I Hate Paper Work

I have a confession. I hate paper work

Not so much a confession as admitting I'm like every other shlub in the biz.

The question then: if I hate paper work, and I know I hate paperwork, what in Hades possessed me to start a blog?

It will be fun. (sometimes)
It would satisfy my inner journalist(so, so)
I'll get a following and be famous(ha, ha)
I'll get a following and beat the Luddites at leads(Ha, Ha!)
I'll be able to blog in my spare time( HA!HA!)

The truth: blogging is writing. Writing is work. To the point, writing is work I hate.

Hate is a strong word. Avoid unless completely necessary. Like being up past 2 am finishing a report I should have done before dinner. A report so boring I'm blogging about how I hate paperwork.

Readers will laugh themselves to death on hearing I planned to blog every day. Paperwork and journalism are different animals. But in the middle of the night they look the same. An animal that needs to be put down.

I'm going to bed.

Just Say No To Favor Requests From Friends

Or friends of friends . Or neighbors. All you'll get is a black eye for your trouble. But I'm getting ahead.

It started with a cat. We'll call her "Muffin". Muffin was a troublemaker. For her humans. Birds in the yard. And, ultimately, me.

Not that she was a bad cat. She's friendly. Affectionate. Spayed. Everything you want in a female cat. But she had an appetite. And the froo-froo designer food she was fed wasn't enough. She was hardcore. She wanted junk. Specifically Friskies.

The only way to feed this habit was to steal neighbor cat's food. Back porch, garage, carport or cat flap, no place was safe from Muffin's scavaging. Most of her forays would be done in less than a day. But come spring she'd feel she needed to make up for the winter she was shut inside. She'd go missing days in March and April. Never mind come May she was back on schedule. "Dolores", Muffin's owner, still worried over her poor dear sweet Muffin when she was gone. This is the same cat I'd personally observe edge a twenty-five pound tom away from his own bowl. Poor Muffin was an aggressive addict.

This year some jerk(my cousin) blabbed that I was working with a private investigative team. Maybe Tammy could find Muffin, he volunteered. He also volunteered my cell number.

Me: Hello?
Dolores: Hi! Tam?
Me: Hi! What's up?
Dolores: It's Muffin. I think she's really lost this time.
Me: Dolores, you always think she's really lost this time of year.
Dolores: But it's dangerous out there.
Me: With Muffin on the loose, I agree.
Dolores: There are raccoons.
Me: Muffin sent your neighbor's pit bull yipping for a vet. A raccoon would barely make her sweat.
Dolores: Tam, it's been three days!
Me: The record's four.
Dolores: Please! (Jerk I'm related to) told me all about how you're learning to investigate things.
Me: Dolores, those things are humans who leave documentation wherever they go.
Dolores: Muffin's licensed.
Me: Unless that's driver's license, it won't help. Actually running plates are a pain. If she had a credit card..
Dolores: Tam, please! I'm really worried.

A few more rounds in the guilt ring, I was down for the count. Dolores walked away with the match. Like usual. I squeezed the search for Muffin into my already packed schedule. For free. Thing was, I play the odds and do nothing, Muffin would show up in 24 or less. I'd take the credit. Dolores would be grateful. But then I'd feel guilty. I decided to use my lunch to make some token rounds so I could tell Dolores I did something.

I walk around the neighborhood. It's quietly residential. Middleclass suburban but no hint of Stepford. I turn a corner and see a cat streak across the road. Another victim of "poor" Muffin? I speed up to the carport in time to see a bushy ginger tail disappear through a door into the back yard. Muffin's a long haired orange tabby. Hot damn! I thought. I might finish this job honestly.

Then I remembered I was doing it for free.

I pulled the camera out, zoomed and started walking through the carport. Anyone asked, I was looking for a cat. Because I was. I was so busy looking for the cat, focusing the zoom, I didn't see the door from the house open into my path until it was too late.

The camera was okay. The same could not be said about me. Or my eye. After exchanging apologies with the grandmotherly lady who tried to give me a shiner, I told her the tale of Muffin. She was familiar with the cat. Trouble, she said. I agreed.

She let me into the back yard to look. Crouching at the far side was the target, as if she'd been spooked by the racket. I took a pic then put the camera away. This should be easy. I'd just make nice kitty noises, get close, nab Muffin, job over.

Then I slipped on cat food Muffin had spilled in alarm. I went down. Luckily I went down on the grass.

By the time the nice lady finished treating my wounds, Muffin was gone. So was my lunch time. Time to head back to the office.

On the way people stared briefly then looked away. Did I really look that bad? I wondered. Ducking into the loo waiting for my skinny tall latte, I learned why. The minor scraps and abrasions weren't visible. But the sharp angular bruise under one eye was. Right where the door shoved the camera into my face. I suppose I was lucky it wasn't the binoculars. I'd really have a black eye then. Possibly two. This was nothing a little makeup couldn't fix. Once I walked the gauntlet of sympathy stares.

