Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

To all the trolls and goobers trying to--fuck, who knows what's going through their nearly empty minds? You're not accomplishing anything with the fake comments, the fake cease and desists related to my upcoming DC Madam book. Do you realize that this tends to embolden (look it up) people to push harder, to keep going to the very limits? That's what you've accomplished, at least that. Congratulations. Thanks for the STFU. I'll tag you back harder--I'll fuck you up with language--every single time. Former Pamela Martin & Associates escorts: you have no credibility.

DC Madam book update

I've been sick for the last couple of weeks, so work has slowed down. Yesterday, I got back on the horsie, and it appears that things are wrapping-up, this is about over. That's about it. Harassment has ceased with fake cease and desists, and this is a warning to the next asshole that tries that shit: I will find your site hit and publish the IP for anyone interested. I will come after you, and I will unmask who you are. After that, I will sue your ass off for legal harassment, and win. Have fun, and Adam Parfrey: kiss my ass.

An observation on Breaking Bad & Libertarianism

I'm sure that others have noticed this, but here goes anyway: in the third season of BB we're introduced to a character named Gale. He identifies himself as a Libertarian, no question about it. A brief glimpse in a couple episodes of his lab notebook show us that he's a Ron Paul supporter. Gale was a great character, a nice guy who never deserved to die. I won't go into the plot mechanics, but he gets caught in the middle.

What's fascinating is this: Gale's shot in the face with an unregistered gun. Take from that what you will, but that's a pretty direct statement on regulation that's not going in the same direction as Libertarians. Impressive.

Expect a sprawling cultural essay on Breaking Bad in the near future.

Former AUSA Allison Leotta writes a novel including elements of the DC Madam narrative

Not so very long ago, I signed up for Google news updates on Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Most of the updates have been articles simply invoking her name so that the site posting it got more hits, but nothing of any substance. Mission accomplished on both counts. This is just one more example of suited turds making a living off of air. The National Law Journal published an interview with former DC AUSA (Asst. US Attorney) Allison Leotta on June 11th. 

Leotta's a professional woman (it's unclear to me at this stage whether she's married or not) who left her secure, good paying job (benes too) of over a decade as a federal prosecutor of sex crimes and domestic violence cases in the District of Columbia to pursue a career...in literature. Hell, I'm sure I write better than her, but never would I have the temerity to refer to what I write as that. And, sure, right, we all do that in the middle of the biggest economic crises in American history, we do an abrupt career change that would wreck the average working person's life--and believe me, I know the dynamics of this, I cannot be shitted about it. But no, there were no silver spoons there whatsoever--not even her getting into Harvard, all bootstraps, a Horatio Alger wet dream fantasy--and even if it's not true, it sounds good on an author's bio and resume. Did I mention that her very first novel was with a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster? Keep in mind here that on average it takes two years simply to get the chance to speak with a genuine literary agent, so forget it mom and pop, self-publish if you ever want that pet project to see the light of day, or to ever get paid.

Somehow, I don't think Leotta's ever going to have worry about either. Fixers get that assistance, and that's a huge part of the job being a federal prosecutor in DC.

What's the point of all of this? She worked in the same offices as the DC Madam's prosecutors and considers one of them a "good friend," which says it all for me at least.  I'll get to who that friend is in a moment. OK, so former minor Inquisitor writes a first thriller for Simon & Scheister, must have sold well, or she still knows the right people, and she's got another one being made from shattered forests somewhere. I've never read her writing, but it's unlikely that a cop lover or a prosecutor is going to write something as good as a Hammett short or novel, ain't gonna happen, wrong side of the tracks. I don't see Leotta ever making the hard choices he made, ever, not really. That, after all, would require genuine conviction that doesn't come easy, no pats on the back, much of a wrong-headed society disagreeing with you--doing the right thing is rarely ever rewarded. Luckily, her bank account will never have to worry about this. Do I have to point out to the reader that she's part of a monstrous criminal justice system that's used to solve social problems mainly through punishment, the wrong way, not proactively? Maybe in her next incarnation she can drive the trains to the new death camps, maybe sell whiskey to the next unfortunates who get their land stolen from them...

So, she's writing a novel that contains some elements of the DC Madam case, because she was "following it closely," which would have been pretty easy working in the same offices with the AUSAs that were on the case, like Daniel Butler, Catherine Connelly, William Cowden, other delusional assholes, yadda-yadda, and their interim appointed boss, Jeffrey A. Taylor. Her novel drops on July 3rd, so rush out and get it before the system she protected in her job takes a crap and dies, finally, belatedly, out of all of the contradictions created by power relationships and an abundance of cowards in these here U-nited States. The novel is going to be titled Discretion, which at least makes sense when you're covering a prostitution ring. Someone's going to have to remind me about this book an hour from now, I'm already forgetting it. Yes folks, ascendant police states produce writing outside of the standard government forms, it's true, behold it yourself on July 3rd.

Leotta has created an alter-ego of a prosecutor in the character Anna Curtis...oh, never mind, here's what they said about the DC Madam in the interview that garnered a solid plug for the upcoming membrane of cellulose:

The remarks below have been edited for length and clarity.

The National Law Journal: This is your second novel, both involving a fictional federal prosecutor of sex crimes in D.C. Your first book, Law of Attraction, focused on a domestic-violence case. This novel delves more into the uniquely political world of D.C. Why did you decide to center your second book in this part of D.C.?

Allison Leotta: Part of it was I'd seen this really interesting case that happened around the time I was writing Law of Attraction. It was the D.C. Madam case — a woman in D.C. running a large-scale, high-end escort agency, and there were all these reporters speculating that her black book held names of powerful men in D.C. I was fascinated by it — by both the woman running the organization and the women who chose to work for her. They came from all different walks of life and did it for different reasons.

I was fascinated as to why they would take these risks and the effect it would have on their lives going forward. In the D.C. Madam case, she was convicted but before she was sentenced, she committed suicide. There was a lot of speculation that it wasn't suicide, but murder. That got the crime novelist side of my head thinking, "What if? How would somebody do it? Who would do it if it was really a murder?"

[The body of the accused madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and a suicide note reportedly were found in Tarpon Springs, Fla., in 2008.]

