, Texas attorney (for now), likes threatening violence against people who make fun of him or criticize him or question him online. Recently he's been getting questioned, ridiculed, and criticized a lot, since he filed suit seeking to force Victoria County District Attorney Stephen B. Tyler to explain why he rescinded a job offer to make Van Dyke a deputy prosecutor. (Probable answer: Tyler didn't do any due diligence before making the offer to Van Dyke and belatedly discovered he appears to be a bigoted lunatic.)
Take this weekend. When Twitter-user Asher Langton criticized, questioned, and ridiculed him, Van Dyke resorted to physical threats. He referred to Langton's home town of Omaha and discussed attacking him:
This is not the first time Van Dyke has extravagantly threatened violence in response to people writing about him and his behavior. Observe:
Cletus the pretend ninja
It's not the first time he's threatened @AsherLangton, either. Consider this email from a few months ago:
Yes, an all-around charmer.
Image courtesy of TechDirt
And great with clients and potential clients!
Nothing but good times.
Guns appear to make up a very prominent part of Van Dyke's life. That's fine, in the abstract — many Americans are fond of guns, and the vast majority of them aren't threatening thinskinned freaks, but responsible. Let's hope Van Dyke doesn't kill anyone in the throes of the sort of pique that seems to be his defining characteristic.
Fraudulent Buffoonery
Why do I call Texas attorney Jason L. Van Dyke fraudulent? That's my opinion of him based on these facts: he misrepresented a joke to a court in an attempt to get a bogus default judgment against a defendant.
Back in 2014, Van Dyke sued a revenge porn site called PinkMeth on behalf of one of its victims. Suing a revenge porn site is a mitzvah. Revenge pornsters are scum, and if there is a lawful and constitutional way to take them down and inflict life-destroying consequences on their creators and users, decent people should. But the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, and not everyone who fights evil is good. Van Dyke is not good.
Neither is Van Dyke's pal, Kyle Bristow. Bristow, who was rejected by Young Americans for Freedom as too nuts, is a dreamy-eyed writer of white nationalist slashfic, an aspiring early retiree from an unpleasant squalor of the "urban" [cough] world, and someone who shared Van Dyke's outrage at revenge porn, mostly because it targeted nice white girls.
“Revenge pornography is nothing more than a manifestation of liberalism,” Bristow said. “Most victims on revenge pornography websites are young, white, blonde, middle class, American women. Women who the pornographers can link to conservatism or Christianity are especially targeted for harassment.”
What a buddy comedy this is shaping up to be!
Anyway, at one point in the course of typical online back-and-forth shittalking, PinkMeth joked that its lawyer was Kyle Bristow and even swiped Bristol's photo as its Twitter image to troll people. Bristow, in fact, was helping Van Dyke with his case, not representing the defendants. But Van Dyke pulled what can only be called a short (and dumb) con on the court — he purported to serve PinkMeth by giving the complaint to Bristow at Bristow's office address and sought a default against PinkMeth on that basis, misrepresenting to the court that PinkMeth's listing of Bristow was sincere rather than obviously trolling. Now, a very unusually careful clerk might have caught it based on the tone of the documents about Bristow that Van Dyke attached, but that's unlikely.
This sequence of events shows that Texas attorney Jason L. Van Dyke committed fraud on a court. Trolling stops at the courthouse door — the fact that PinkMeth (which, let's not forget, is a revenge porn site run by scum who should be used to mulch lawns) was trolling does not excuse misleading a judge.
Vexatious Litigation
Why do I call Texas attorney Jason L. Van Dyke a vexatious litigant? That's my opinion based on his history of litigation and threats of litigation. Among other things:
In suing PinkMeth, he also sued the Tor Project, which produces free open-source software that protects online anonymity. Is the Tor Project engaged in revenge porn? Only in the sense that the California Department of Transportation is engaged in bank robberies if I flee one on a public road, or Verizon is engaged in interstate threats if I use a cell phone to make one. It was a riotously frivolous and probably sanctionable argument, as discussed here and here and here and here and here and here. He quickly dropped the suit with a mostly incoherent non-apology.
Then there's the lawsuit-threatening. He's into blustery, extravagant, agitated threats of lawsuits, and boasts about past threats and lawsuits, particularly over imagined defamation. Consider how he reacted with fury and threats to an Above the Law post about his little pal Kyle Bristow:
Not to mention Van Dyke's frivolous attempt to sue a sitting District Attorney to force him into a deposition explaining why he rescinded Van Dyke's job offer. It's possible to feel a little sympathy here for Van Dyke — he closed his practice and sold a home — but his theory is ridiculous. The issue is that District Attorney Stephen B. Tyler did an abysmally poor job of vetting Van Dyke before offering him vast power as a prosecutor. But Van Dyke thinks the issue is that nobody ought to be allowed to say "hey, maybe don't hire a bigoted lunatic to be a prosecutor, huh?" and that anyone who says that (which, by the way, would be classic petitioning the government, protected by the First Amendment) owes him money. No, Jason. No. Ask a real lawyer to explain how that works.
Bigotry
Before I explain why I think Texas attorney Jason L. Van Dyke is a bigot – and a cowardly, cringing one at that — let me explain how it matters. Bigotry in the abstract isn't against the law, and shouldn't be. Most of the bigoted things Van Dyke allegedly said are obviously protected by the First Amendment, as is his right to associate with awful people. It's only an issue for two reasons. First, overt bigots shouldn't be hired as prosecutors. Only genteel people who will let the criminal justice system's manifest structural bigotry take care of business should be hired as prosecutors. Second, Van Dyke threatens people — physically and with litigation — when they comment on his bigotry. That's news.
Van Dyke's been a conservative bomb-thrower for a long time, but that's not the same as bigotry. His rhetoric, though, gradually veered in that direction. Years back he filed a truly execrably writen amicus brief in a gay marriage case.1 His activism — including that and some work on behalf of Young Americans for Freedom — earned some pushback from gay rights activists, including one who published documents relating to an expunged criminal proceeding against Van Dyke. Van Dyke tried, belatedly and unsuccessfully, to have his old records sealed. When he failed, he flamed out in classic Van Dyke style on a blog he has now memory-holed:
AIDS Infected Faggot and his Moonbat Buddy Are Playing With Fire
AIDS-ridden highway rest stop bathroom connoisseur Todd Heywood may not like what he gets when he plays with fire. When I first heard that he managed to convince a judge to essentially ignore the law and the clear intent of the Michigan legislature, I thought about just letting this one go. The truth of the matter is that Todd Heywood will die a horrible death due to complications from AIDS and will be screaming and rotting in Hell before I am even halfway into my career. Unfortunately for him, I don’t think there are any reststops on the road to the Malebolge – although I am sure he will find himself in the company of an entire legion of faggots.
Suffice to say, I am not going to let this stand. I plan on filing an Application for Leave to Appeal with the circuit court by the end of next week. In the interim, I am nearly finished compiling the information needed for a lawsuit that I intend to file against these two moonbats. Maybe, after spending a fortune on legal bills only to end up paying a hefty judgment, they will think twice before they tangle with me again.
Earlier this year, curious about where else Mr. Van Dyke had been expressing himself, @AsherLangton did a little digging. He found that someone posting on the notorious white supremacist site Stormfront under the name "WNLaw" (White Nationalist Law, one presumes) had remarkable parallels to Van Dyke. These screenshots are reprinted with his permission, and the investigative work is all his:
WNLaw describes petition
That same petition was created by "J.V."
WNLaw sings praises of Van Dyke and Bristow, showing knowledge of their background
WNLaw, like Van Dyke, left Michigan for Texas
WNLaw is a firearms instructor
So is JLVD
Ladies, WNLaw is a lawyer named Jason in Texas into shooting and martial arts
Van Dyke is a lawyer named Jason in Texas into guns and martial arts
WNLaw does debt collection law
Van Dyke does debt collection law
And so forth and so on, in this thread.
This began Van Dyke's campaign of threats — both ambiguous and explicit — against @AsherLangton.
Blustery douches have an unmistakable tone, like a moral lisp.
In April, spurred by his threats, I wrote to Mr. Van Dyke seeking comment about @AsherLangton's discoveries — both inquiring whether he did, in fact, post on Stormfront, and asking whether he thought that had a bearing on his suitability for working as a prosecutor. He responded with what I would characterize as evasive, contradictory, game-playing, and increasingly agitated emails, which included him promising "swift and certain punishment"2, a statement that he would make an example "in Court or otherwise" of me or anyone else who "damages his career" with a story, and saying "prepare for full retaliation." Judge the emails yourself in a footnote.3 — I have removed only references to a third party who attempted to mediate between us. I would characterize them as denying he was WNLaw at Stormfront, arguing that there was nothing necessary wrong with posting on Stormfront depending on the content, saying that he'd need to see the posts to comment, saying that the media misrepresents what racism is, and (as far as I could figure) saying that someone else was posting stuff pretending to be him.
Subsequently Mr. Van Dyke has become a vocal Proud Boy:
Proud Boys are proud of not masturbating except within approximately five feet of a woman, ritualistic public tickle fights, and — notwithstanding the foregoing — Western Culture and their imagined role in creating it.
I find the evidence persuasive that Van Dyke is and always was WNLaw. My view is that a willing resident of Stormfront is, in fact, a bigot. My view is that the Proud Boys are not Stormfront, but largely because they aren't brave enough to be Stormfront in public. Your views may vary.
In Summary
What do you call an unbalanced, violent-threat-spewing, vexatious-litigating, bigoted, court-defrauding proudly-unethical simple-minded lout in Texas?
A member of the Texas State Bar, apparently.
Most of what Van Dyke is doing (apart from the fraud on the court and, perhaps, some of the threats) is legal. More vexatious lawsuits will be dealt with with appropriately, in court, using Texas' quite good anti-SLAPP statute. Anyone threatened with litigation should feel free to reach out for help finding pro bono counsel. More florid threats, or actual violence, will be handled by appropriate authorities, who respond well to thorough documentation.
Edited to add: New threats since I wrote this will appear here.
Cletus the Pretend Ninja Plans a Plane Trip
- Representative sample:
The reason why banning same-sex marriage is a legitimate state interest is because the State of Michigan’s inherent police powers authorize the government to promote the health, safety, morals, and public welfare of its people, and it is respectfully submitted that same-sex marriage is an affront to the health, safety, morals, and public welfare of the residents of the State of Michigan — which is why the Western and American legal traditions have proscribed sodomy — much less same-sex marriage — for thousands and hundreds of years, respectively.
- That was on April 26, 2017, and it is July 9, 2017 as I write this. ▲
- .