I emailed Dolores what I found. Promised I'd be checking in. She thanked me profusely. The next day Muffin showed up. Damn cat.

Today most of my wounds were gone except for the bruise. I showed up for Mother's Day with my patter worked out: "My boyfriend Thor beat me."

This attempt at humor was received with mixed reviews:

Dad: You have a boyfriend? Since when?
Mom: Domestic violence is not a joking matter to the real victims.
Me: Okay! Truce! You're right. Bad joke. I ran into a door. Happy Mother's Day. Has the Jerk arrived yet? I want to have a word with him about a cat.

Moral of the story: just say no to favor requests.

Especially when your cousin volunteers you.

Process Serving: Check Your Dignity At The Door

Process serving is as unglamorous as it sounds:

1: Find person X being sued by person Y.
2: Give person X papers.
3: Get out in one piece. Dignity is optional.

Sounds simple. And boring.

It is. Except when its not:

What happens when the defendant is evasive?
This is where it gets fun. It becomes a sophisticated game of tag with high stakes. The stakes being that the plaintiff could lose the case based on improper service. The defendant may skip town with all his or her assets and leave the plaintiff little chance of recovery, which may happen anyway. The defendant's stakes are that he may have his or her whole life turned upside-down. The attorneys may lose clients. The process server may get beaten up, bitten by a dog, lose clients, or get sued. Aside from the stakes, the techniques for effective process serving are all common sense.

"Fun" is one way of putting it. "Nice doggie" is another. Evasiveness is directly proportional to number and/or viciousness of dogs owned. There's nothing like standing on a strangers porch, knowing you're not wanted, listening to three baying dogs rattle the door wanting to have you for lunch.

Forget every self-defense course or weapon. Even pepper spray. If the defendant gets injured, the judge might rule the service "ineffective".

Just smile while you're quaking in your stylish sneakers. If it goes bad, be ready to run. You won't have your dignity, but the service won't be ruined.

In process serving that's all that counts.

A message to "Don Juan" and "Mrs. Robinson"

"Don Juan" is the married man paying for a new beemer, a weekly hotel rental and a mistress.

"Mrs. Robinson" is the married woman doing the same thing. Substitute "boy toy" for "mistress".

Message reads:

Your spouse suspects. You know that. Stop being a coward. File for divorce. Or separation. Or marriage counseling.

You are not an international super spy. You will not get away with it. Avoid looking like the bad guy. Come clean with the spouse. Or stop before you're caught.

Separate and be free to screw whoever you want.

Duh.

Message ends.


I never get it. Must be the risk factor. Getting caught is the least of it. Ready to risk getting stuck with massive alimony and loosing the kids?

You aren't terrible people. You're just confused and unhappy. But there are choices: fix the marriage or leave the marriage.

Or act like a jerk, have an affair and loose the marriage and everything else.

Why do so many people chose door number three?

You Think A Law Degree Makes Them Smart

You'd be wrong.

Lawyer 1: spreads rumors a member misappropriated funds. Not true; when checked, backs down, but doesn't apologize.

Lawyer 2: listens with approval when someone in their club regales members with adventures in political vandalism.

Lawyer 3: doesn't read his/her email very carefully and decides he/she's been deceived. When pointed out they're mistaken, they try to change the subject and insist they're right.

Whoever passes out law degrees doesn't check listening or reading skills. (Don't know what
"Lawyer 1" 's excuse is.)

Just because they have a degree doesn't make them smart.

For the record:

I'm not licensed, yet. I never said I was. But anyone unclear can ask. A lowly site administrator was able to. It's a reasonable question. Should be easy for people with law degrees.

The Trouble With Nice People

They get in the way.

Anyone who says people aren't observant or nice, try surreptitiously casing a place the suspected unfaithful spouse hangs out . You left the stylish heels at home, got on your "jane doe" nondescript look, and are trying to blend in with the trashy scenery. And where these people go, its trashy indeed.

All you want is to hang out, pretending to read that book or magazine you brought along when you're reading the walk-bys. Maybe grab a cup of espresso. Give the block a walk around, see if anything jumps out. But no matter how reserved or unavailable you look, everyone wants to help. Your "jane doe" getup backfired. You've become a magnet for every would be good Samaritan within a mile radius:

"Can I help you?" (I'm looking at a building)

[Thinking: No, go away.] "Oh hi! Yeah, I was looking for (BS name)? He/she was supposed to meet me here."

"I don't know them. You have an appointment with a client?"

[Thinking: mental note: dress down next time] "No, no! Just a social call. We're meeting for coffee. This is (BS address, same business), right? [look around confused]

"Oh, no. I think that one's up the street."