NLJ: Did you work on the D.C. Madam case?

A.L.: Someone in the office did. She was a good friend of mine, so I was following it pretty closely. ...

That friend was Catherine Connelly, an AUSA on the case. It could be no one else. Why she didn't bother mentioning her is odd since it's in the public record and press coverage, but whatever.

Question: when is Leotta going to grab a shovel and dig Jeane up to pose for photographs? I wrote the author of the piece--Amanda Bronstad--a letter voicing my concerns, I don't expect a response, so here it is, and long to annoy the lazy reader:

 

 to: abronstad@alm.com
date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM

subject: Leotta interviewmailed-by: gmail.com

Dear Ms. Bronstad, you may publish this as a comment if you wish,



Wow, where to begin about Mrs., Leotta and her recent change in occupation.

My first question is, do accountants and plumbers write novels too, and wouldn't we also think it strange when they got a contract to release a novel through Simon & Schuster?

I haven't read her first novel; the new one isn't available as of yet, but this second novel raises some questions of ethics for me: like her AUSA friend, I was a part of the DC Madam case. That friend of hers, incidentally, is AUSA Catherine K. Connelly, and from what I read in the article she saw quite a bit firsthand. Is this why she resigned, to be able to use more of that in the novel? I don't know.  These former cops and prosecutors becoming "legal experts," talking heads more generally, media figures, celebrities, novelists, is nutty.  This mining social problems for writing fodder by people who prosecute and investigate the subjects verges on cannibalism at times, we can do better than this. We incarcerate more human beings than any nation on the earth, more even than the worst known human rights offenders like China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc.  Law enforcement is key to this social engineering, so to take it further into the realm of entertainment seems pretty depraved to me. Certainly this true crime mill has been running since colonial times--people are fascinated by the depravity of others. But what we're seeing here with these criminal justice professionals is unacceptable and unethical, made worse by the fact that 95% of federal criminal defendants plea out because the odds are stacked so highly against them. What you have is the society of the spectacle where anything to turn a buck is OK in the US, the only thing that matters, and the forces of production (and those who use force to keep it in place) start talking about themselves in the culture, they become foregrounded. We solve so many social problems not by proactive policy, but through our crazy lock-'em-up conveyor-belt CJ system that's based around the profit motive, like our private prison complex. Crime writing by cops and prosecutors has always been suspect in the United States. Dashielle Hammett may have worked for the Pinkertons (he quit over being tapped to assassinate a communist labor organizer in Montana), but you rarely saw him empathizing with cops, prosecutors, or corrupt politicians, and he's the top of the heap with Jim Thompson in the annals of crime writing. Poe comes first in American literature, he invented the detective story. This is a populist form--where's the populism in this? I'll have to wait and find out. However, great artistic works elicit artistic truths, highlighting the meaning of something. My expectations are low here based on some comments in the interview with Leotta.

Decades ago, it was bad enough when cops and prosecutors who were on high profile cases (like, say, John Wayne Gacy, Bundy--take your pick, but you could say this all begins with Vincent Bugliosi and his prosecution of  the Manson Family) began to resign when the cases were over, signing book deals (Palfrey herself did this, another depravity), movie & media deals, etc. This was considered beyond the pale, but now, in these crazed, depraved times, it floats without much comment if any. That's appalling. What you have is a class of law enforcement and criminal justice professionals making their little cottage industries, Leotta less so, but close.  Some of us are simply lucky enough to be on the other side of the badge in bad times. Or is it luck at all? Leotta has taken it to a new place, for me at least: someone who knows someone who was close to a big sex scandal case (DC Madam, it was far more than a mere sex scandal) is writing a novel based partly upon it, a thriller. Great. So, how did you get the writing gig? Who pulled that string, and when is Connelly doing a novel? What's her next plum position? Qualcomm/Ernst & Young with Jeffrey A. Taylor? This is careerism run completely amok, my opinion, and what's really underneath the veneer of civilization.

As you can tell, my perspective is different and adversarial to government prosecutors, hence with at least a slightly better chance at balance here! I was a researcher for the defendant, the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey. The fact that Leotta is going for the "she were suicided" theory in the novel is her right, and a curious choice that I assume has commercial considerations. At least she makes it plain that Palfrey committed suicide in the interview. As a writer of fiction, she can fuse characters, change dates, all kinds of things, but what's the angle when they're not supposed to be telling us sensitive information from a case? I assume that won't be the case in the novel at all, we won't be learning new information. You can't have it several ways: you either take some information from inside the prosecution and investigation, which is profoundly illegal, or you make it all up, maybe indirectly extrapolating on some facts. She seems to be melding other cases she did with the DC Madam narrative, or some permutation of it, since it has yet to be told coherently by anyone, fine, but when you consider what went down in the case it's distasteful. Figuring in the fact that she was close to it, if not directly involved, doesn't ring well when she refers to the member of a prosecution team that broke the law as a "friend." I applaud Mrs. Leotta for debunking CSI shows when they're wrong about procedure, glad to the point of admiration that she was working sex crime and domestic abuse cases, but I doubt that she's going to add anything of any significance to our understanding of the DC Madam scandal (which was really part of Hookergate).

I find her comment that Connelly (it couldn't be anyone else) is a good friend and that she was "following it very closely" troubling because of the clear prosecutorial misconduct that occurred in the case during the proceedings (this leaves out a procedural error made at trial by AUSA Butler that staggers.  Robertson let it slide). The most egregious of all was when they leaked an unsigned warrant-affidavit to Bill Bastone, editor of The Smoking Gun, no more than five days of the search of Palfrey's home, a felony under federal law. Where's the discussion on that? There was virtually none. I want to make it plain that I consider Palfrey's death a suicide--she was not murdered. But who benefits from that kind of a conspiracy theory? It isn't just the conspiracy theory mills, it's federal law enforcement who create the impression of an ubiquitous State that could very well resort to murder of American citizens in the confines of the Continental United States, an absurd contention in the context of the charges against her, what happened during the proceedings, and the kangaroo court trial that was conducted after some very open judge shopping was done with the replacement of Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler by FISA Court Judge James Robertson. Kessler had ruled that, indeed, this case had national security issues to it, granting the defendant broad subpoena powers over essentially the entire intelligence community. Where was the National Law Journal on this one? Excuse if I'm wrong, but I could literally research the background on this into next month and have writing my own account of what I witnessed in the case, my unique vantage.  Leotta is too coy. Why yes, you can "follow" a case "closely" when you're working in the same offices, sure, a tad cagey there, which raises questions about propriety.

