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.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
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: email@example.com
date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:39 PMsubject: Leotta interviewmailed-by: gmail.comAnd that's that.
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:
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:
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.