[Look mildly shocked] "Oh! Really?" [Check notebook]

Nice person makes sympathetic noises. I sign with frustration, look lost, then walk off.

And hope I didn't miss anything.

I drive around the block, sit tight reading the weekly for five, figure the neighborhood girl scout has moved on and get out again. In the middle of looking at a roof line I'm accosted by a lady walking her dog who starts to tell me the history of the building. I nod politely hoping she'll finish soon. Before she's done "Don Juan" appears (Don Juan = any male target suspected of infidelity). Its not too bad. He walks by none the wiser and I've confirmed this location. Main drawback is, thanks to the history lesson, I can't get a photo.

By the time she's done, "Don Juan" is long gone (Got the plate, though). Figuring that's it for the day I go back to the car where some random guy wants to talk about how nice the whether is. Whatever. I'm tired and outta there.

Most people are happy to live in a town full of nice people. Most of the time I am. When they don't get in the way.

Jane Doe's story: F.Y.I . on the Q.T.

Jane was an environmentalist. Still is. But she won't go to another action again. Ever.

Jane doesn't want to talk about the details. She's sure the people she thought were her friends will know and be after her again. She's just laying out the facts, she says. Maybe it'll help someone else:

Fact 1: if what your doing will cost the Man money, the Man will try to get you. If the group has problems find out how long. Any group can have problems. We're human. But problems going on for months and years are "honeypots" to lure good activists out who want to help and know how to fix things. The Man wants these people stopped at all costs. First he's got to identify them. If you're it, they'll send someone to get close.

Fact 2: they don't send James Bond. They send someone normal looking hiding in the open. They will encourage you to be open too. They will try to make you feel safe being "out and proud" about whatever. Until they turn on you.

Fact 3: they'll try to get you with sex. If seduction doesn't work, then they'll try porn. If that doesn't work, they'll talk it up. If you're a man, they'll play the macho sex conquest angle. If you're woman, they'll play the liberated feminist angle. Don't matter how, what they're trying to do is "get some goods". Pics, videos, witnesses, whatever.

Fact 4: that fails they'll try to get you drunk. Or make something up and hope it sticks.

Fact 5: any solutions you suggest that might work they'll try to talk you out of. The one you think you can trust will try this harder than the rest. Their reasons won't make sense or will contradict what they said before. "It won't work". They want you to know enough about how bad things are to be controlled. They don't want you to try to fix anything or make things happen. If you get suspicious and cut them off, they'll turn on you.

Fact 6: you'll feel like you went crazy and wonder what you did wrong. What you did wrong: you became a threat. You were effective and they couldn't control you. That's why they had to "take you out".

Fact 7: watch for the first sign of trouble: someone pushing you to be open when you're not ready.

Fact 8: second sign of trouble: trying to push you to do something you don't want to. DON'T DO IT. Listen to your gut.

Fact 9: third sign of trouble: when you ask questions, you get no answers and bullshit.

Fact 10: they "snitch jacket": when you're getting too close to something, they scream agent or cointelpro. Only agents scream agent first without proof.

10 is a nice number. But there's more:

The one charged with keeping you trusting will stage fake attacks on themselves by the "bad people" to keep you sympathetic. You can tell they're fake because they won't really be bothered and they won't take any action, legal or otherwise. Even when "stalked". Don't be fooled. They're working with "the bad people".

They try to manipulate people who have bad backgrounds. Not criminal, just tragic. They want to use the need to belong to make you do things. They'll try to make you feel like someone special and think that works for most people.

It doesn't. Most people who come back from tragedy are strong. But the Man plays the odds. Some are fragile. The perfect people to set up for an action that will make the group look bad. Anyone suggests using bombs or guns GET OUT.

A good group will answer your questions. A good group knows how to disagree without saying agent. A good group will not lie behind your back and will not let anyone else. They'll demand proof of accusations.

Good people get trapped in bad groups. They don't know what is going on. Now you do. The Man wants you stopped.

That's what Jane has to say. Three months ago I'd have nodded sympathetically, and thought "the group was just a bad fit". Now I wonder.

Mother Jones wonders too:

Exclusive: Cops and Former Secret Service Agents Ran Black Ops on Green Groups

NEWS: Meet the private security firm that spied on Greenpeace and other environmental outfits for corporate clients. A tale of intrigue, infiltration, and dumpster-diving.

By James Ridgeway
Additional reporting by David Corn, Jennifer Wedekind, Daniel Schulman, and Nick Baumann

April 11, 2008

A private security company organized and managed by former Secret Service officers spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations from the late 1990s through at least 2000, pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting to plant undercover operatives within groups, casing offices, collecting phone records of activists, and penetrating confidential meetings. According to company documents provided to Mother Jones by a former investor in the firm, this security outfit collected confidential internal records—donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members, strategy memos—from these organizations and produced intelligence reports for public relations firms and major corporations involved in environmental controversies...