As to who would have a motive to murder Palfrey in a hypothetical, that would have been former clients or even CIA assets, defense contractors, intelligence contractors (like SAIC), and so on. But that's not what happened. There were two suicide notes, one to her mother, and one to her sister.

This undignified mess is of former CJ professionals [sic] becoming part of the entertainments world is all about class: not just anyone snags a contract for a novel from Simon & Schuster, these are more revolving doors that are improper in my opinion. You have to obtain a major league literary agent, and that gets into connections. How are AUSAs appointed? Often by other appointees, all of it politicized. I don't know if that's the case with Mrs. Leotta, but you have to factor these things in, because again, this is all about class. Not everybody gets to go to Harvard, for example, and so, you know where I'm going with this. Are many of the people she's writing about from the lower depths of society? Now I'm going to have to find out and get around to reading her first novel, but it sounds like it would predominate when you're dealing with domestic violence. While she wasn't on the case with Palfrey, she would be of a higher class than the madam's background as the daughter of a grocer from the dying industrial city of Charleroi, Pennsylvania was never going to make Harvard. That's about opportunity and being part of the club. We can kid ourselves and insult everyone's intelligence, or we could admit that it really is about who you know, and always has been. I could go on and on--and have--about these issues surrounding Palfrey's case, but we'll leave it at that.

Regards, Matt Janovic, writer, private researcher

And that's that.

 http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202559060068&This_prosecutor_turned_to_a_life_of_literature&slreturn=1

The mysterious Ms. Rawlings, the equally curious and bizarre Mr. Brynaert

Ed.--I've had a few run-ins with Ron Brynaert since I accidentally came across him on Twitter looking at Nadia Naffe's personal page (former James O' Keefe associate, the convicted ACORN "pimp" from the far right)...uh, bothering her and a number of key people involved in Occupy Wall Street, basically targets on the left and the right.

For those who might not remember, Brynaert was the executive editor of Rawstory for around four years. He abruptly left in late 2010. According to him, he's currently being sued for $500,000 USD by his former employers. He also has no obvious employment, yet does an awful lot of investigating of his targets--how does one afford this living in or around NYC without some kind of clear support coming in? This leads me to some anonymous accusations made online that he's a police informant.

A curious fact: when I blocked him in my Gmail account, all our correspondence vanished. Is this a normal feature on Google's mail accounts? I don't have the time to find out, the reader's invited to look themselves...

I of course have no idea if he's one or not. However, in my opinion, based on two decades of researching informant programs in the United States, he fits the profile based on his online escapades alone. One accusation made recently by an anonymous commenter named "NYPD Blue," who apparently works law enforcement in Long Island, at least according to them, has kicked this off. Their story fits. Are they correct, or is Brynaert unhinged as a slew of anonymous online commenting claims? I can only go by what my own direct online experience with him has been. From my experience, his behavior has been: bizarre, combative, irrational, filled with leading comments, posited on a desire to rifle you for information (I'm open and don't care, nothing to hide here), to hit to ply you with disinformation, but most of all, that he acts in a way that can only be described as antisocial in what comes off as a clinical sense of the term.

Here's the original article with the anonymous accusation, it's been taken down, although I'm sure it's cached. I captured it and clipped it, this is the clip version, no alterations beyond the images being removed by me. I'm quoting it in full for academic purposes:

Ron Brynaert: NutJob Posted May 2 2012 by admin in Rogues Gallery with 9 Comments inShare   Ron Brynaert, former editor of Raw Story, has some curious issues, one of which is he is being sued by Aaron Walker, who blogs as Aaron Worthing. The funny thing about the Walker lawsuit is that he hasn’t been served, while the other parties to the suit have been, or at least Mr. Walker has attempted to serve two of the other parties, of which only one person has replied to the suit. Ron Brynaert though has not been served, nor has Mr. Walker chosen to serve him, nor has he even attempted to serve him. I ask why? A number of people have speculated that Mr. Brynaert has went over to Mr. Walker attempting to gain influence so Mr. Walker will remove him from the suit, or have Mr. Brynaert become a hostile witness against the two other parties to this frivolous lawsuit. It is strange that as of today, with this suit being several months old, that the other parties have been either served or attempts were made to serve them, yet Ron Brynaert has been curiously left out of that service. Brynaert of course refuses to answer these and other more pressing questions posed to him, and instead deflects these questions on the lawsuit by saying: As for Aaron Walker thinking it was dumb to include him in the suit, it was because of Ron Brynaert outing Mr. Aaron Walker’s real identity that caused the suit to commence. So to leave Ron Brynaert out of the lawsuit seems somewhat out of place, especially since the lawsuit hinged on Ron Brynaert being the initial bad guy in the suit. So Brynaert’s response seems phony and suspicious at the least. There are people who do believe that Ron is on some Blues Brothers type Mission From God to insert himself into the right wing camp so he can gather evidence for his co-defendant in the suit so they can win one for the gipper I guess. But this is all speculation at this point, and I for one don’t wish to disparage Ron for attempting to gain evidence against these malicious right wing extremists, whom a number of state and federal agencies are currently investigating. At this point in time Ron seems preoccupied with Weinergate and still trying to wean information about Rep Weiner and the supposed fake twitter accounts that brought him down. There are a number of issues with Ron, one of which was detailed here which that article has shown to be very truthful when it comes to dealing with the mental problems that Ron is suffering from. Ron will threaten people if they don’t do what he asks, then he will attempt to extort people if they refuse to talk with him, and he will basically NOT follow any journalistic ethics whatsoever, even while trying to claim he is an objective reporter. As an example this tweet today to BU: So he starts a blog about someone, then tells them to give him everything they have on his pet project or he will start posting at a blog he already opened – which has a main purpose of exposing his own relationship with the person he claims was a source for him – which he now wishes to expose as a fraud. So this is how Ron deals with sources. He plays them for all he can get, then blows them out of the water after trying to extort something from them when those sources realize he is a nutjob. Criminal charges should be sought for such activity, but that is just how I feel about it. Of course if this is some undercover mission for Ron to show the right wingers he is trying to get in bed with that he is on their side, well, I think its probably a foolish crusade to say the least. And whomever hatched such an operation should have their heads examined. Ron is not the sharpest tool in the box, nor is he even the dullest tool, he is in effect the broken tool. And anyone who ends up believing in him will eventually suffer from that belief, right wingers included. Ron is also being sued by his former employer Raw Story for disclosing confidential information on one of their employees after he took a huge settlement for basically getting fired from his job. He signed a confidentiality agreement with Raw Story never to discuss events surrounding his employment there or his termination and took a big fat paycheck home for signing that agreement. But later after taking Raw Story to the cleaners financially, he then started disclosing information about them to others through emails, tweets and so forth, or so the story goes. We here at BU have yet to uncover the actual lawsuit, but if we come across it we will be sure to dig through it and post any relevant things found. Until then Ron has a lot on his plate to deal with, so I guess it is best to just be wary of him and his delicate mental state. If anyone seeks him out I suggest you run before you get involved with him. If he seeks you out, run for the hills. UPDATE: Ron tweeted this to BU: OK, let me get this straight. A source under a confidential agreement with you gives you an account of an event, but you fail to check on it or even vet the story line and decide to publish on your own without checking anything but the sources story, then you later blame the source for the information not meeting your expectations, and then blow your own source out by publishing all the confidential emails between you? I would say that is failing as a journalist to check any news item that a source gives you prior to publishing it. It is your fault, not the sources fault for the story you eventually did. Your failure as a journalist is not your sources problem no matter how much you wish to shove that responsibility over to the source. As the journalist in any story you must check facts out first prior to publication, if not, it is YOU that is to blame for any story problems later on, not the source. It is your responsibility as a journalist to check facts before saying anything. If you fail to do that, then it is on YOUR head, not your sources head. Your the journalist, not the source. Thus you shoulder the blame for not verifying the accuracy of what you are reporting on. If you claim it is the source that is at fault, and then go out and force that responsibility onto them, then no one would ever agree to source for you again for fear that you would fail to research any given story, and thus blame them later on for your own failures as a journalist. So try and remember it is your responsibility to check facts of any story given to you first or prior to publication, fail that and you have only yourself to blame for any negative outcomes. And you were an editor for Raw Story? Wow, you must have been terrible at that job if some lowly blogger has to tell you, a former Editor for a major publication, how to write, edit or publish story material ethically. Share and Enjoy Tags: Aaron Justin Walker Attorney at Law, Aaron Worthing, Raw Story, Ron Brynaert Categories: Rogues Gallery Trackback URL for this post: http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/rogues-gallery/ron-brynaert-nutjob/trackback/ 9 Comments Texas Tim May 02, 2012 You are wrong about Ron. He knows exactly what he is doing–he is like the mad scientist. No one lives in NYC without a job. He is a paid troll — virtually everything he does is for disinformation. Remember that post he did about Socrates where he said that he was Stuart Simms from Chicago. Total horseshit, but he wrote it with such conviction. But it was to protect Seth Allen. Now he is trying to protect Aaron Walker because Walker has been using him for months to infiltrate the left. The reason Walker sued Ron was to cover Ron’s ass, and that’s why he did not serve him. Ron is being paid by Team Breitbart. I know you think that Ron is really being a trojan horse for Rauhauser, but look at him. He outed Walker after Walker was outed in court, and then Walker used Ron’s outing to sue Kimberlin and Rauhauser while pretending to sue Bryneart. It’s like the DEA who does an arrest and takes the informant in too so they don’t blow his cover. Ron is an informant for the right. And I don’t doubt that he was the one who swatted Stack in order to blame it on Rauhauser. That’s what Ron does, he lies and lies and lies, and then makes up a story to spread disinformation. Mark my words, Ron is being paid big money by the right to distract the left. He is the master of disinformation and lies. He stands for nothing, has no ethics whatsoever, and that’s why he was sued by Raw. Ron is an agent provocateur, but the problem is that he has no loyalties and he will work for attention. Ron is a victim of the Stockholm Syndrome sucking on the pole of Aaron Walker while detectives from New Jersey seek voice mails samples of to test against the swatting tape. But you are right about one thing, if anyone relies on anything Ron writes, tweets, or says, they might as well rely Ted Bundy to babysit their daughter because he will totally screw them, twist their words, and leave them in a pile of horseshit.   (reply) admin May 02, 2012 Thank you Texas Tim, We will sure start looking at all that information you posted and write more posts as we dig deeper. Thank you for that information.   (reply) Texas Tim May 02, 2012 No problem. I am betting money that Ron’s Kimberlin post has resulted in calls to Kimberlin from everyone who is investigating Ron — Kimberlin probably has voice mails and other information that could help on the Stack case and the Raw Story suit. If, as Ron says, he promised Kimberlin confidentiality and broke that then that would be very powerful evidence in the Raw Story suit. And if Kimberlin tape recorded any conversations with Ron or has voice mails, the feds would probably be very interested in those. I see this Ron character really going over the deep end. He is attacking Frey, Kimberlin, Allen, while sucking on Walker’s pole. He has probably been bedding Nagy as she delivers his paycheck from Walker. Now that is one hell of a weird dude. BTW, did I hear that Ron actually violated the Raw confidentiality agreement because he was jealous of a gay relationship by some of the Raw staffers. Is Ron gay? Inquiring minds want to know.   (reply) NYPD Blue May 03, 2012 Sorry guys, you are both wrong. I work in Long Island and I know all about Mr. Brynaert. We call him “Bry the Lie.” His is a paid confidential informant working for a law enforcement agency that has been engaging in them so-called dirty tricks and profiling to keep our country safe. Mr. Bry has been used to infiltrate both the left and the right and that is why he can do and say anything with impunity. He is being paid and told to incite, play the nice guy, play the bad guy, troll, make threats and hate on people. Every stroke of his keyboard and every phone call he makes is monitored in real time by LE. He is living in an apartment paid for by LE. You want to know who tipped off Mr. Kimberlin to the identity of Mr. Walker–it was Bry. You want to know who tipped you off to the identity of Mr. Farahnak — it was Bry. You guys are smart so look at the timeline. Bry was publicly saying he was trying to discover the identity of those two and then, boom, they are all of a sudden outed. Well, my little friend, that is because he used his LE connections to find out who they were and then leaked the info as anonymous tips. OK, I will walk you through this a little more since it seems like you guys need some help. Why is Bry so focused on Mr. Rauhauser? Well, because of Mr. Rauhauser’s connection to Anonymous and Occupy, groups that are causing us a lot of grief here. Why is Bry so involved with Mr. Walker? Because of Mr. Walker’s incitement of Muslims, which is a big issue for LE here in NY. Don’t think for one second that Mr. Walker is not being totally monitored by a number of LE Agencies. That guy is a walking time bomb so Bry is doing everything possible to work him. Why is Bry so involved with Mr. Stack? Well, again, it has to do with issues important to NY LE — Congressman Weiner. Where do you think the tip came from that Mr. Rauhauser swatted Mr. Stack? Yes, it was from Bry because LE figured they could kill two birds with one stone. Come on guys, have you ever seen someone so focused on so many important people for no apparent reason? You asked WHY? at the beginning of this post, and now you know. Ron Brynaert is working for the man. He is not a rat, he is a paid informant and there is a big difference. He has handlers, he has special numbers to call, and he has instructions to follow. Of course he has issues, but those issues make him the perfect, at least until now, confidential informant. He can infiltrate people and groups by telling them that he is a reporter, or just interested in the truth or whatever. All of Bry’s antics on the Net a part of his disinformation campaign — he wants people to be totally confused about whether he is right or left, whether he is sane or insane, whether he is a reporter or gadfly. I have ben laughing at all you guys trying to figure him out. Come on dudes, he’s Forest Gump mixed with Columbo, right in the middle of everything our illustrious police force is interested in. And he has been involved with a lot of covert ops against Occupy, Muslims, Anonymous and other groups perceived as threats that people don’t even know about yet. So there you have it, Bry may now have to take on a new persona and leave Long Island because his CI status is exposed. But he has served his usefulness so it’s time….   (reply) Texas Tim May 04, 2012 NYPD, I may have to eat crow on this one. You sound like you are speaking from personal knowledge about Ron. He sure had me fooled—I thought he was just trolling but what you say about him being a paid confidential informant for the cops sounds not just plausible but probable. I need to go back and look at everything Bry in this new light. Ron Brynaert, Working For The Man, who would have thunk it??? Wait till twitter gets ahold of this — soon, he will probably have to be tweeting from some undisclosed location. Actually, hasn’t Ron been hiding from people for months — now it makes sense why he won’t tell anyone his address or phone number. NYPD gave us a hint — Long Island, New York. Hey Occupy, Hey Anonymous where are you? What’s the GPS on Ron Brynaert? Inquiring minds want to know!!! So let me break this down, Ron is a gay rat who lies to his employer and his sources after he promises them confidentiality. He is ratting on Occupy, Anonymous, and many others in order to keep them confused about his motives and his loyalties. But now NYPD has enlightened us all by blowing Ron’s cover once and for all. Heck of a job, Ronny boy. Come to think of it, hmmm. Ron is being paid by the man so anything that Ron has done illegally has been done “under color of law” so he could be sued for violating civil rights along with his handlers. Ron, you just became a liability. Hey, Frey, you should sue Ron under 1983 for violating your civil rights — you could prob get a lot of money from the cops who are directing him. Ron wouldn’t be the first rat informant who brought down his handlers. Food for thought.   (reply) NYPD Blue May 04, 2012 Sorry Texas Tim, I have to call you out on a few things. Here in NY, we don’t care whether people are gay or not and in Bry’s case, that’s an asset because he can use that for his job in certain circumstances. Bry has the capability to mingle as a straight or as a gay depending on the situation. But being gay is certainly not something he should be bashed about. You would be surprised how many gays are serving for NYPD LEs. The other thing–you called Bry a “rat.” That is a negative word and usually means someone who tells LE about crimes in which he or she is involved, like the drug user on the street who gets busted and then rats on the supplier. But in Bry’s case, he is not a rat at all. Instead, he is a paid confidential informant and he does what he is told to do. I don’t mean to say that everything is always clear sailing with Bry — he is quite a strange bird sometimes — but if he is told to infiltrate Occupy, he spends weeks identifying the people involved and then approaches them in various ways and using various socks and personas to try to get information about them. He has been good at what he does, even when he is a pain. I realize that you are a Texas boy and your terminology is different than what we use here in NY, but you still have to be careful with your language so it isn’t used disparagingly. One final thing, as for your color of law argument. Bry does push the envelope and he has crossed the line from time to time. But as a CI, no LE anywhere in the country is going to touch him. As for a civil suit, that could get dicey if someone sued him under color of law and it got to the discovery stage. But IMHO, there will be forces that intercede on his behalf so I do not expect such a case to get past any motion to dismiss. This is not to say that Bry or LE would not be concerned…but here in NY, we have many CIs that do a lot of illegal stuff and they never get prosecuted or sued. And when they do get too hot, like Sabu, they get moved.   (reply) Texas Tim May 05, 2012 OK NYPD, sorry, hard to break habits after living 45 years around rednecks here in Lubbock. Will be more careful from now on. But still, I am in shock that Ron is working for the man setting up his fellow Americans and making intel dumps against people who are pushing for change. Maybe he just got so angry at Raw for firing him that he decided to turn against the left. Kinda the opposite of Brock. But, and I hate to admit it, you are probably right. I have spent hours today reading Ron’s tweets, posts, and comments, and I am shocked but your tip is the only thing that makes sense. There is no other reason for his fixation on certain people other than to make his case to the man. I mean, he has no ideology, he has no loyalties, and he is not making any money through his blogging. So you are exactly right, he is getting paid by the cops to provide intel about people, and to stir things up so he can remain relevant and be a honey pot. My oh my, he is a sly dog alright. His Vinnie the Chin/Columbo act had a lot of people fooled. Gotta shake my head one more time…Ron Brynaert, working for the man.   (reply) Texas Tim May 11, 2012 OK, looks like Ron just confirmed NYPD Blue comments above about him having strong connections to NYPD. Reading Ron’s tweets tonight, it seems oh so clear that Aaron Walker is trying to extort $20,000 from Ron with a blackmail threat and it sho’ looks like Ron has friends at NYPD who are can nail Mr. Walker if they get the order. Ron’s tweets: Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn If I report $20,000 extortion threat to NYPD it will be backed with proof of how fugitive @Neal_Rauhauser menaces for lulz @OccupyRebellion Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn ..will compel me to report his extortion threat to NYPD, along with a record of how all his friends helped. Blackmail is a serious crime. Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn My blackmailer is advised that any allusions to me at all on his blog or twitter regarding crimes, which I agree have been committed by NR 5h Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn I take $20,000 extortion threat extremely seriously, though @stranahan thinks it’s a joke. I hope my blackmailer backs off @CryingWolfeBlog 5h Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn And I just told you I will report it, if my blackmailer carries on with the threats he tried to extort $20,000 from me to stop @Stranahan 5h Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn I answer you honestly but you still duck my questions and mock me. If I’m harassed again by my blackmailer I will def go to NYPD @Stranahan 5h Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn I’d suggest @Patterico etc. look up the NYS law on extortion. Trying to blackmail me for $20,000 is a crime. @Stranahan 5h Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn If I’m menaced, smeared or falsely called criminal by @Patterico @Dust92 or my blackmailer again I’m going straight to the NYPD. @Stranahan 5h Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn leaked emails and contributed to his lawsuit, they are part of an actual criminal conspiracy not an imaginary one. @Patterico @Stranahan 5h Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn I don’t ever plan on emailing or tweeting my blackmailer’s name again but since @Patterico @Prepostericity @Liberty_Chick all… @Stranahan 5h Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn I think my blackmailer was menaced by NR but he committed a major crime. Especially since his lawsuit is full of lies @Patterico @Stranahan 5h Ron Brynaert ‏ @ronbryn Lee, Do you know that extortion is a crime? A pal of @Patterico tried to blackmail me for $20,000 and I might report to police @Stranahan   (reply) Matt Janovic May 11, 2012 Of course, all of this is my opinion, but I have to concur generally on all of this about Brynaert: The first thing that tipped me off to his possibly being a CI is that he was accusing others of it in the blessedly few emails we exchanged, he’s a real piece of work (and other forms of crack-laced excretion). What’s interesting is that he uses classic, timeworn methods to bait people into communicating with him, throws a few tidbits of information out there and waits. One of the easiest ways to shake someone down for information is to get them angry or despondent, to instill fear in them also works wonders, not that I do the latter two myself, I go conventional routes or tell a source to put up or shut up, never this borderline (as far as we know) method of his that smacks of undue pressure, call it what you want. CIs are constantly engaging in projection, it’s what they do. The best antidote is not to respond or to interact with him in any capacity [Ed.-I should follow my own advice someday...], block him, retraining order, whatever it takes, don’t interact, let him fade into the shadows of whatever Bronx shithole neighborhood he slithered out of. He seems like a stellar case of a journalist (I’m not one, by the way) who got in way too deep at some point in the game, maybe even outside of the profession itself, and he reminds me a lot of Jason Leopold in that sense. Some of these people will literally do anything to get the information for a story. Besides past run-ins with the NYPD, I could see him working sources from them and getting snared in a web, stupidly thinking they won’t use him up one day, like they’ve done with countless CIs who aren’t as ruthless as they are. I’m hoping that’s the case with Roy. This clown deserves a book on himself one day, and he’s likely to get it. In my case he posted emails from the DC Madam case (I was on the defense for a time as a researcher, I crossed paths with Rawstory during it, when he was exec. editor) online between Larisa Alexandrovna and Palfrey that pertained to me! That one’s a long story, but Palfrey was setting people off against one another (Roy might take a few lessons from her subtle actions)to keep them away from parts of her story that were inculpatory, would point towards guilt, and I was one target initially. Anyway, he was baiting Alexandrovna and Rawstory with that, and probably me, I found it accidentally doing a fact check on something totally unrelated. I believe Alexandrovna responded to him on the thread too, under an avatar, fine, works for me, I would too in their situation. Let’s just say that he made comments in emails to me that indirectly related to the lawsuit against him and that they may or may not indicate he cannot play nice in the workplace. Of course, one would never get this from his interactions online (I jest). He’s got nothing with the assertions of blackmail above or he would have gone to NYPD already and filed charges. That’s intimidation and undue pressure on his part, but if he’s a CI he’s knows nothing will happen to him–like Bill Bastone who leaked an unsigned warrant-affidavit in Palfrey’s case, the very first story on it, creating the scandal in the process. Either Bastone