Mr. Van Dyke:
I'm an attorney and writer on free speech issues.
I have seen evidence suggesting that you post on the Stormfront under the name WNLaw. Are you willing to comment on that?
If, hypothetically, you do post on Stormfront, do you feel that has any bearing on your suitability as a prosecutor? Do you fee that considering that as a factor would violate your rights?
I read a story that quoted you as saying you would sue anyone who told the prosecutor's office not to hire you. If someone did tell them not to hire you, do you believe that would be actionable? Under what theory?
I will be writing about the story and will welcome any comment.
Ken White
Mr. White:
1) Given that, by an odd coincidence, I have gotten a number of e-mails from some other guy named "Asher Langton" about this same issue, I am not willing to comment at this time because it would appear that a number of people have already made up their minds with respect to this allegation. Because I feel that is the case, I decline to comment.
2) I frankly have no idea what goes on at Stormfront aside from that fact that, on occasion, I have had some clients that have stated to me that someone from the website gave them a referral. I don't read it or post to it and my understanding that is that it is a website that promotes white supremacy. Since the definition of white supremacy is pretty wide, I am guessing based upon the nature of your question that its typical member espouses views that go well beyond what the editorial pages of places like The Huffington Post, Salon, Slate, and MSNBC would refer to as "white supremacy." With those assumptions on mind, I can state that it would absolute be a problem for a prosecutor to espouse views like, for example, holocaust denial or the mass disenfranchisement of all non-whites. The reason is because the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct set forth special obligations for prosecutors and such views would call into question whether that prosecutor could perform his job in accordance with the rules. For example, I wouldn't trust a prosecutor to hand over exculpatory/Brady material if that prosecutor's view was that Jews belong in prison simply because they are Jews. You also can't have prosecutors who are going to sponsor evidence or testimony suggesting that someone's race makes them a future danger to society (as was the case in this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/supreme-court-overturns-duane-buck-death-sentence-murder-texas-racism-a7594286.html)
That having been said, there is also a point where it's clearly inappropriate to terminate someone's employment because of their political views. The examples I cite above are far different from someone saying "I disagree with Obergefell and don't think gay marriage should be illegal", "I think all illegal immigrants should be deported", or "There is an anti-white bias in the media and in higher education." The line may be unclear, but I think the ultimate issue is: "Does this person espouse views that will hinder them from performing their duties as a prosecutor in a manner consistent with the rules of professional conduct?" If the answer is no, I don't think it's relevant. Finally, I would add that everyone makes mistakes in their life. Everyone has done and said things that they regret, and that includes me. At some point, I think they have a right to move on with their lives. The "right to be forgotten" that we are seeing take shape in Europe's court's is something we desperately need here.
3) That story is accurate and I fully intend to take additional legal action in this matter. The legal action that is currently pending exists solely for the purpose of obtaining evidence to determine whether I have a legal claim against third parties for defamation, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective relations, public disclosure of private facts, false light, and similar torts. I have documented this entire incident very carefully. At this point, I have sufficient documentation to prove damages in the amount of $163,425.00 (and I haven't even finished going through all of the documentation). I would also note that those damages are only the liquidated economic damages that I have calculated so far. If I am able to discover evidence sufficient to bring a claim, I anticipate that my economic damages will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $200,000.00.
Although I am not going to comment about the other instance, this incident actually marks the second time (not the first) since January 2017 that I have learned about someone sticking their nose in my private affairs. I am no longer going to tolerate it. If, as I suspect, someone stuck their nose into my business with Victoria County, there are going to be dire consequences. That's a promise. If I accomplish nothing else at the end of the day, people are going to learn that the days of "strategic patience" with those who butt into my personal affairs are over. From this point forward, there is going to be swift and certain punishment.
Jason L. Van Dyke
Attorney & Counselor at LawMr. Van Dyke:
I don't interpret that as a denial. I have to say that the evidence that it's you on Stormfront appears overwhelming. In addition, I take your threats and attempted intimidation as corroborative.I will be happy to print any statement from you when I write about this.
Mr. White:
The only reason I agreed to answer your questions is because [third party] vouched for you. I deny, and continue to deny, any affiliation with Stormfront. If you, or anyone else, makes the decision to damage my career with your story, they will be made example of in Court or otherwise.
[Third party] & Ken:
The simple fact of the matter is that this Asher Langton (real name Jacob as it turns out) asked me about this right around the same time that Mr. White contacted me about the story. I answered Mr. White's question promptly and in a courteous and respectful manner. It would appear that Mr. White had his mind made up about me before he posed the questions, which to me begs the question of why he bothered asking for my side of the story in the first place. Who the hell is this Langton guy (other than a professional troll that I am now on a collision course with) anyway and why is he sticking his nose in my business?
Furthermore, I have no idea just what the hell I am being accused of aside from having an account on this Stormfront website and posting to it. What I propose is this: I deny, and continue to deny, any type of affiliation with that website. That having been said, it appeared to me that Mr. White was asking for my opinion with respect to the other articles concerning the DA job clusterfuck. One of the three questions posed was this: " If, hypothetically, you do post on Stormfront, do you feel that has any bearing on your suitability as a prosecutor? Do you fee that considering that as a factor would violate your rights?"
Seeing as how I did not make these posts, I have no access to them. Seeing as I have no idea how many posts were made by this guy, when they were made, on what topic they were made, or what was posted – I am being asked to offer an opinion on something while being kept completely in the dark. Does Mr. White have copies of content that was posted by whoever this "WNLaw" character is which contain racist, anti-semetic, or otherwise scandalous content? If he does, he is free to send them to me, at which point I will look at them and offer my comments. I think I have already been quite clear that, on the question of a website like Stormfront, the question of whether posting on there has bearing on one's suitability as a prosecutor really depends upon what was posted. Are we talking posts about holocaust denial? Or are we talking posts about law (as the account name would suggest) and what not.
Bottom Line: If the person that Jacob (and now Mr. White) believe to be me has done nothing wrong aside from being a member of this Stormfront website and potentially taking my identity as his own, then we are really arguing about nothing since my position would simple be "it doesn't matter." However, seeing as how I have no idea what this guy has posted or over what period of time, any request that I evaluate that is unreasonable.
Jason L. Van Dyke
Attorney & Counselor at LawThe pattern of threats of litigation and physical violence is worthy of a story. I'll be writing one. I will be happy to include any comment Mr. Van Dyke wishes to offer.
That's fine. I have tried to make an offer in compromise. Prepare for full retaliation.
Here is another example of a website that I didn’t create and which was created without my permission or knowledge.
https://vandyke4mvuffjkm.onion.cab/
As with all of this Stormfront stuff, there isn’t a damn thing I can do about it.
There are only two social media accounts that I currently use: Facebook and Gab. The Facebook is set to private and I only rarely use Gab. I previously used Twitter, but do not anymore. All other social media accounts, purported blogs, message board accounts, etc. are fraudulent.
Jason L. Van Dyke
Attorney & Counselor at Law
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- All The President's Lawyers: No Bill Thrill? - September 19th, 2019
- Over At Crime Story, A Post About the College Bribery Scandal - September 13th, 2019
- All The President's Lawyers: - September 11th, 2019
- All The President's Lawyers: I Talked To the FBI But I Only Said Helpful Things - September 5th, 2019
- Make No Law: "Deplatformed" - August 29th, 2019
Footnote 2 has an incorrect date: should be July 9, not June 9.
Also, may this post stand as the first and leading public record on Jason L Van Dyke for the term of his natural life.
Good luck with your future Jason.
Did his parents have any children that lived?
Ken, Ken, who are you trying to fool?
The Wire Act will be your downfall.
Great post. I don't want to distract from your overall point, but I'm weak-willed and self-indulgent, so:
This make me cough beer on my laptop.
Ken is an officer of the court. His namecalling is exceptionally bad here, but hardly anything new. The problem with his combative nature is that he's always fighting someone, always calling someone names, and he's error-prone like all humans. When he makes errors, the damage is extensive, given his standing as an officer of the court. His use of bigoted perjoratives certainly would be relevant in any employment cases brought by those with certain disabilities. The Bar Association also has rules which deal with public bias.
I'm not speaking about this particular article, either. Just that when someone goes around fighting the world, one after another, it's just a matter of time before that which they fight defeats them, because they give immortality to their neverending adversaries. Anyone who really digs deep into Ken's timeline, his friends, THEIR friends, and what they do, should be able to see what's going on, but most don't look that far into anything.
The way Ken and a few others talk, you'd think that the entire internet was obsessed with legal issues and lawsuits, but they're not. It's the same one or two dozen names, all for or against the same people and ideas, all saying the same thing, in the same place, with the "anons" (who just happen to tweet back and forth to these attorneys) doing the real dirtywork.
The old "cui bono" question is raised: who BENEFITS the most from conflict and litigation that stems from the internet?
I was sure that your masturbation comment was a joke until I clicked on the link. Wow. What a bunch of glorious nut jobs.
I read John Smith's comment three times, but I am still unsure it actually communicates any information.
Footnote 2 may have a month name misstatement. It might be July…
@John Smith
Yes, yes, go ahead and concern troll. We already know it's a cover for your disapproval of Ken exposing some right-wing shitbird to the cleansing light of the internet. Now go ahead and do everybody a favor by taking a long walk off a short pier. It's where you and yours belong.
As for the subject of this article, I don't really have much to say. Oh gee, yet another delusional, hyperaggressive right-wing piece of shit from Texas. Yaaaaaay, Texas. Hurraaaaaaaay, Texas. Font of all that is goo-wait, that's not right. Font of all valu-wait, that's wrong too. What exactly has Texas ever done for the rest of us again?
I'd care more, but the only thing that actually registers as regards M. Van Duck is that his section of the gene pool needs bleaching and he could stand to get a new…everything. Starting with a life.
Thanks Ken. It's been too long since the last Christoforo.
Now taking bets on how long it is before John Smith reveals themself to be the man in question.
But seriously though. Holy shit. Just when I thought humanity couldn't possibly get more awful…
From reading Twitter, I have a guess who that third party is. And between that and the Clark/Vox Day thing, I gotta say – Ken, your friends sure do have weird taste in friends.
Shades of Brett Kimberlin.
"who BENEFITS the most from conflict and litigation that stems from the internet?"
People who enjoy seeing stupid lawyers go down of course.
Steele, Hansmier, Duffy, Gibbs, Nazarine…
I got plenty of space for more notches…
As I am want to say more and more these days…
BYE Felecia.
I appreciate Ken protecting my identity, but I might as well out myself.