READ MORE:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/04/firm-spied-on-environmental-groups.html


Jane wants readers to know when she says "the Man" she means anyone in the system who wants to stop your activism. They could be from the government, but they don't have to be. Jane believes she and her old group were targeted by a corporation with government contracts.

Why Is "Urban Badger" Helping People Harrass Activists?

Sources are like dates: some bring you flowers and complements and mean it it, others shower you with flattery but just want to get into your pants. This one complemented my articles, claimed to share the same interests, but was really only interested in getting confidential information about my clients.

"Urban Badger"(not his real name) was referred to me by a trusted source. He lives in England and works with people who question the July 7th, 2005 attacks:

http://julyseventh.co.uk/

An apparently wholesome interest in the public good. Which would mesh with wanting to help stop activist harassment.

"Urban Badger" told my source he knew something about the activist group I asked about. I was investigating a person of interest in this group. This group is like a psycho ex boyfriend: months after members leave, they find their personal information posted on-line as form of personal revenge. Presumably for leaving. No wonder they left in the first place.

"Urban Badger" knew this was a harassment inquiry and claimed he had a contact in this group willing to discuss the group's activities. Not impossible. Even if the group's leaders are jerks, most people aren't. If the activism has anything to do with "social justice", the hypocrisy factor would be enough to make some spill. After some email back and forth, "Urban Badger" said his contact would prefer to me to email him first. Fine.

The reader should know that all attempts to contact the person of interest(technically innocent until proven guilty) had been met with stonewalling. Inquires of group members had been met with the "run around". I was ready to give "Urban Badger's" contact a shot. Worst that could happen was he could waste my time.

Waste my time he did, as detailed in my previous blog.

Cutting my losses, I continued digging elsewhere. Truth was, the clients had moved on. This was follow up work. After the arrogant stonewalling, I was ready to do this for free. Checking one thing lead me to double check another. And I found a shocker: "Urban Badger's" contact was "Urban Badger" himself. They had the same IP address(edited to respect TOS):

Received: from [82.70.xxx.xxx] by web46104.mail.sp1.xxxxxx via HTTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:31:01 PDT
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: First Last <insidejob91153@xxxxxx>

Thu, 3 Apr 2008 04:28:20 -0700
Message-ID: C2F70@phx.gbl>
Return-Path: urban-badger@xxxxxx
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary=\"_79d8c747-8517-4133-8722-967574d0a61e_\"
X-Originating-IP: [82.70.xxx.xxx]
From: Urban Badger <urban-badger@xxxxxx>

Hostname

82-70-xxx-xxx.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk

Geo-Location Information

Country	United Kingdom
State/Region	L2
City	Rochdale
Postal Code
Latitude	53.6167
Longitude	-2.15
Area Code

Why'd you do it, Urban Badger? Why are you helping these people hide? What kind of people attack former members long after they left? And what kind of person helps them get away with it? How do you justify that to yourself?

I don't think that's how they do things in England. Your July 7th buddies are going to wonder: why is "Urban Badger" trying to protect the unethical, and possibly illegal, activities of an American activist group?

Watch out for "Urban Badger". He'll waste your time and his moral compass is off line.

For the record, Saturday, April 12th I gave "Urban Badger" a chance to come clean and make it right by Monday. He never emailed back.

Not taking it personally. I get it:





End note: "Urban Badger": If you have a crisis of conscience and want to come clean, email me with everything I asked. I'll hide this blog as a draft while I review what you say. But its too late to take down the Indymedia posts; I don't control those.

Why must they "cliche"? part 2

Know how we get hard-boiled? It's got nothing to do with water, eggs or breakfast.

We spend most of the time waiting, watching, or some other low return activity, with no guarantees. The rest of the time we wonder why we aren't getting paid more. Then comes some jerk promising they want to talk, but pulls a "bait and switch", thinking they can demand information out of us.

Case in point:

> My name is (T. Brown).
>
> I was given your email by a source who says you are part of the (CITY)
> group (NAME 1) is a member of.
> (NAME 1) is a person of interest in a harassment complaint. Any assistance
> in this matter would be appreciated.
>
> (T. Brown)

Response:

First Last <insidejob91153@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR AND WHO MADE THIS COMPLAINT?

Next:

<tambro12@gmail.com

> wrote: WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR

Confidential.

AND WHO MADE THIS COMPLAINT?

Also confidential.

My turn:

Why is there no police report if (NAME 1) is a victim of harassment as she claims?

Who told (NAME 2) to give me the "run around" when I made inquires about the Portland group and (NAME1)?

Why did your member (NAME 3) tell one of my sources she had talked to me when she hadn't?


Demanding information you aren't entitled to doesn't win allies.

Make your next email civil.