and Brynaert are police assets (fine to a point, but there’s a line) or CIs, if you see any difference, it’s probably marginal. Ronnie’s running a puppet show and he’s being found out, people tired of him long ago from what I can tell. My first question, however, was: “How does this guy support himself in NYC without a real job now?” There has been talk that he and Rawstory had a settlement over some incident(s) he was party to, that he was paid-out to leave, which if true says it all about him. But who would know. I searched online dockets and have yet to find a suit between him and Rawstory, and that leads me to believe this is perhaps happening out of court. To be sure, I hope that they win against him if what’s being bandied about online even has a kernel of truth to it. If he’s a CI, there’s a whole slew of other issues to contend with. Based on his behaviors and mindset, I have to personally conclude that he’s an informant, he fits the bill, like William O’ Neal (the Fred Hampton job) or any number of off-kilter individuals who got themselves into those situations and roles. He shows a relentless tendency to manipulate and intimidate people he targets, or even who cross paths with him, such as myself. My personal opinion is that he’s deeply disturbed and that civil society is gradually tiring of him and his playing around with the lives of others. The other thing is that he’s probably outlived his usefulness now that his cover’s been blown, and either way, CI or a nutty bunny, it’s blown for good. You cannot unring a bell.  Here’s to his defeat at the hands of Rawstory. If he’s a provocateur, he’s a dud who’s being thrown away, because if it’s established with absolute certainty that he is, it won’t be forgotten by anyone. There’s a reason for secrecy in the CI programs in the US. It’s the Holy of Holies of law enforcement in flatfoot nation.  And that was it, I noticed that he never responded and got it pulled. recently. He's also likely to do that with this article while he does far worse to others without any obvious consequences. People have a right to their opinions when it comes to public behavior, and the Internet is as public as it gets.  And, so I thought it was over. Ron had come my way, bothered me a lot, tried to make leading statements, tried to cast my own statements in a weird light I'd have never imagined, and was unpleasant enough for me to consider it a not-so-subtle form of harassment. But he fucked off...for a time. Now he's come back around, fishing, looking for something. This time he wanted to bait me with something from the Palfrey case in what had to have been hours of research on his part. Does this guy ever sleep? Our recent exchange, because I saved it this time. Ask yourself why he was able to send me an email after he'd been blocked, and why our previous correspondence vanished, it's at least a little odd and convenient for him: If you're done smearing me on Twitter and at Breitbart Unmasked, perhaps we can work together on learning more about this Justice League blogger SP Biloxi aka Monique Rawlings, who appears to live in Riverside, California and what her connections to Jason Leopold are: http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/2007/06/whos-your-daddy.html#2477942675296556598 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:BUNpEn5HKd8J:lavenajohnson.com/2007/06/lavena-johnson-story-reaches-germany/+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a http://justiceleague00.blogspot.com/2007/10/email-forwarded-from-jason-leopold.html letter referenced in above article: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0707/S00186.htm http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rLfApjYl9sEJ:newsinkling.com/index.php/index.php%3F/tag/circumstances.html%3Fformat%3Dfeed+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us In an email, Jason Leopold, an investigative reporter and owner of his upcoming online investigating reporting website called The Public Record wrote this on the day of the verdict, "In less than 8 hours!! This is the 1st time racketeering charges were ever used by the DOJ in a prostitution case." How can a jury of twelve with only one vote unanimously found Ms. Palfrey guilty of all charges under the RICO? The real question is that did the jury understand the definition of RICO in relation to Ms. Palfrey’s charges? ... In a twist in Ms. Palfrey’s case, I received tragic news that all of us found shocking. On May 1, 2008, I received a text message from Jason Leopold that Jeane [Ms. Palfrey] was found dead in her mother’s mobile home in Florida that morning in a shed. Jeane’s mother found her. Jeane hanged herself. Jason confirmed this with the Florida police. This was very devastating news to hear. The last email that I received from Jeane was April 18, 2008, three days after the verdict. Jason did a phone interview with Jeane [which will be released on his new website very soon] on March 20, 2008. As the media pointed out that Jeane’s former employee [as I written about this woman in one my articles on Jeane’s case], Brandy Britton committed suicide in 2006. In my article on Newsinkling, on January 2006, Ms. Britton’s home was raided, and she was accused of prostitution. She committed suicide before her trial. Unfortunately, there is another former employee that was attempting suicide. In Jeane’s last email to me, she revealed this: .... from  Jeane Palfrey       reply-to  jeanepalfrey.@.sprynet.com   to Justice League    date  Apr 18, 2008 1:27 PM   subject  Jeane Palfrey...   signed-by  sprynet.com     Bil… for reasons which will become apparent later next week, I would like for you to make certain the following information is broadcast widely, on the net and elsewhere.  Please use Jason, in particular to disseminate this news.  The Government – at trial – wanted to publish the names of the remaining 120 to 130 women, as part of their and my ongoing humiliation (my opinion).  However on Tuesday, just before the verdict was announced Judge Robertson called counsel into chambers.  He informed them that he had received an anonymous letter from a former, unnamed escort, who stated she would commit suicide, if the names were released publicly.  Based upon this info, Robertson summarily sealed the records, on all remaining escorts’ identities.  –Jeane PS Bil –  Thanks for all the support and research.  Keep fighting the good fight.     ..... Finally, the entire defense team of Jeane [Ed.--Rawlings is a self-appointed whatchamacallit for all occasions, she had no right speaking for me, but I was upset] is all devastated of her death. Jason and I had gotten to know Jeane as well as trying to get to bottom of her case. This case was very personal to me as I got to know Jeane as a person since May 2007. So, I decided to break some of my silence regarding Jeane's case. I not only corresponded with Jeane on email about her side of the story [written fifteen articles for Newsinkling] on why she was targeted by the government and why she was charged with RICO on a selected prosecution case, but Jason and I got the privilege to meet Jeane for the first time in a dinner meeting in December 2007 in Los Angeles, CA. She is a lot different in person than she is on TV. In December 2007, I was privileged to be part of Jeane's legal team until the beginning of her trial doing legal research on her case. I had gotten to work with her former attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley, her current attorney Preston Burton and his legal team, and other investigators. comments at public record by sp biloxi https://www.google.com/search?q=SP+Biloxi+says&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=VQD&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=rcs&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22SP+Biloxi+says%22&oq=%22SP+Biloxi+says%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...1432.4990.1.5378.2.2.0.0.0.0.210.296.1j0j1.2.0...0.0.zj7N25h5ICQ&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=2a0c451876a1d4b9&biw=776&bih=474 Also, Do you think Siouxz who smeared me at kid kenoma blog http://kidkenoma.