Re: "your friends sure do have weird taste in friends" – yes, that's true. I'm not ashamed to have stuck up for some unpopular people.
One of the best people I ever knew was Father Donald Licata. When I met him, he was the chaplain at a maximum security prison. I learned from him try to look at everyone three-dimensionally. This is a guy whose job was literally to love the absolute worst people in existence. Not to just be ok with them, but to actually love them. Yeah, try being that good of a person.
I'm not a religious man, but I feel something you might call "blessed" that I got to know Father Licata. If there is an afterlife, and that afterlife comports with Christian mythology, I think one of the only chances I have at that point is the fact that I learned a tiny bit of anything from Father Licata.
Ever since, I have confused the shit out of people by really actively trying to highlight the good I might see in otherwise difficult-to-like people. Sometimes that backfires. In fact, it quite spectacularly has. (I still get shit for sticking up for Charles Carreon, for example). I've stuck up for John Steele. And worse.
Even when it backfires, and the person seems unworthy of it (like Carreon, for example) I do not regret it. I'm not ever going to claim to be the best person in the world — so this small thing I do to try and be good, to try to emulate Father Licata.
So yeah, JVD has issues. When I got to know him, it was only in the context of him helping a lot of people dealing with revenge porn. He did so for free. He did so quite thanklessly. And, I met him because he (and Mr. Bristow) reached out to me to share information with me, to help my clients who had the same problem. Neither of them asked anything in return. And, for years, they did this. Given that context, I knew them as only two very nice, generous, people.
Did I later learn that they had "challenging" views? Yeah. Sure. I have views he hates too. But, we mutually respect each other.
And, despite seeing redeeming qualities in him, this is a fight he picked. I'm not fighting it for him. But, also, despite having views I disagree with, I'm not the kind of person who says "this person said something (or even lots of things) that I disagree with, therefore I disavow him." I fucking hate "disavow culture."
But… this is his fight, and the punches are gonna land where they will. I do not predict that the fight will be to his advantage. If he has to break a leg (metaphorically) to learn a lesson, he wont be the first of us to need a painful lesson to learn a thing or two.
So what you're saying is, he's more highly credentialed than the EIC of Above the Law?
"he appears to be a bigoted lunatic"
Sounds like we have a natural candidate for the California Legislature. Oh, wait. He's bigoted against somebody other than Caucasian Protestants? Never mind.
Seriously; other than the subjects of his lunacies, this pillock sounds pretty average for our would-be Ruling Class, either Party.
@ParadigmSpider
Responds to a post condemning a guy who spews bigoted stereotypes on the internet by spewing bigoted stereotypes on the internet.
You've locked up this week's "Zero Self Awareness" trophy and it's still early on Monday. Kudos……
Perhaps he should have taken some of Ken's famous advice and left it at that?
Damn Ken, you take this guy seriously, it looks like the sort of writing you'd find easy to defend on some sort of libel suit with a dumber than normal judge. This isn't meant as a criticism, it was still up to your usual entertaining standard. I do wonder at what point the bar will be unhappy with him.
All I see are a bunch of people who are clearly not governing themselves accordingly.
@Ken White:
I have not that of that before. That is an eminently reasonable statement and I will further keep that in mind.
=====
@"John Smith":
I expect that you are either Mr. Van Dyke himself or one of his petty Proud Boy sycophants. It doesn't matter. Your whining avails you nothing. And I'll place my bets on Mr. White rather than you.
=====
@Marc Randazza:
Mr. Randazza, I do not mean this in an ill way, so I hope you will not take it so.
If you keep looking for the good in…less than good people, and it continually backfires on you, wouldn't this tell you that perhaps you should re-examine that practice? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is not what is usually called logical.
"John Smith" has nothing to to with Van Dyke; he's a sock puppet for a tiresome vexatious litigant with issues.
"I've stuck up for John Steele."
@Randazza – people can make mistakes, but sometimes you just have to live with the hysterical giggling from the sociopath with the trendy avatar when you make a big one. :)
JLVD is one of those happy people who press my bully button. He's loud and full of himself… and I send a single Barbie Meme and he pops. Poor thing blocked me, but I know he's got an incognito tab open to keep track of what we are saying. His ego can't let him follow any other path. He's gonna try and deep dive me to talk about coming to an airport near me to get me to be quiet… Someone should show him the carnage from the last time lawyers wanted to know who I was because I upset them online.
He's an internet tough guy, willing to go to any lengths to try and punish people who don't share his high opinion of himself. Think we could get him to hire Tiffany?
I can't decide if my favorite quote is "I WILL kill both you and your family" or "I have ZERO ethics when it comes to business" so I guess it'll just have to be both. Wow.
Say what you will about the guy, but anyone who hunts college students can't be all bad.
@Ken White:
Good to know. Have you written about Mr. Smith previously?
I knew there were lawyers that could be called "unscrupulous," but this all makes this man seem more than a little unhinged.
@ExiledV2
Just as it's human nature to potentially do evil things, it's equally human to potentially redeem yourself. When done right, looking for the good in people is not about being naïve, but seeking the grace in others.
God knows it ain't easy.
Haha wow. Someone carve that over the courthouse steps.
Wot? Not RICO?
He definitely has some trouble with ethics
This is a total aside, but I can't stand a motto like "I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world." just because of how it doesn't actually mean anything at all.
I mean, besides the fact that the modern world was not, in fact, created by one extremely angry Texan lawyer, where do you think all the [gender/race/queer/whatever] studies classes and PC culture and multiculturalism and shit came from? Ming Dynasty China? Naw, that stuff is all from the "modern" "west".
Also I have a ton of trouble with organizations that claim to be reclaiming masculinity but are also so incredibly anxious about how they are perceived and so focused on defining themselves not by what they do, but by who they dislike. Like, assume PC culture disappeared tomorrow: Would the Proud Boys have any purpose or anything useful to say about masculinity?
I do not take it in any ill way.
But no… I don't think I will. What has it cost me? A few people giving me shit that I stuck up for some people they don't like? Even with Charles being a douche to me afterward … so if I re-examine this practice, what does that mean? At the first sight of adversity toward someone, join in on the lynch mob? Start ensuring that I look at people as caricatures, because that fits the Internet better? Fuck that.
Nah. I won't ever be as good a man as Father Licata, but the least I can do is get as close to it as I can.
@ExiledV2:
Where did he say he expects different results? Maybe he does reevaluate his actions, comes to the conclusion that it is "The Right Thing To Do(tm)", and keeps doing it for that reason. I believe it's called integrity?
Maybe worth pointing out that our entire system of criminal justice absolutely depends on people like Marc @Randazza who are willing to find (within themselves) reasons to represent people who are otherwise vilified — perhaps justifiable vilified, perhaps not…
Also worth pointing out that history is full of people who have done great things and yet who (also) held appalling and abominable, disgusting and disgraceful ideas. Like, oh, owning other people as less-than-human property (step forward, Mr Washington, please…)
@Marc Randazza:
Time. Energy.
Your optimism is admirable. I long ago passed that point, to where I view most as irredeemable. But we're getting far afield here from Mr. White's post, and as I have made a personal promise to myself not to get into the weeds anymore, I'll leave it at that.
===
@Gorshkov:
I'm a results-oriented person.
@Argentina Oragnge
Isn't Lat licensed in both New York and New Jersey? Sounds twice as credentialed as JLVD to me.
Why are bigots so frequently the absolute worst examples of their group?
I think Marc will always have a soft spot for people that can't control their language, and I can't really say I blame him, despite the number of times Jason has threatened physical violence against me (granted, I'm fairly confident that Jason isn't quite capable of finding out who I really am.) Having a bit of a hothead for a wife has made me an even stronger advocate for the First Amendment.
So… this still doesn't count as a true threat, I presume? Otherwise I'd imagine a relatively swift resolution to the situation in the form of a SWAT team rather forcefully knocking on a certain Texan door.
Christ, true threats are some kind of elusive unicorn on this blog. And apparently I don't get what reasonable people perceive as actual threats to do harm, if this guy still doesn't count. Might as well shove them into the "dead exceptions" pile next to fighting words.
And him being a university firearms instructor and lawyer is truly the icing on the cake.
JLVD: Use firearms to legally defend yourself against physical attacks!
also JLVD: Physically attack people who say mean words! What could go wrong?
That's Darwin Awards level of reasoning.
The time and energy you might have spent on people who deserve it? There's finding the redemption in the irredeemable, and there's helping the innocent. You decide which is the better effort for your time.
So……….he single?
@Rosenfeldt:
I think that some of these are true threats.
The issue is that it often isn't clear until after the fact.
And I think it's worth noting that there's a lot of room between innocence and the sort of douchebaggery that has burned Marc
@Ken
As a matter of curiosity, which of them do you think are and why? To my mind the ones regarding Asher seem the most clearly so due to his evident persistence in his interactions and thoroughly creepy level of doxxing, but I am not a lawyer.
@Total,
In a list of things people do that are the most wasteful uses of time , is defending the edge cases (and Jason has often been an edge case) really at the top of the list?
When this thread becomes about those other things, let me know. Until then, I'll stay with this.
@Randazza
I admire you and I admire the stance you're taking. Did you just invent the term "disavow culture"? It's nice to have a name for it. Disavow culture is something we could do with a hell of a lot less of.
My rule is this, and I try to live up to it: I don't believe third party character assessments, and I don't repeat them. If someone says "This person is a racist", or "This person is an islamist", or "this person is linked / working with / associates with those people"; then I say to myself "It might be true, and it might not". I don't believe it unless I make the assessment myself from facts: what they said or what they did. Not from someone else's opinion. And especially not if that opinion lines up along predictable political lines. I'm going to triple check before I believe a right-winger's claim that someone is an islamist, or a left-winger's claim that someone is a racist.
You made it about that when you said:
My point actually was 'is this really a waste of time?' For starters, is anyone really irredeemable? More importantly, even if some people are, do you think we fallible humans are capable of determining with any meaningful level of confidence whether a particular individual is, particularly before that individual completes their life? I'd venture a guess that, on a long enough timescale, we'd all do something that might be considered irredeemable. For some, that timescale is pretty darn short.
So, is there any such thing as "defending the innocent?" Or is there just "defending flawed people against accusations that are, themselves, flawed"? With respect to Jason, I'd like to recount a brief back and fourth I had with a "Mark" with a "K", Mark Bennett, who has defended Jason on and off to me for years. In Jason's recent spat with the Victoria County Criminal District Attorney's Office, I had commented that his lawsuit against CDA Tyler was completely bogus. Mark made the point that, even if Jason has done these bad things, that does not excuse CDA Tyler from making promises that he knows Jason is relying on (Tyler's office had even written a letter to a lender for Jason confirming his future employment and his salary, so Jason could purchase a house) when Tyler hadn't yet done his due diligence. While we don't know if that's what actually happened, it's a valid point.