(T. Brown)

Next:

First Last <insidejob91153@yahoo.com> wrote:

NO. DEMANDING INFORMATION YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO DOES NOT GET YOU THAT INFORMATION AND YOU HAVE GIVEN ME NOTHING TO ASSURE ME YOU ARE AN ALLY.

SO IF YOU WANT ANYTHING FROM ME YOU WILL NEED TO OFFER SOME KIND OF PROOF OF YOUR MOTIVES.

Next:

You got it backwards, kid:

I sent you a professional email with a polite request.
You responded with a demand to violate client confidentiality.

My source said you wanted to tell me about the (CITY) group. You've been given all the information you need to know what my motives are.

This is what it looks like:

The (CITY) group is protecting (NAME 1) and "(NYM)" from harassment charges.
(NAME 2) is running interference.
(NAME 3) is feeding false information to protect (NAME 1).

"First Last", your participation is voluntary. You volunteered.
If you want to share, share. Or stop wasting my time.

TB

Jokers like this drive us nuts. He/she had no intention of "sharing". This was an excuse to "fish". A very bad one from a very bad movie.

Give me a break. We did not learn the trade off the back of a cracker-jack box.

For the love of Christ, stop the cliches.

The Case Of The Videographer StandingToo Close To The Cop...Or Not

I've got no problems with cops. They help people, save lives, and help people like me. I'll leave it at that. These men and women work hard, are underpaid and deserve our gratitude when they act within the legal and ethical limits of their authority.

But every group has it's "problem children" or "slow learners". Or people who lack common sense. They are a small part of the group. But they'll cause most of the problems for that group. Police are not an exception. They are only human. And if individual cops remember that, it will be easier to not over step the bounds of their authority just because public scrutiny is making one emotionally uncomfortable. If public scrutiny bothers you, being a pubic servant is not the gig for you.

Enter Joe Anybody and his video adventure:(from the Portland Mercury)

From Apr 3 – Apr 9, 2008

• Write a letter to the editor
• About the author/Author Archives
• Email this story to a friend

Big Brother's Little Brother

Cop Cites Videographer for Recording Investigation

BY MATT DAVIS

A FREELANCE videographer plans to challenge the Portland Police Bureau in court after a cop confiscated his camera and cited him, in apparent retaliation for videotaping the cop as he searched a suspect in the street.

Mike Tabor, 47, has been videotaping police activities for the last two years with his Sony Handycam, as a citizen journalist working under the name "Joe Anybody." He posts footage of their activities (especially at demonstrations) on his website, Joe-Anybody.com. Tabor started videotaping Officer Dane Reister last Tuesday, March 25, at SW 10th and Main, after he saw Reister hurrying to catch up with two men in the street, one of whom was Hispanic, the other white.

"I just thought it was weird because I wasn't sure why he was stopping the men," says Tabor. "So I decided to start filming."

Officer Reister and his partner, Officer Nick Ragona, searched both men and found nothing on them, so they let them go. Early in the encounter, as seen on Tabor's tape, Reister told Ragona, "We're being filmed," and Ragona responded, "I see that." Following the encounter, Reister approached Tabor and asked him his name, and whether he had been recording audio.

"I'm recording video and audio, yes," Tabor responds on the tape.

"Give me the camera," Reister says on the tape. He then wrote Tabor a property receipt for it.

"I told Ragona I was shocked they would take a camera from a journalist," says Tabor. "I told him I thought this was serious, and asked who I should talk to."

Ragona told Tabor to follow them to Central Precinct on SW 2nd, where after 20 minutes, Reister emerged from the back room with his camera and a citation under ORS.165.540, for "obtaining contents of communication (unlawful)."

"He told me the men were drug dealers," says Tabor, adding that he told the officer he was concerned about drug dealers too. "I asked him how I could have filmed the encounter where he would have been comfortable, and he told me I'd been standing too close and made him uncomfortable."

Attorney Benjamin Haile responds to the cop's logic: "The reasonable thing to do if someone is standing too close is to ask them to move back," says Haile, who has decided to defend Tabor against the citation, and if necessary, pursue the matter through federal court on constitutional grounds. "It is not appropriate, without warning, to single out the videographer from other observers and take his camera and give him a ticket."

Haile says it's very important that people have the right to monitor the police and that video is a powerful tool with which to do that. He thinks the law is either being misapplied or it's unconstitutional, according to the First Amendment right to free press and freedom of expression, and also, Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Bill of Rights. Haile thinks there is a strong chance a judge will agree, and dismiss the case.

"If a person observes the police doing something they want to tell other people about and they're prohibited from making video, then their ability to credibly communicate what they saw is stolen from them," he says. "It is very literally stolen from them when the police seize their camera."

Reister declined comment in person, but Central Precinct Commander Mike Reese returned the Mercury's call.

"It was an unusual situation: an officer dealing with a person he knew was a drug dealer from previous experience, believing they were engaged in a deal," says Reese, referring to the suspect Reister was searching. "These are dangerous situations for us, and unpredictable.