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/larisa-the-madam-halftime-score/ could be Jason Leopold? http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/capt-kearns-jason-bourne-or-raymond-shaw-project-artichoke-goes-live/#comment-24985 siouxZ, on March 24, 2011 at 1:53 pm said: Please IMMEDIATELY remove the pictures you re-posted without permission from the TO article. Reply http://cafewhispers.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/surprise-surprise-howard-lies/#comment-19500 siouxZ March 2, 2011 @ 6:54 pm No one here in Australia seems to realize that David Hicks gave an exclusive interview to Jason Leopold to weeks ago. The story he wrote is very sad and the Question and Answer interview is eye opening. The two Guantanamo guards really make the story. I can’t believe this wasn’t reported here. Here are the links and an extract: question and answer: http://www.truth-out.org/exclusive-an-interview-with-former-guantanamo-detainee-david-hicks67818 the story: http://www.truth-out.org/my-tortured-journey-with-former-guantanamo-detainee-david-hicks6781 http://neil2decade.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/im-feeling-justified-in-the-matter-of-david-hicks/#comment-3912 siouxZ August 23, 2011 at 7:42 am See these stories by Leopold that the Australian mainstream media ignored, which inspired the SMH reports: http://www.truth-out.org/my-tortured-journey-with-former-guantanamo-detainee-david-hicks67815 http://www.truth-out.org/exclusive-an-interview-with-former-guantanamo-detainee-david-hicks67818 http://www.truth-out.org/former-guantanamo-chief-prosecutor-david-hicks-war-crimes-charge-was-favor-australia/1311603758 Matt Janovic 2:30 PM (1 hour ago)  You seem to have all the answers, Ron, and that's an awful lot of research there--why all of the interest? What interests me is how someone I blocked can still send me emails. And, when I blocked them, all previous emails between us conveniently (for you) vanished from my archives. I don't have time for your reindeer games, you already poisoned the well. If you're a police informant working legit cases and subjects, my hat's off to 'ya, that's where it's needed. However, if this is just more disinforming and disrupting, the classic American kind, I don't want to know, and yes, it will all catch up to you in the end when you're of no use...like William O' Neal. Look at my blog if you haven't already about her, that's all I know. She was a mole for the fucker. Riverside is a shithole. I will give you one tip only, but again, on my blog: she mentioned something about working at Amway, yes, that one. The rest, no idea, but besides, this is all a "hoax," I have no contact with any of those assholes. I slam all of them in my account as users, losers, maybe even someone's spies, just not govt. or law enforcement, probably partisan ones. Either way, Rawlings isn't who she says she is, whatever that means. Everything in this email can be found on my blog or elsewhere, you've found more than I would have cared to since Rawlings was of some significance to the DC Madam case to a point, but only so far. She approached Palfrey, the reverse was true for me. I was approached based on observations on the case that were spot-on, there was some Machiavellian aspects to me being brought on board. Either way, I helped a defendant who was guilty but wasn't being afforded their rights to due process, period. Whether my book goes wide or not, sells shitloads, whatever, is irrelevant. The information will be out there across several platforms. Pinocchio (Bastone) will be sweating a little bit since I've got his number in excruciating detail. He and Jeffrey Taylor are felons for releasing the warrant-affidavit online, an unsigned federal LE document, still posted on the very first article from Oct 2006--right before the midterms that washed the GOP out for time, no coincidences there. But yes: how does someone prove they're not an informant? I've been told I was one simply because I won't tow the line about Palfrey's death--a suicide, not murder by shadowy govt. operatives. There is no evidence of that. Another tidbit: Rawlings said she was from NJ and that her mother was a legal clerk in a federal court building, something like that. As you can tell, I have no loyalty to her whatsoever or you wouldn't be pushing this shit under my nose at all. You probably know this shit already. The email from Palfrey to Rawlings looks legit. These people are mercenaries. Rawlings pretended to believe Palfrey was innocent for reasons that escape me. On the other hand, the accusations against you fit your erratic behavior. You sure act a lot like a pig informant to me, and I've been studying it for over two decades, reading the internal record, even having a few run-ins with a couple in my day (they lost, incidentally, and went to jail). Maybe you are, maybe not, but at this point who gives a shit when someone behaves the way you do? At worst, you'll give me something interesting to write about down the road one day, probably a character in a short story... PS: I'm not "smearing" anybody and have a right to my opinions. You act like an informant. Either way, you're making a bad case for yourself, starshine. Who is SiouZ? No idea. I don't communicate with anyone who was covering or part of the DC Madam scandal these days, I prefer it. That's over. Matt Janovic 3:12 PM (58 minutes ago) PS: I captured the Breitbartunmasked page on you, knew it would be taken down. Ron Brynaert 3:26 PM (44 minutes ago) wow you really are looney have fun smearing me more.... Matt Janovic 3:33 PM (37 minutes ago) Thanks for reminding me who the real loon is, and that Rawstory has a great case. Here's to NYPD intel kicking your ass to the curb. Matt Janovic 3:35 PM (35 minutes ago) Now: YOU fuck off. Don't write back or I will consider it harassment. Postscript 06/15/2012: Ron/Roy sent me a Youtube clip of a Cheap Trick song. I don't even give a shit enough to look further on, but I'm assuming this is "Dream Police." "Using the term "smear" isn't a denial, incidentally, and I'm entitled to my opinion, you put yourself in the public eye and continue to in a way that's unacceptable. Was daddy-o ever called "Hank the Crank"? Say, "I'm not a police informant" online, write it, and say it under oath some time. Then I might start believing it ain't so. That still leaves you with coming off as completely batshit, a nutty bunny. Regardless, blow, and not me, for the love of God. You're no Sidney Reilly, more William O' Neal. I wouldn't be surprised if you ended up the same way: throwing yourself in front of a car, or jumping out of a window. That's how more than a few CIs end up, at their own hand. And, hey, if I's wrong, bawss, fuhgedaboutit, you're not Henry Hill either. I should add here that I knew someone who was working Kim's Video when you were there. That's being looked into more deeply, for yucks, and I have the time and motive now, so add one more who's investigating your background. Again, thanks, I needed a spastic crank to base a fictional character off of... At least the Rawstory folks get some kind of entertainment and vindication watching your activities online, so keep digging that hole down into the archaeological remains of the Five Points looking for your namesake. Roy claimed, not really knowing shit, that the DC Madam case was a "hoax," more of his bilge emanating from the keypad. Whose "hoax": yours, Jeffrey Taylor's, or Palfrey's? I don't see Senator Vitter, Randall Tobias, Dick Morris, and the rest of the Lollipop Guild viewing the scandal as that, not even Kyle Foggo, Brent Wilkes, and a cast of thousands in defense and intelligence contracting. Oh yeah: fuck you for having a problem with Occupy Wall Street, you fucking piece of establishment shit. Now hurry up and hit the fucking bottom that's been calling out to you your entire life.