We have specific punishments when people commit specific bad acts in this country, we shouldn't allow the government to harm people for simply being "bad people", whatever we may take that to be. If Jason wasn't dishonest with CDA Tyler's office (I'm not sure that he wasn't), and he didn't do something in the intervening time between offer and revocation to cause the revocation, the way he was treated should give cause for concern, and perhaps should even give rise to a remedy, though that remedy shouldn't include actual employment as a prosecutor. This is true despite all he has done, including the threats of physical violence he has lobbed against me. Marc's defenses of Jason have generally been along the same vein, though I've often disagreed with his characterization of events.
In sum, Marc @Randazza "wastes" his time trying to defend someone he's had good interactions with from the unfair component of attacks. What more can we really do to "defend the innocent"?
And here you called him dishonest, Ken…..
Does Little Jason Van Dyne (is he the Peanuts character with the blanket and sucks his thumb?) think that threatening to knock peoples' teeth out will help him get a job in another law firm or in a DAs office?
I guess he could gp work for ICE. Might be his last hope.
Welcome to the big leagues, Jason.
@whey I'm sorry, I fell asleep in the middle of your comment. What was it again?
OK, Ken, either he's Sicilian, or you just got involved in a land war in Asia!
As a lawyer are you required to report the criminal words / ethical violation of another lawyer? To who? Does this post count as an official report to the BAR or whatever?
Gotta love a lawyer that posts on the internet in his real name recorded for posterity that he doesn't have any ethics in business. That's the kind of thing that becomes the first search result on google for his name and ends whatever career he had. It always astounds me that people are stupid enough to make statement like that on the permanent record which will end their careers eventually.
As far as Randazza looking for the good in people, I'm glad he can, because without people like him we wouldn't have groups like the ACLU that will defend the (quoting Ken here) dumpster fires of the human race so all the rest of us are protected from government overreach. I applaud him and I"m sure he gets a lot of I told you so's by all the self righteous among us.
It's astounding that he's a lawyer and still makes the honest to goodness threats that he's made, you'd think he could weasel word it a little better, but that goes back to lack of ethics I guess. His threat to show up on peoples door steps and murder them and their family with evidence that he's not only dox'd the person but also searched for flights at least in my state would be justifiable grounds of self defense for me to put a clip through the door if he showed up on my porch. I'm also a bit surprised law enforcement hasn't dropped by to have a chat and maybe get him a nice free day or two of counseling at his local state hospital.
In fact given the posts I think he not only needs a stay in hospital but he needs to have his firearms taken away and flagged as mentally ill so he can't buy any more. When they pull his bar license for this behavior he is the type of person that will try to commit mass murder as "pay back" IMO.
What a nutcase.
@Ken – I think your view may be colored by your negative opinion of his politics. It's also hard for me to tell which ones are really him and which ones are trolls who faked things online, which is remarkably easy. And tracing down that isn't always even possible given all the the ways to obscure stuff online. I know enough about the technology of how to do that, so I'm less confident that anyone with no access to server logs or computer forensics is very likely to be accurate. Given the context in which anonymous nutbags might be impersonating one, I'd say that reasonable people might differ. Hostile questions from people who openly hate you about the actions of online impostors has got to cause quite a lot of stress, after all.
I mean, what if I point at, say, Antifa scum and then try to connect your all your talk of "life-destroying consequences" to that? It's hitting below the belt, no? You're one of 'them' so of course you mean it in some terrible, illegal way, it's obvious! Maybe the average poster on gab.ai is a racist–I wouldn't know, as it's private and I don't have an account as there's no one I wish to talk to over there–but I do know that making terrible assumptions about people based on some notion of 'people like them' has a history of being a very terrible idea. I'm not a fan of he whole 'life-destroying consequences' bit that's so popular these days, either.
Who was it that said something like hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that? Sounds like a better idea to me. Don't get me wrong, I understand the indignation over seeing someone wronged, I feel it too. I just don't think that wrath leads to positive outcomes and so I remind myself of that.
@An
It's easy to create a parody account of someone on Twitter. It's a lot harder to get the person you're parodying to respond to third-party questions (like those of Ken's), posed to their verified e-mail address, about that twitter account both in character with the parody and without even a single denial of the accounts veracity.
@Randazza does have a valid point about looking for the good in people, more people should try it.
How many times do you find yourself agreeing with a talking head who claims person X is evil because reasons Y with out looking at Y? And when Y is shown to be sourced from InfoWars, people will still cling to X is evil & try to downplay any good they've done.
I'm sure at some point Steele was human with feelings & concern beyond lining his pockets.
All of my interactions with him came after he fired up the extortion mill, so I might be a TEENY bit biased that he's a poster child for why people hate the profession. (and one might hope the ADA shakedown mill might have crushed any goodwill left)
I'm sure there are some wonderful reviews of me from some out there.
I can scream I am maligned, but I'm more likely to point out that I'm a prick with ethics.
I can hate you because I think your a copyright troll, but if you're working on frying a bigger douche fish I might be found helping. (Even if seeing a wannabe CEOs naked pics have scarred me for life.)
The world is not absolutes, there is plenty of gray in the the middle.
But at this point I'm guessing even his defenders are watching JLVD shaking their heads.
@Anon0: I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that "When I am not hunting or training college students" thing. I must say, it is very sporting of him to train them before the hunting – I suppose he likes a challenge.
@Randazza: There comes a point where "love the sinner, hate the sin" veers into "justify and support the sin through your support of the sinner." This becomes more pointed when there's a distinct pattern to which "sinners" you side with and which "sins" you tolerate. You seem to have an habit of siding with white supremacists and other "alt-right" sorts because you like them for various "other" reasons, to the point where it seems like white supremacy just isn't that big a dealbreaker for you. A man is judged by the company he keeps, and there are patterns to the company you keep.
And in general – yes, JVD needs to be reported to the bar ASAP.
Okay. For some reason this post made me feel better today; even the comments were entertaining and uplifting – including Mr Randazza's.
One very minor puzzlement was Mr White's remark that "Suing a revenge porn site is a mitzvah." The sentiment was clear, but the last word unfamiliar except in the context "bar mitzvah". Not being jewish I shrugged, deciding "mitzvah" must mean "blessing".
Then serendipity struck. Reading the Volokh conspiracy's list of recent Circuit decisions, there appeared this:
So, now I know; routing revenge porn stars is not a blessing, but a duty. Some sort of fatwa?
Honestly, reading about cases in the US legal system is more worthwhile than reading Dickens' Bleak House. Better even than watching late night TV. One learns something new every day.
@Chuck
Is David in charge? I will confess that I haven't read that rag since they hired Joe Patrice, but I thought it was Elie "two Harvard degrees, no law licence" Mystal in charge over there.
Hell, it's been so long since I've followed him, he might even have been admitted to the bar by now.
Beyond the obvious threats of physical violence, I’m troubled by the fact Van Dyke felt it was appropriate to use his privileged access to legal databases to retrieve private information on Langton.
And then apply what appears to be some level of blackmail along the lines of stating he has private information on Langton in which he implies it could be released if Langton doesn’t shut up.
Van Dyke can’t claim it was ethical or appropriate to use his privileged access to obtain Langton’s private data under the auspices of suing him, because Van Dkye, despite all his threats of legal action, is well aware he hasn’t any adequate remedy at law by his own admission. Thus he takes the next step in attempting to extort silence via physical threats.
If he hasn't been reported to the Texas State Bar I'd think he should be.
Is it just me or can this guy not tell time? Or has he reset the countdown clock? All the posts about flight times, etc. It’s almost like Sponge Bog Square Pants has lost his bus pass & can’t come fight Langton unless Mrs. Puff gives him a ride.
Then there’s this gem.
I’d ask if he’s kidding but somehow I doubt it.
I wonder: at what point does Van Dyke's speech pass into the 'true threat' category? "Shut up or I'mma bust you up" would, if posted online, would presumably be generally regarded as mere rhetorical idiocy. "Shut up or I'mma bust you up, and here's your real name, address, photos of the cost of flights to your nearest airport, evidence of your daily schedule, etc."… that's quite a lot of effort to put into a not-true threat.
As a secondary issue: must a true threat include physical violence? Here, we have threats of vexacious litigation intended to bankrupt (or at least fiscally harm) the defendant, due to legal fees alone, regardless of case outcome. Isn't that an equal threat? Being punched in the nose isn't exactly pleasant, but neither is going bankrupt.
I expect John Smith is welfare queen Gordon Roy Parker.
Always wondered what the attorney version of bro trucks rolling coal was.
Presumably J.L. Van Dyke knows what ethics are but attempts to slip them off like an unneeded overcoat when doing "business" and one hopes most of the time to put them on for court. (Although Ken points out one lapse above.)
It's been my experience that ethics don't work like dress clothes. They don't wear out if you wear them all the time. They don't make you look more handsome if you haul them out just for special occasions. Ethics are something you have to make part of yourself for them to do good.
"Business" is where you need ethics because you are charting the course of your career (really, your life) between the rocks of scandal and against the currents of come-ons and greed. Just imagine if John Steele's associates called him on his short-sighted plan. Instead Prenda Law seemed to treat events both inside and outside the courtroom as a game conducted for their sole enrichment. Eventually they ran aground on the shores of "there is more than one person in the world."
Jason Lee Van Dyke, however, is not John Steele. Van Dyke seems perfectly aware of other people, and has taken a stand against them. John Steele would know that "white supremacy" is something to be disavowed, not pooh-poohed in scare quotes as a mythic beast invented by a media conspiracy.
There are a number of comments here saying "someone should file a complaint with the Texas Bar". So, as a public service: https://www.texasbar.com/complaints/
Behold the power of Streisand: Number one on the Google: https://www.google.com/#q=jason+l.+van+dyke
@Whey Standard:
IMHO, yes.
=====
@Grock:
I wouldn't be troubled by it. I would expect it. It's very obvious from his tweets, recorded actions, etc., that he was willing to do such acts on a whim. His is truly the "will to power", which makes his membership as one of the Proud Boy SAs that much more delicious.
=====
@Dan:
Very kind. However, I really don't think I would have the standing to file a complaint, myself. Hopefully, Mr. Langton does.
So apparently this is guy is a bully who gets angered when people don't let him bully them. I guess he doesn't have anything to worry about though, if he eventually isn't allowed to practice law he can just go become a cop.