"To have someone stand behind the officer while he is involved in a narcotics investigation is a problem," Reese continues. "I think he took an action based on the law, and the constitutionality of these things is for the courts to decide."

Tabor says he will continue to videotape officers in the course of their duty.

"A lot of people say, you're just asking for trouble," he says. "But I'm just concerned about peace and justice, being a good journalist, and about police accountability. That's all."

I highlighted some words and phrases to analyze:

1: after he saw Reister hurrying to catch up with two men in the street,

"Hurrying to catch up" implies a distance reasonable people would not consider nearby.

2:Reister told Ragona, "We're being filmed," and Ragona responded, "I see that."

If they could talk about the filming, later claimed to be so close to make one of them uncomfortable, they could also have said, "please stand back sir; you're too close." According to Reister, Tabor would have heard them fine.

3:, and he told me I'd been standing too close and made him uncomfortable."

See # 2.

4:"The reasonable thing to do if someone is standing too close is to ask them to move back,

See # 2

5:"It was an unusual situation: "To have someone stand behind the officer


Who are you trying to fool, kid? It was a drug bust. A failed drug bust. The only unusual thing was one cop can't understand he's accountable to the public because he's working for the public.

Fact: Tabor was not near enough to interfere with the cops job. If he had been they would have told him immediately not later.

Fact: Reister misused his authority as an officer of the law by using it when no crime was being committed or considered by Tabor.

Fact: Sad excuses are being floated because Reister's superiors know this and are embarrassed.

Most cops are good hard working men and women. A few are jerks who have no business carrying a badge or gun. A few more are clueless about what the job means. The jerks and the clueless make most of the problems.

I'm going to say Reister is "under trained", a tactful way of saying clueless. If your actions can't stand up to public scrutiny while working for the public, being a public servant is not the gig for you.

Why Must They "cliche"?

Got no answers. Only questions.

What's the matter with "Goldilocks"? She's a smart cookie, got a good job, some debts, decent digs and most of her looks. So why does she want to risk throwing it all away to protect some bum?

It's the "stand by your criminal" cliche. It never ends well:

Portland FBI names 'Blonde Bandit' bank robbery suspect

05:43 PM PST on Tuesday, March 16, 2004

By ABE ESTIMADA, kgw.com Staff

The mysterious Portland area bank robber only known as the “Blonde Bandit” now has a name, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI has identified the bank robbery suspect as Denise Ruth Bender, 36, from Milwaukie, Ore. Calls from the public and a witness identified Bender as the woman who’s been allegedly sticking up Portland-Vancouver area banks for about a month, said Beth Anne Steele, a spokesperson for the Portland office of the FBI on Tuesday.

The FBI plans to charge Bender with bank robbery for allegedly holding up the Wells Fargo Bank branch at the Lloyd Center in Portland on March 1. Bender handed a Wells Fargo teller a note and fled with an undisclosed amount of cash.

The FBI said it believes Bender may be in the company of Richard Horan, also from Milwaukie. The FBI hasn’t identified Horan as a suspect in the bank robberies but said they want to speak to him.

He's gone. God knows where. And she's doing time. Bastard didn't even have the decency to come out of hiding and admit he was part of it.

They asked her to give him up. Repeatedly. The charges might have been reduced. But even after he didn't do squat to help her out of the jam he helped make, she wouldn't. She was "in love".


^Denise Ruth Bender

Is that your story, "Goldilocks"? You're in love? History isn't kind to women who hide their men then step in line to take the rap. And any guy who lets her is scum, pure and simple.

Got no idea if you're reading this. If you are, show us your smarts. Email me like you were asked. Or you might liable for everything he's done under your roof.



Richard Horan^


You're already an accessory. Don't make it worse when you can make it better.

"Goldilocks" is a person of interest who is "stone walling" like no one has since the "Great Wall of China" was built. A public appeal ain't likely to stop the construction, but maybe "Goldilocks" will prove me wrong.

When To Glock Or Not To Glock: The PI Question

Even if you aren't technically a PI (a private investigator is required to be licensed).

You may be the independent journalist, or lawyer's assistant. Or just curious about something that concerns the "public good"(other people might call you nosy). Whatever circumstances, there comes a time and case when the job or the story takes you to a place even cops fear to tread without a gun.

Never take the gun if you don't need it. Once in a while you'll be wrong, but 99% of the time you'll be right.

If you're wrong, retreat if you can. Better to come back prepared.




When you know you're entering a dangerous situation, one where people are known or are
strongly suspected of having committed murder, or another serious assault, always take your gun.
But, when it's no longer needed and the job is
finished, take it home and lock it up again. Always lock it up when it's not in use.









Your gun is not an ego accessory. It is a tool.
99% of the time you don't need it. If you
think you need it more than that, you need to reconsider how you're doing what you're going. Maybe this isn't the gig you're cut out for.