Jesus Fucking Christ. If only there was a globe spanning web page that gave you access to enormous amounts of information.
Oh, wait!
@ExiledV2
Well I can't say I was shocked by what he did. Disturbed yes, shocked, not at all. Expected based on his prior history.
Meanwhile it seems he's backing up on the threats a bit. Or am I misreading the nature of his last few tweets on the matter?
Oh, Ken. You appear to be laboring under a misapprehension about the meaning of the word "slashfic". I'm afraid I was disappointed.
Jason Dyke, you are a vile and disgusting creature and I challenge you to a sword duel to the death.
My ancestors created Western Civilization that way, and I intend to excise a small blemish that way.
Stop hiding behind technology and man up. Pistols are for weak little pukes. Maybe in Texas you count as big and bad, but out West your crazy act wouldn't get you anything more than it gets a rabid opossum. You can bluster up and down on the end of my sword, but only for a few minutes.
Docrailgun, you're thinking of Linus van Pelt – and possibly also of Janet van Dyne, a superhero (the Wasp).
The last Anonymous Coward either is posing as someone with a distinctive textual tic or is that someone and didn't take my advice awhile back.
@MB
I don't need to apologize for my friends, clients, or anyone else I may associate with or stick up for. Further, I think that "white supremacist" is a term that gets used to describe anyone who happens to be caucasian and refuses to also subscribe to a particular orthodoxy of thought.
Therefore, I think your entire observation is more of a discussion about what a fucking twat you are than it is about those I happen to have in my portfolio of friends/acquaintances/etc.
"I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world."
Global warming, North Korea, Ponies
now we know who to blame.
@Richard Smart, a mitzvah is a good deed. There is no "fatwah" connotation to it; it's just a good deed, and someone who does a lot of mitzvahs is probably a mensch (a person of integrity and honor).
“I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.”
I keep thinking of The Kids in the Hall skit about the cause of cancer.
Sorry, Total: since javascript is off by default on all my browsers, I was unable to use that page.
Dear Aaron: okay. This is yiddish, right? I've seen mensch in literature too, but used rather confusingly. Also, how come the definition by the rabbis that mitzvah is a religious duty?
Hopefully then you read my comment, which should explain away all your confusion. And, uh, John Smith sounds like Carreon to me, but I never was good at telling vexatious litigants apart.
I'm confused. It looks like he was indeed on Stormfront, but then there is the statement from the ABA Journal snapshot above:
Seems like he's trying to be helpful there, but given his anti-gay vitriol, it doesn't make sense.
That threat above to the right of the picture of Cletus the pretend ninja should be enough to get him disbarred in my opinion. Along with that rookie mistake of wearing a white shirt with camouflage.
J.L. sure does like making dentist comments, does he not.
Dear Aaron,
Yes, and your comment was informative. But would you believe kidnap and torture by jewish religious police of a man who refused a divorce certificate to his wife, is such a good deed?
Once I had a spare moment I checked on Wikipedia, which indeed states that in modern terms a mitzvah is simply a 'good deed'. Of course that's not how it was used in court, but the wiki states:
So the word turns out to be hebrew, rather than yiddish. Unfamiliar languages are wonderful things. At the time, all I had to go on was the description in the text of the case linked to earlier (USA v. Binyamin Stimler, third circuit), well worthy of comment: it describes frankly bizarre circumstances. Anyway, here's what the judge wrote:
Hence my comparison with a fatwa. So… what sort of reaction would readers here have, had that been islamic strongmen enforcing provisions of shari'a on US soil? And was that worth your time?
@Whey Standard – I was speaking more of the allegations that people were posting on StormFront. I also won't interpret lack of denial as meaningful of anything. I mean, I've never heard you deny that you're a pedophile, racist, mysanthrope or taint snorter. But that's not meaningful, right?
Whether or not reading that was worth my time, I spent time reading it. I'm not sure why I, a person who explained the current usage of a fairly commonly-used loan-word from Hebrew to you, would be responsible for answering how readers here would react, though, or how any of this has to do with a fatwa. I must admit to being almost as unfamiliar with Orthodox Jewish culture as with Islamic culture.
I can certainly see how assisting a wife whose husband refuses a divorce in getting that divorce could be a heartfelt good deed, and of course it all falls apart at the use of force, as many things do.
Also, as Total points out, a case on the third-circuit docket isn't all you had to go on, when google is a few keystrokes away.
Dear Aaron,
I wasn't holding you responsible for anything. It simply seemed interesting, not necessarily just to you, that religious courts – besides islamic ones – in secular nations can issue what amount to extrajudicial punishment.
Even I'm generally aware of the existence of google; implication to the contrary is totally not called for. Total's link was not to google – still not sure exactly what it is; without javascript a few faintly negative words can be discerned. Why explore further? That was just Total expressing contempt, totally in form and uninformative.
Besides, reading Ken White's use of the word mitzvah a google search was hardly necessary; his meaning seemed clear. What sparked further interest was the PDF of the court judgement, showing that Mr White might have had a stronger subtext, which I had printed off and perused while our dogs cavorted at the beach. Google was not available there and even if it had been, the court demonstrated another meaning equally clearly. It was wikipedia, not google, which efficiently filled any gaps.
It's Total pointing out that rather than wandering blindly through this thread, you might do some research first.
(For everyone else's FYI, I gave Mr. Smart a link to "Let me google that for you," a site that types words into google for people who are too dumb to handle it themselves. Impressively, Mr. Smart was too dumb to handle the site for people who are too dumb to handle Google themselves. Well done, Mr. Smart)
More pointless insults. It's good to know you are not in a position to do actual injury. I keep javascript off as a habit developed in a former life as a network professional. If you seriously think anyone frequenting popehat is "too dumb to handle Google themselves", more fool you. No-one else is deceived.
@randazza
Especially when you don't really think they have anything to apologize for.
No kidding. Out of curiosity, what is this "particular orthodoxy" that people must adhere to or be unfairly labeled a white supremacist?
Aw, c'mon! Where's that selfless agape love for all people that you learned from Donald Licata? Or do I have to write a 10-page manifesto about how All Lives Matter and the evil of Colin Kaepernick before I qualify?
I just go with the evidence in front of me. Rather than research a word you didn't know, you carefully waited until you found a meaning that didn't really fit, but gave you a chance to start a conversation about fatwas and jihad, which you insisted on continuing long past any level of sense, just like a pisher.
Highly pointed, actually.
Serendipity was the word I used for finding "mitzvah" in a court decision – hardly 'carefully waiting'. The meaning found me, not me the meaning; but hey, it's still a little pearl of discovery. Before swine, given your reaction; a total loss, forsooth.
Now, I did have to look up 'pisher'; "an inexperienced person or someone of no or little importance." Alternatively, a latrine. Heh. That's supposed to be pointed? Pish, tush.
Oh, please — you couldn't be bothered to look the word up and instead waited until you got clocked on the head by it. There's serendipity, and there's just being a doofus.
Now, I did have to look up 'pisher';
Oh, wow. You can actually use a search engine. Well done. Unfortunately, you've missed the actual alternate meaning of pisher (Used the Urban Dictionary, did you, and didn't realize the first meaning was Scottish, not yiddish? That's highly entertaining).
Try again.
Bah gawd, M B! That man has a family!
After reading the extended "mitzvah" thread, I'm a little shocked that I'm the one clarifying this … what … no Jewish lawyers any more?
"Mitzvah" is Hebrew, and does indeed mean "commandment" … one of the 613 such commandments (including the 10 on the pretty stone tablets) found in the Torah that are the basis for the practice of Judaism. Strict compliance with all of them is more or less what identifies Orthodox Judaism.
Because so many of the mitzvot (plural of mitzvah) are moral or ethical in nature (i.e. honor your father and mother, love the stranger, give to charity, not to take revenge), the term has colloquially been interpreted to mean "a good deed".
When "mitzvah" is used outside the context of describing Jewish ritual observance, the latter meaning is almost always what's intended.
If there was a blog tag that differentiated between
"Ken gives expert analysis of notable development from a professional distance" posts
and
"Ken continues personal twitter feud on his blog" posts
then I'd have my feed reader block out the latter.
Still, I'll admit that a cursory glance at the linked sources suggests that Ken may not even be exaggerating his foe's douchiness much, in this case.
For the record, I personally have little faith that any of you can operate google. Incompetence is generally preferred to malice as an explanation for people's behavior, after all. Assuming most of you are Special, and in need of tolerance because you're using the tools you were born with, that is giving you all the full benefit of the doubt. The alternative explanation is that most of you are dishonest in your communications, and are merely reciting argument tactics instead of saying anything.
That said, it is important to consider each utterance in isolation, because even a fool might deliver an important message, or have an insight that can only be seen from where they are standing. They might even have the odd good idea, or accidentally say something interesting when they misunderestimate their own vocabulary.
These are, after all, the reasons why argument from authority is a fallacy. And the remedy is to just not care who says what, except where it is on the same topic as something else they said in the past, in which case the statements might be considered together.
For example, consider what razzy says about seeing the good in all people, and then see him in the thread telling good people that they have little value. I don't really care if he's an authority, or even what flags he's willing to fly. I don't care what he said about some other topic like speech when considering his comments on morality and acceptance. And those comments seem to be on the same topic and part of the same mental thread as his denial of the existence of white supremacy. And he seems to actually be saying that the label white supremacy doesn't exist, because it should be considered the type species for thought.
Maybe he just doesn't understand words? Maybe he's actually a good person, but he hired a bad person to write his words for him, and just didn't have the capacity to check their work? We know Dyke didn't write her own lines, she was too high, so she hired somebody from the trailer park and that is why it is all about assault and murder threats.
Surely even blatant racism can be blamed on a priest, or written off as ignorance, right?
This exactly. The mewling excuse that any cry of bigotry is just an unfair slander against people for not agreeing with us, in a world where self declared white supremacists exist and have had singular and drastic influence on society for generations is simply dishonesty, and its the coward's dishonesty of overtly denying reality. And it's parroting the same thoughts of all these supposed good bigots he keeps buddying up to. His see the good in all people does seem to be aggressively lopsided and his apologetics reflect that in a bad way.
Some of y'all are just proving Randazza's point about the ideological purity test. "He defended those people's rights, so HE MUST BE SYMPATHETIC TO THEM. OR ONE OF THEM MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW".
You're doing exactly the same thing that asshole Republicans do when they run against candidates who were once criminal defense lawyers. "THAT GUY DEFENDED THE RIGHTS OF CRIMINALS, SO HE'S SYMPATHETIC TO CRIMINALS. DON'T VOTE FOR THAT LOVER OF CRIMINALS".