It's not the movies. Most information you get
will be from asking the right people polite questions.




And the most common job you'll be asked to
do is the cliche: shadowing a suspected unfaithful spouse. That doesn't require a gun...no matter what your client tries to tell you.


Wrote this after I came back from my first "field trip": that is, a job that was more than "polite questions". It was, thankfully, uneventful. I prefer "polite question" jobs.

We're all Anonymous on April 12th

I've never been into the protest gig. I'm more a sign the petition of season type of gal, shooting off the occasional postcard to my congress critter. But "Anonymous" has got me intrigued.

Scientology(or as they write it, $cientology) always looked like a scam of some kind. Even before Tom Cruise got assimilated. But the flyer I got this last weekend while shopping(or trying to shop; my favorite retro second hand store vanished when I wasn't looking), got me to thinking more about Scientology than I ever want to. (This is a different flyer from the one above. My scanner is broken)

Among the references listed:

www.whyaretheydead.net

Pretty bad. Whatever else anyone thinks its just not normal for any organization to have this many "accidents" and "suicides". Unfortunately this page was last updated July 2006 so it doesn't have the latest suspicious death: Shawn Lonsdale.

Shawn Lonsdale - Scientology smear flyers across Clearwater



Slandering a protester isn't very original, guys.

Anyway, Lonsdale was found dead on February 16th, 2008:

Critic of Scientology Shawn Lonsdale found dead

This article raises good points but makes my inner gumshoe cringe. Never speculate or go "over the top". Lines like "Did Scientologists have a hand in the death of Shawn Lonsdale?" make you look crazy. Instead focus on the facts that don't add up.

For starters, did Lonsdale look or act like anyone who might be suicidal? And, as the article points out, with so many known "persons of interest" and an obvious documented campaign to discredit him, why has this been ruled a suicide so quickly?

Back to the references. Google "Scientology costs".

Then Google "Scientology psychiatry". And I'm the first to admit psychiatry has it's own problems.

When your through with that, move on to these:

Scientology Slaves
Project Snow White
Scientology disconnect
Scientology south park

Many pieces make my inner journalist cringe too, but the facts paint a picture, however amateurishly, of an organization run like a criminal syndicate.

That's where I think "Anonymous" could use some help getting their message across. When you say a "cult" people nod their heads and move on, assuming someone is dealing with the crazy people. But the Scientologists have been good at re framing these problem as differences in belief. And when you say cult, even if it's true, there's still an idea somehow the victims were at fault; isn't it obvious it's a cult?

Not when they've registered themselves as a respectable corporation, it's not.

Bottom line? Most organizations, religious or otherwise, never have people connected to them dying under dubious circumstances. The only organizations that mimic this pattern are organized crime. Someone needs to tell "Anonymous" to go lighter on the "cult" rhetoric and call Scientology what it's acting like: a criminal syndicate.

Maybe I'll go and tell someone.
On April 12th.

Anonymously, of course.

Bill's Story: F.Y.I. on the Q.T.

I met Bill (not his real name) a couple years back at a rally in town. Smart, educated and only slightly eccentric(for a peace activist) Bill always found the work hard but rewarding and always worth it. And when another organization showed up to pitch in and help with an upcoming event he didn't think anything of it. That's what you're supposed to do in solidarity, right?

Soon the meetings became strained. Bill didn't think anything of it. Planning is always stressful and anything worth being emotionally invested in is bound to stir up strong feeling. But little things started to nag him: some people seemed to find themselves in positions of authority without any consensus or qualifications. Responsible questions about purpose and liability were treated with scorn. Soon Bill found his energy divided between peace making and begging hardworking people not to leave. He even found himself at odds with Steve, the manager of organization whom he'd always gotten along with. No matter how reasonable a concern was, it was spun as a personal conflict. Heroically Bill and four other organizers were able to pull off the event, with little or no help from the new organization. And what the new organization did do almost always has the effect of antagonizing or alienating the group's base. It did not help that this organization did not appear to understand what some terms actually meant in activism.

For instance the new group called for "mass civil disobedience". By definition this means protesting in illegal but nonviolent ways to draw attention to your cause. But when this was put into practice, members of the organization who called for this action reported activists to the police for doing the very thing they called them out to do. Subsequently these people were arrested and, in some cases, injured.

Like many, Bill was appalled. What had happened? After many angry conversations it became clear that what the organization had really wanted was a lawful protest demonstration. Then why didn't they say so? Did they know the difference? And if not, why not? Seasoned activists were part of this organization ; how could such a drastic misunderstanding have happened?