I mean, intellectual consistency is hard and everything, but you could at least try. Somebody brought up Kaepernick earlier – do you really believe that Randazza would decline the opportunity to defend Kaepernick's free speech rights were the opportunity to present itself? No chance.
Gosh. You totally are the scrapings of the troll barrel. Never mind, other people on this site are actually worth reading. I totally did not miss at least one alternate meaning of 'pisher', as you have surely noticed by now. Not that the meaning of pisher has any point in this, er, debate.
Dear Mr Klein,
Thank you, I hadn't realized there were 613 commandments of that nature. The thing is, I suspect given the context that Ken White might have meant that it was not merely a duty but a pleasure to ding such a bully as van Dyke.
PS. I wondered too whether the judges were Jewish. Not all of them, given the names – Freda Wolfson being the district judge; the appellate circuit bench including Chagares, Restrepo. But then there is also Roth. Besides, a judge wouldn't have to know that background, would he? Isn't it the job of other officers of the court to brief him on that?
@Ken
Wow, a violent racist asshole is violent, racist, and an asshole.
But no worries, I'm sure his good side will turn up sooner or later…
@An
Have you heard me accused of such things? Did I hear the accusations? Were the accusations made in a manner and context in which a person would ordinarily deny them, if they weren't true?
Fun fact, failure to deny an adverse assertion about yourself in a context in which a person of ordinary sensibilities would do so can be considered an admissible statement against interest under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Of course, admissibility under the FRE is hardly a marker of actual reliability, but regardless, there it is.
Account Suspended
TMW you just want to scream "Choke on a mezuzah you putz!"
(because wandering off into the weeds of various language roots passes the time waiting for the big man online to find enough change in the couch to get a bus ticket & ask mom permission to cross the street by himself.)
I see what you did there.
Jumping up and down, sobbing, just makes you look like a shlemiel.
The n-word and a noose… Classy! Clearly we are dealing with a nuanced and subtle mind here; we should Govern Ourselves Accordingly.
On his past as somebody fighting revenge porn trollers; I'd say that's about as much of a point in his favor as was the fact that Mussolini's trains proverbially ran on-time. As in, yes, I suppose it's something positive to say about him, but it's not exactly impossible to cancel that out with other conduct.
@Richard Smart The thing is, I suspect given the context that Ken White might have meant that it was not merely a duty but a pleasure to ding such a bully as van Dyke.
I'm not sure how any meaning discussed would lead to that meaning. Still, thanks for engaging, and I hope you learned something new.
At first I was enjoying Ken's takedown, but by the end of the comments, I just feel sad.
This guy clearly has some behavioral health issues – is there any way to help him before he hurts himself or someone else.
(I don't mean to excuse anything he said, but he's clearly disturbed, and it must really be miserable to live your life that way. I wish there was something we can do for an adult who needs help, but short of Bar intervention, I can't think of anything.)
@randazza
I was going to post the exact tweet that @Ken White posted.
Given that tweet, would you really still argue that the label "white supremacist" is being thrown around unfairly?
I'm not going to tell you who to associate with, or demand you apologize for them. But, can you really look at that tweet, and say that Jason L. Van Dyke doesn't behave as a racist asshole would?
You seem to be putting words in his mouth. Why?
The white-supremacist label has been thrown around for folks like Milo Yiannopoulos and Gavin McInnis. Do you consider them white-supremacists?
I think the label is being misused, probably on purpose…AND I think there are such things as real white supremacist (see Stormfront). I think that's the point Marc was getting at.
@Ken
Interesting saga of what seems like a disturbed person, and your handling thereof. A depressing example of my home state, which I hope most people are recognizing as not representative of Texan culture (even ParadigmSpider, who sounds like all too many of my "enlightened" unbigoted Californian colleagues). Does the Bar in each state not monitor the actions of its members? If I ran amok on the interwebs proclaiming my association to my employer, whilst portraying myself as an offensive and dangerous future penal system graduate, I'm sure I would find my employment terminated, forthwith. How does such Bar regulation/sanctioning actually work?
@Most of the "mitzvah" thread people.
Calm. Jeez. Stop being a yutz.
Adam Klein provided the sort of informative response that people look for when asking a question on a thread; one which goes beyond the toe-deep explanations one gets from google or wiki, providing a fuller contextual answer. That's why we "talk" to one another, hopefully, is to understand each other better. Flaming is so 80's…
@mb
I see a lot of outrage on social media towards lawyers who defend unsavory characters with the implication said lawyer must therefore share the beliefs of the defendant and thus is also a bad person.
Not only is that kind of thinking stupid, it’s dangerous.
A lawyer has a job to do. Defend his client. It doesn’t make the lawyer a bad guy, it’s his job, and he/she should perform it at the best of their ability as if their client were Jesus fucking Christ himself. Why? Because it’s their job.
When we start to attack the legal profession for defending what we define as “bad people” we weaken the very profession who is there to help us, the good guys, when we get in trouble. Even good people trying hard to do the right thing, make mistakes. So does law enforcement. It’s not as if innocent people have never been arrested or thrown in jail. The news is replete with such examples.
And frankly if I need a lawyer I don’t care about their religious beliefs, which way they swing, or whether they say fuck a lot. What I care about is are they a truly competent lawyer, preferably at the top of their field, and will they fight for me like their life depends on it, because mine just might.
”any of you” “most of you” Nothing like broad sweeping generalizations to lend credibility to your point. Oh wait . . .
I'm not moved by the upsetedness at Marc Randazza here.
I've worked with Marc in a variety of contexts, and he's one of the least prejudiced people I know — in a genuine way, not a I-know-the-genteel-way-to-talk way. He's given real, incredibly valuable, effective pro bono help to all sorts of people with all sorts of views. And, most importantly to me, he's a genuine and loyal friend, someone I can trust.
I don't like, at all, some of the people that he's friendly with, but I recognize his approach to acknowledging the humanity in everyone, and I don't think for a second that it's just a cover for approving of bad behavior.
Thanks @Ken for that last comment.
While I agree that the good that someone does doesn't erase the bad that they do, I believe the converse is also true; the bad someone does doesn't erase the good that they do. I also believe, as Marc seems to, that it is better when dealing with those who show both good and bad (ie every single one of us) to embrace the good, and try to change the bad in them. That means being friendly with flawed people, up to the point where you can't any longer.
I'll praise Mr. Van Dyke for going after revenge pornsters. I'll lambaste his apparent ties to racist groups and all around psychopathic online behavior. If we ran in the same circles I'd endeavor to move him away from the bad actions and become a better person.
I don't hold my friends to ideological purity tests. Now there are people who I've tried to befriend, but it became impossible due to the ongoing actions. I imagine Marc can say the same. That doesn't make the effort worthless.
Maybe Van Dyke can get a job with Marc Kasowitz's firm; of course, he'd have to dress and shave better. [email protected] his debt collection law profile, where he said that contingency and pro bono cases are the same thing. NO THEY'RE NOT! Can someone send him a heads up so he can come in here and engage us in the commentspace?
@Ken, @Brian… if only there was a dominant religion that included a message about sinners and stone throwers…
Quoted from my comment above:
:::Facepalm::: It's so obvious, I can't believe I didn't think of this right away. Latent Homosexuality. I believe Robin Williams said, "Better latent, then never". It would explain his self-professed trouble with the ladies. Check out the "Links to Homophobia" section of the Wiki article linked.
Or it could just be the whole "Fraudulent Buffoon, Violence-Threatening Online-Tough-Guy, Vexatious Litigant, Proud Bigot, And All Around Human Dumpster Fire" thing.
@Total:
Didn't you mean I totally see what you did there?
@Ken
<blockquote?I'm not moved by the upsetedness at Marc Randazza here.
Nor I. There's some considerable gymnastics going on with people trying to twist every single thing Marc is saying, to rearrange context, etc (it's impossible to think that somehow Marc is ok with the noose/n-bomb tweet without abandoning reason e.g.).
And I say all of these things even though I do not have your personal and professional relationship with Marc (although I know a thing or two about both), but also notwithstanding the fact that Marc and I are in fact mortal enemies.
Well, the time limit's expired. Has he conducted his uncovert op?
"… overt bigots shouldn't be hired as prosecutors. Only genteel people who will let the criminal justice system's manifest structural bigotry take care of business should be hired as prosecutors."
Just about hocked up a lung–definitely snarfed coffee onto the keyboard. Most defense attorneys, and most prosecutors honest w/themselves, recognize that as truth.
Did anyone else hear that he was arrested today for aggravated assult and is currently in jail? I heard he was under arrest because he punched someone and put them in a coma but I could be wrong.
Just to clarify my earlier comments, I'm not upset at Marc. I totally understand and appreciate the goal of looking for the positive aspects of people. I don't begrudge him associations with people that I personally wouldn't associate with.
I do take issue at this claim in particular:
I suppose that, as a term it can both be applied unfairly and fairly. In the context of the conversation, though, I read it as dismissive of the term as applied to JLVD. I disagree with that assessment. Based on some of his past tweets, I don't think such a term is unfairly applied in this case.
Or, rather, if you happen to be caucasian and don't subscribe to the particular orthodoxy of "You shouldn't tweet threats of lynching to minorities while using particularly historically horrifying racial epithets", I'm going to call you both a white supremacist and a racist asshole.
@Jacob H:
No need to worry about that. JLVD is all hat, no cattle.
I'm not overly upset – I certainly know worse people. I just felt his "It's because of my Christlike love of humanity" defense was a bit much and couldn't resist going "really?"
@Cory
If he was, it doesn't seem to be on the 'net
When there are no quotes, most of the results have to do with the cop who shot Laquan McDonald (named Jason Van Dyke, no "L")
@fasolt sure, obviously. I was curious whether he actually flew anywhere before chickening out. Of course, how would we know… His Twitter has been suspended so he can't tweet out a pic of the Omaha airport
I'm not "upset" with Razzy either, I just wanted to point out that his defense against accusations of being a white supremacist is that it isn't a valid accusation because it is the type species for thought.
That is a disgusting thing to say, and I assume it is a window into his soul, but I'm not upset with horrible people for existing. I'm also not going to engage in relativism or minimization of how horrible his views are.
The real point of the comments is to root out the truth of what he actually said, to de-lawyerify the words down to English to find out what he's actually saying. To find out what he's actually fighting for when he makes those types of statements should have value, especially to those who claim to agree with him and who want others to listen.
I assume he's competent to govern himself according to his real views and motivations. Perhaps it is worthwhile to understand what affect some person is having on the community, especially when others are holding them up as some sort of hero figure. Who would Ken have us hold as a hero? That is a valid thing for readers of this blog to be considering. Surely the purpose of speech is not only to have sounds come out of your mouth and to be able to claim you chose them.
I'd missed the updates until just recently. How is it that a lawyer figures he has "nothing to lose"?
@Dan:
That's easy. He has no dignity, no intellect, no woman (or man), no sense of appropriate behavior among other people, and now no Twitter account. Nothing left to lose.
He's still got a Twitter account. The one that got canned for the ever so brilliant noose stunt was @MeanTXLawyer. All of the other threats and stupidity was @RealJLVD, which is still going strong, as of this writing.
He worked very hard on that joke, and I'd hate to horn in on it.
Is there an update to this delightful and uplifting feel-good story of the year?
I have an update on what I posted earlier (names redacted) from a report that I picked up from Denton police. It appears that my previous comment that he had been arrested for putting someone in a coma was inaccurate, but he definitely assaulted someone:
"I was on bicycle patrol in the Fry Street area of the City of Denton in Denton County Texas on 7-14-17. At approximately 23:21, I was dispatched to Lucky Lou's Bar & Tavern on Hickory Street to investigate reports of an assault causing bodily injury. Upon arrival, I, Officer X, observed emergency medical personnel attending to an unconscious person, later identified as Z, in front of the bar. I made contact with Y who was an employee of the bar. Y stated that the suspect, later identified as Jason Lee Van Dyke or Crossroads, TX, has gotten into an altercation with Z after Z had spit on Van Dyke and called him "a fascist pig." Y stated that he could clearly see Van Dyke strike Z from where he was standing behind the bar. I asked Y if Z had struck Van Dyke and Y stated that he had not, but that Y had grabbed Van Dyke's shirt and spit on him. I asked Y how many times Van Dyke had struck Z and Y stated to me that Van Dyke struck Z only once before he was restrained by several of his friends and detained by staff. I asked Y how much time elapsed from when Z grabbed Van Dyke shirt and Z was struck by Van Dyke. Y stated to me that Van Dyke struck Z almost immediately after Z spit on Van Dyke. I asked if Van Dyke had said anything to Z before striking Z. Y stated to me that he thinks he heard Van Dyke or one of Van Dyke's companions tell Z to "fuck off".
I exited the bar and went outside to speak with Van Dyke who was identified by his Texas driver's license. I immediately noted that Van Dyke was wearing a Donald Trump 2016 T-shirt adorned with the words "Build That Wall" and a hat with the logo "West Is The Best". I checked Van Dyke for any warrants and found none. I was informed by dispatch that Van Dyke has a license to carry a handgun. I asked Van Dyke if he was armed and he admitted to me that he had a folding knife in his pocket. I secured the knife, which I immediately recognized it as an Emerson CQC series knife commonly used by military and police. I asked Van Dyke if I could pat him down for any other weapons. Van Dyke agreed to the search and no other weapons or contraband were found.
I asked Van Dyke what had happened and he stated to me that he was the designated driver for several of his friends that evening and that he had been assaulted by Z. I asked Van Dyke how he had been assaulted by Z and Van Dyke stated to me that Z had tried to rip his shirt and that he had been spat on by Z. I asked Van Dyke what his hat meant and he stated to me that he is a contributor to an online magazine called "West is the Best" and that he wears the hat to promote the magazine and the group is is affiliated group. I asked Van Dyke what group the magazine was affiliated with. Van Dyke declined to respond and asked if he was under arrest. I stated to Van Dyke that he was being detained but was not under arrest. I asked Van Dyke if he had struck Z in the face and Van Dyke refused to answer. I stated to Van Dyke that, if he had stuck Z, it would probably be considered self defense under the circumstances. Van Dyke responded by stating to me "I used only reasonable and necessary force to defend myself from a complete unprovoked attack by a piece of street trash" and refused to answer any more of my questions.
I was unable to speak to Z about the incident because he had been transported to Denton Regional Medical Center to be treated for a concussion. I spoke again to Y and asked him whether it was Van Dyke or Z who provoked the encounter. Y stated to me that the encounter had been provoked by Z, but that he and the management felt that Van Dyke's actions were excessive and that they did not want him to return to the bar. I stated to them that Van Dyke was not going to be arrested tonight, that the case was going to be reviewed by the district attorney, and that Van Dyke would be issued a one month trespass warning for the premises. Y stated to me that he understood.
I made contact with Van Dyke and issued him a written trespass warning for Lucky Lou's Bar and Tavern. Van Dyke signed the notice and stated to me that he understood. I spoke with Van Dyke's companions about the incident and told them that they also were not to return to Lucky Lou's Bar and Tavern that evening. They stated to me that they understood and that Van Dyke was about to take them home. Although I do not believe Van Dyke was intoxicated, I asked him to submit to a PBT to ensure that he could safely transport his companions home from the Fry Street area. Van Dyke agreed and the PBT did not detect any alcohol. At this point, Van Dyke requested that I return his knife, which I did because possession of the knife was not an offense and Van Dyke was not arrested. I followed Van Dyke and his companions from a distance as they returned to a white Ford pickup truck. I observed Van Dyke get into the driver's seat of the vehicle. His friends also entered the vehicle, which left the Fry Street area heading east on Hickory Street. This report will be sent to the district attorneys office to review for possible charges against Van Dyke for assault causing bodily injury."
"Why do I say those things about him?" — you had me at the picture with the MAGA hat.
@Cory G:
I think Ken made a fair argument that Van Dyke is dangerous and unhinged, but I can't bring myself to condemn Van Dyke's actions in that police report, even in the context of Ken's article. Would Van Dyke have been a better man if he had walked away? Certainly.
That being said, all accounts seem to agree that Van Dyke was grabbed and spat on, and I simply can't fault him for throwing a punch in the heat of the moment. If I were in a jury hearing that police report in court, I'd favor acquittal unless there was some more damning evidence. Especially when it sounds like "Z" was the one spoiling for a fight, and had been previously asked to leave Van Dyke's group alone (unless "fuck off" has taken on a new street meaning; I tend to be a homebody and am a little bit sheltered, so I'm not hip to emerging trends in language).
But Van Dyke apparently gave him a concussion. I am not a lawyer so I don't know what the law says about that sort of thing, but I was under the impression that a concussion was a "serious bodily injury" and that punching someone hard enough to give them a concussion would be an aggravated assault under that set of circumstances, which is a felony. I googled self defense in Texas and is says that you can only use reasonable and necessary force to prevent another persons unlawful use of force against you. How is putting someone in the hospital "reasonable and necessary"? Van Dyke should have been in handcuffs, and given his history of violence, held without bond. I think he just likes to hurt people.
Much woke. So righteousness.
#spitonanazi #winstupidprizes
I'm not a lawyer either, and I don't live in Texas, so I can't speak to "reasonable and necessary". I can only offer you my layman's opinion, which is that a guy getting in your face, grabbing you, and spitting on you grants you some leeway to stop the guy. If anything, I'm surprised that Texas doesn't appear to have a law specifically aggravating assault charges when bodily fluids are involved (except for the purposes of sexual gratification, or while being imprisoned). But that might also be highlighting my poor, spur-of-the-moment research.
Google is probably not the best source, generally, but according to these guys, Texas courts set a pretty high bar for "serious bodily injury", with regards to both the nature of the injury and the state's burden of proof. That doesn't mean Van Dyke will walk away without an arrest or a prosecution, but it suggests that he's more likely to be charged with the misdemeanor version of the offense, if anything.
@Cory G: How did you get this police report? I searched Denton PD's LexisNexis crime map and Denton County's online records but didn't find it at either.
From the Victoria Advocate:
Regain his reputation? Too late for that.
@Cory G.:
JLVD was doing it the "Chicago Way."
Yeah, I think if someone grabs you you're allowed to punch them to get them away from you. I mean, unless the person is like 1/3rd your size, a punch is reasonable. As for whether the punch was hard enough for a concussion, it just depends on how well the punch connected, where it connected, and the person punched. Punching really isn't an exact science.
@Asher L. – Here is how this all came about. I am part of an International Socialist organization in Denton County. We have been monitoring a local white nationalist named Joseph Kane who is also a Denton Republican precinct chairman and student at UNT. During a discussion of Kane, Van Dyke's name came up because Van Dyke is the coach of a small shooting team at UNT that our group has been monitoring for years and it was suggested that someone attempt to find out if Kane was affiliated with Texas Marksmen, which is the name of their shooting club. That is what caused me to do a little bit of research on Van Dyke, and that is how I came across this article and many others.
When I read it, I asked a friend of mine who is not an officer but who works in records for the City of Denton to see if they had anything on Van Dyke. He told me that there are massive numbers of records with Van Dyke's name attached to them, but that is not uncommon because he is a defense lawyer and because he has posted bonds for prisoners in the past, but there was a recent report where he was named as a suspect after getting into a bar fight with several of his friends. I asked for a copy because I wanted to see if one of those friends happened, by coincidence, to be Joseph Kane. He copied and pasted what I wrote and sent it to me through e-mail and Kane was not listed as being present.
Also, in case this seems a little bit fishy, I would note that our organization has been following Van Dyke for years. We have strongly suspected for some time that Texas marksmen is actually a "patriot militia" masquerading as a collegiate shooting team and that it is being utilized by Van Dyke as a feeder organization for white nationalist organizations like proud boys, alt knights, and identity europa. While it seems innocent on its face, this is not just a bunch of kids getting together to compete in the kind of pistol matches I see on the outdoor channel or to shoot skeet. I don't own a gun, but from what I have seen and heard, this is a group with a primary purpose of conducting military style training. It makes me question what exactly they are training for, and from what I have read, I doubt it's for anything good.
I will write a disclaimer that I do not know yet if there is an association between Van Dyke and Kane. I also do not know my theory we have about their little shooting club is actually true. Given what I know about the organizational structure of the club and its activities over the past two years I have been at UNT I think my suspicions are at least somewhat accurate because I am not going on rumor – one of our members joined the club and told me what he saw there. Its scary.
@M B –
Maybe. I don't know. I have never been in a fight.
@Cory G
You're an open commie, spying on a college student completely unrelated to anything here, who's name you post here trying to smear him by association with JLVD, and you do all of this after making damn sure to redact the name of the little pussy shit-starter who couldn't take a punch, AAAAAaaand you've got friends in the city government helping you with your little militia-hunt?
If you were any more of an asshole you'd be the Video Vigilante.
@Argentina Orange:
The affiliation of Joseph Kane to white nationalist and fascist organizations is well documented. You can read about it here: https://antifadallas.wordpress.com/2017/07/14/hiding-in-plain-sight-joseph-kane-denton-white-supremacist/
Joseph Kane is no saint. He is another Van Dyke waiting to happen, except that he has power in the local republican party.
I came across Van Dyke while researching Kane because I was trying to figure out of the two were associated with each other in any way. As I said before, Van Dyke has been on the radar of our organization for some time because we strongly suspect that the Texas Marksmen organization at UNT is being used by him as a recruiting tool for white nationalist organizations (like the Proud Boys). If Van Dyke is operating a student organization at a college from behind the scenes as a militia and using it to recruit people to his cause I would say thats a huge problem and a public safety risk that needs to be exposed and ended. My friend who got into their group even told me that these guys aren't using normal guns like a hunter would use either. This guy has glocks, AR15s, sniper rifles, and even an anti-armor rifle – so he has military grade stuff. That makes it even more dangerous.
I redacted the persons name on the police report because he was a victim of a violent crime. He did not deserve for Van Dyke to put him in the hospital with a brain injury (which is what a concussion is). I dont believe in safe spaces for fascists. Maybe you do but I believe in self defense.. Denton is an accepting community and that guy had every right to tell Van Dyke and his fellow hooligans to take their Nazi shit to a different bar. When you allow people like Van Dyke to meet in the open and in public and to use student organizations to provide paramilitary training, and basically give him free reign to recruit people into fascist organizations you end up with organizations even worse than the Proud Boys. Do you want brown shirts? Because allowing fascism to go unchecked is how you get brown shirts!
Cory G. (Mr. Z?) writes:
Per the report, he was the perpetrator of a crime (yes, grabbing someone's shirt and spitting on him is an assault).
Are you sure you've recovered from the brain injury yet? Van Dyke is the one who was initially assaulted and can possibly make a valid claim of self-defense. There's no basis at all for the grabber-spitter to claim self-defense.
Wow, an "accepting community", other than the occasional Nazi shit like goons going around assaulting folks who are peaceably assembling.
Van Dyke's a shithead, but you and your friends aren't helping.
Oh, the horror! Glocks and AR15s are "normal guns", and "sniper rifles" probably are as well (depending on precisely what is meant by "sniper rifle"). In fact, AR15-pattern rifles are the best-selling centerfire rifles in the US. And since there really isn't any such thing as an "anti-armor rifle", I'm not sure what you're so excited about there. None of what you've described is "military grade" in any meaningful sense.
As to the "brain injury", yes, a concussion is a TBI. That doesn't really say anything to the question of whether JLVD used excessive force to defend himself–and yes, as presented by the police report you posted, JLVD does have a valid claim of self-defense. No matter how contemptible you believe a person to be, you don't have the right to grab him and spit on him–that's an assault, it's a crime, and he has every legal right to use force to defend himself.
Richard Smart: "Hence my comparison with a fatwa. So… what sort of reaction would readers here have, had that been islamic strongmen enforcing provisions of shari'a on US soil? And was that worth your time?"
I think what you're missing is that the mitzvah of helping a woman obtain an Orthodox divorce from her husband doesn't necessarily involve the use of thugs, henchmen, abduction, and violence.
I would guess that the uniqueness of the case you refer to is evidence that it's pretty unusual for that approach to be used. Most of the time, it's probably more like arranging an intervention – gather people who have influence with the husband to try to peacefully persuade him to grant the divorce.
"Denton is an accepting community and that guy had every right to tell Van Dyke and his fellow hooligans to take their Nazi shit to a different bar."
Denton is an accepting community so its residents can tell anybody they want to get the fuck outta here. Excellent job of contradicting yourself within a single sentence.
michael_jackson_popcorn.gif
As others have pointed out, that comment about the frightening Glocks and AR-15s is pretty much a "smoking gun", if you'll pardon the expression, that you don't understand firearms at all. You're going to need to do better. At the very least, given your organization's interests, it would behoove you to learn about gun culture and safety issues outside of the white supremacist movement. It's a disservice to yourselves if you can't dissociate common gun ownership from wanna-be militiamen, regardless of your personal choice to own a firearm or not.
I would start by signing up for a firearms safety course. If you're in Denton, then it looks like Bullet Trap in Plano still offers classes. Frisco Gun Club also offers classes, and that's both closer to you and a fairly new facility. Honestly, there's probably classes all over the place; my impression was that gun culture is pretty big in Texas. Like, big enough that I'm surprised you would claim to live there and take any note of a firearms owner with a Glock or an AR-15. In fact, I'm not even sure what you guys are envisioning as a "hunting rifle", except maybe some grandparent's rusted old Winchester lever-action, or the Red Ryder BB-gun from A Christmas Story. I think your guys' expectations may literally be a century out-of-date.
Aww, have since caught up with the sock puppet post. It does leave me feeling disappointed.
@ Cory G
Sorry, but I've got serious, serious doubts this is an actual police report. (Full disclosure: 13+ years as an emergency (Police) dispatcher). I've seen more than my fair share of police reports, honest.
1. Too much active voice–"I did…", "I went…" Actual police reports tend to be (annoyingly) passively-voiced–"The suspect was contacted….", "Ingress was obtained…." Perhaps Denton PD has its own style manual, but color me doubtful.
2. You don't see "emergency personnel tending to X". What you might see is, "Emergency personnel were observed attending to a WM (white male) subject, approximately 25 YOA (years of age)." That damned passive voice again.
3. Anything dealing with suspect's clothing outside of color and description. They asked what it meant? Holy flaming shitballs, Captain! The sergeant would be asking, "OMFG, what are you? The fashion police?". The closest I've seen is someone saying, "Nice shirt" in an appropriately sarcastic manner (which doesn't make it into a report) or asking what an acronym might mean if it's info that might be useful to the Gangs Unit. "Witnesses indicated the suspect was a WM (white male) wearing a red ballcap and t-shirt" is much more the thing.
4. "….I secured the knife, which I immediately recognized it as an Emerson CQC series knife commonly used by military and police." Oh, the hell's, no. Okay, edged-weapons-wanks exist (( happen to be one), but this has zero/none/nada/zilch to do in a report. Double-plus, plus, Emerson maketh not military weapons. Want one? Try the fine folks at Ka-bar (no affiliation, I just appreciate fine knives) or one of a couple others. Some dillwad looking at Emerson's website and seeing the magical word, "tactical" might get that impression, but just…no. Also? Police departments, any I'm familiar with, anyway, don't issue knives unless it's a seatbelt cutter.
5. Denton PD has its own online police blotter. I find it amazing that a one-punch-instant-concussion didn't make it, but the guy streaking after a domestic altercation with his significant other didn't.
There are many more, too many more, nits to pick, but if this is an actual police report, I'll eat the damned thing.
Arrgh!
"5. Denton PD has its own online police blotter. I find it amazing that a one-punch-instant-concussion didn't make it, but the guy streaking after a domestic altercation with his significant other didn't."
Should"ve read, "….the guy streaking after a domestic altercation with is significant other did>" Oof.
I, too, have spoken personally with Jason L-V-D, and found our dealings to be mutually beneficial. He was cordial with me. However, I am actually surprised he still has his law license, after the terribly racist and violent postings he has made on Twitter. The noose one was not the only one. It would be a terrible mistake for him to be a prosecutor and I am glad that is off the table. The man seems to need anger management or maybe medication. Or, as one commentator suggested, perhaps he needs to rethink his sexual orientation. As for the writings on StormFront that Asher L located, my guess is that those are the work of a skilled impostor trying to stir up trouble, hoping someone like Asher will notice the posts and attribute them to J-L-V-D. I could easily name likely suspects in doing this, but shall refrain. As for the shooting club, I have watched videos of the group that J-L-V-D posted on his previous Twitter accounts. As I recall, J-L-V-D brings his own big guns and lets people use them. It's an unusual activity for a supposed school club and I sure hope there is insurance coverage. The videos did not portray and recruiting element. It just seems like he is a "gun nut" trying to help others become gun nuts. It seems very Texas.
So Texas, much guns.
@Modolo Bars:
Hi, JLVD!
I take it reading comprehension was never your high score in school.
I take it spelling was never your high score in school.
That's a basic typo. That has nothing to do with spelling.
You, on the other hand, made a comment that showed you have 0% reading comprehension.
No, he made a comment that showed that he thinks you're a sock puppet. He may or may not be right, but his reading comprehension has nothing to do with anything (though yours might).
@Modolo Bars:
I referred to that as a spelling error since I thought you were intending to use the word "an" there. Using "an" there would be incorrect, since there is no vowel sound at the beginning of "recruiting". If you want to call it a typo, go right ahead.
Fasolt: On another hand, any would not be wrong there.
@Anton Sherwood:
True, but the "Y" and the "D" keys aren't that close together on the keyboard. He might have meant that. It is hard to type with precision with socks on your hands.
You're assuming there was a keyboard involved. On a phone or tablet with predictive autocorrect, that would be a very easy typo (anf or ang could easily be mistakenly corrected to 'and' instead of 'any,' because 'and' is more common – also the key area is smaller)
@Jacob H:
I'll concede the point, typo it is. Socks would be particularly hard to deal with on a phone or tablet.
While it rather pales compared to being a Stormfront posting, violence threatening bigot, that Mr. Van Dyke is driven to use the title "Attorney & Counselor at Law" would normally be pretty egregious.
I'm never sure what's tasteful in attorney signature lines, but I do know that anything beyond a discreet esq. makes me concerned about overweening ego and/or deep sense of inadequacy whenever I see it in an opposing counsel's signature block.
At first I thought maybe the oddly excessive choice of "Attorney & Counselor at Law" might be some kind of requirement from his firm designed to intimidate debtors, but I see he uses it in private communications as well. Now I wonder how far he takes it? Online dating emails? Forum posts? Birthday cards to close family members?
Fasolt, Dan, Jacob: I hope you understand why you are perceived as ludicrous trolls. The sort of idiotic negative banter in which you engage serves only to harm intelligent discourse. No one wants to be subjected to a bunch of idiots commenting negatively and foolishly on a simple, honest, straightforward post. Too bad the blog owner does not see fit to remove such idiocy or to ban you. You are like cockroaches crawling on a sandwich. Very unappealing.
Yeah, you're definitely JLVD.
I'm Chevy Chase, and so are you.
@modolo,
Nice to meet you, Mr. Van Douche. Have you met little Teddy Beale?
@Modolo Bars:
Yawn.
I miss Jason already.
@Docrailgun:
I miss Jason to. I was hoping for at least a virtual glitter bomb.