Then, in the course of gathering documentation, Bill found a strange statement among his organization's financial records. He had temporarily taken on managerial duties while Steve was out of town. Funds needed to be released and he wanted to take a quick account before the next meeting. They had always struggled for money, but always got by with fund raisers and the occasional anonymous donor. But, looking at the account history, he saw regular transfers of funds from a trust he had never heard of. Certainly none of the donors he knew. Cumulatively this cash flow was enough to take care of all their current debts, and cover their current expenses for the next six months. What particularly angered Bill was seeing a transfer dated the very day before a meeting four months earlier where they had brainstormed ideas to raise funds. All of this and they'd had plenty of money...somehow.

Bill called an emergency meeting of the officers, including the treasurer, Judy. Most people were confused but Judy was incensed that Bill had taken the liberty of looking through the groups private records without permission. When Bill pointed out he'd had permission and produced the email from Steve proving this, Judy changed the subject: why was Bill complaining the group had money? He should be happy. His point, echoed by many, was that until now the group had no idea they had this money and had been struggling unnecessarily for months, possibly years. What was this trust, Bill demanded? The group had a right to know who was apparently bankrolling them.

The meeting devolved into a shouting match. Most people sided with Bill or tried to play the peace maker; Judy refused to budge eventually calling Bill a provocateur. He was stunned. It was quickly decided by calmer heads that they should wait until Steve came back before trying to make a decision. Most wanted to believe it was a big misunderstanding.

But Bill felt this was something more than a misunderstanding. On a hunch, he stayed up all night copying as many relevant records he had access to about this trust. His hunch was right. The following morning not only was his access to finances revoked, but he found an angry email from Steve. Why was Bill snooping through the past accounts? Steve demanded. He was only given access in case funds needed to be approved. Then why didn't you ask Judy? Bill wondered. Steve said as Bill knew, they needed two signatures on the checks. That did not mean Bill was in anyway authorized to do a unilateral audit. Bill ignored this and instead asked about the trust. Who are they? What do they do and how long have they been giving the group money?

Steve didn't respond to this email. Instead he started sending an email around to the group claiming Bill had tried to access unauthorized funds. Bill did not hear about this until he came to the meeting a week later and felt everyone eying him suspiciously. Another shouting match ensued. Steve and Judy seemed united, with Judy now suggesting Bill had threatened her at the emergency meeting. That was the point Bill left saying: "I'm sorry you think you were threatened. I did not threaten you. I asked you to explain the financial accounts and you refused to. However, since you have stated you feel threatened by my presence I will leave and we can discuss this with a mediator instead."

Judy looking stunned. He'd never liked her. Many people had left the group over the years because she could be charming one minute then cold the next. As he walked to his car, he realized Judy never lost any of the battles she'd started; the people always left. Laughing at the irony, Bill drove away from the meeting place. He would never return again as a member of that group.

Months later he would return as a plaintiff. He tried to put it behind him and get on with his life. But he was dodged by depression and anger. He'd given three years of his life to working for peace and justice. He felt betrayed, and that was in addition to the group's completely avoidable confrontation with the police and the ensuing legal fallout. He would pass a couple of his old members at hearings and was pleasantly surprised that most of them held him no ill will. It was during this time that he heard rumors that Judy was spreading that he was a mentally imbalanced thief making outlandish accusations against the group. This was something she would warn new members about. Others would protest, but she'd say that new evidence had come to light but she didn't want to go into details.

The charges of mental imbalance struck Bill as laughable and pathetic. But he took the matter of being called a thief seriously. He dealt with funds for a living and if ever he needed a new position he was not about to let Judy make that process any harder. They lived in a fairly small city and word could spread fast in their circles.

He consulted an attorney who was not sure if he had a case yet for defamation. What impressed the attorney was the documentation that Bill had made about the finances before he left. Thanks to past fund raising efforts, Bill was able to prove that he and many others had been deceived about the organization's true state of finances. At his attorney's request he asked members he was still on good terms with their recollections of past fund raisers. Word got around. Steve emailed Bill demanding he stop lying about the group being funded by the mob. Judy found time to send an email around to the group, cc'd to Bill, calling him a deranged lunatic probably working for the FBI.

Bill forwarded both these emails to his lawyer. He was advised to block Steve and Judy's emails. Bill did so. Then the financial documentation was referred to the DA. It looked to Bill's attorney that maybe there was an organized criminal element to the finances. The trust in question had no known criminal connections. But it did have connections...to a handful of other peace groups Bill had never heard of scattered throughout the United States. Bill was being scapegoated, his attorney explained, probably because of his knowledge of these finances. What they couldn't figure out was, if this trust was legal, and was funding real peace groups as appeared to be the case, why did they act as if it was a dirty family secret?

Bill received no more email's from Judy or Steve, but a couple people who finally left the group did forward him emails where Judy was telling stories on a private list about how he was out there disrupting activism and how he'd walked away with $500.00 of the group's money.

That was it. A cease and desist order was sent. Soon after, the DA found enough evidence to start looking into the affairs of both Judy and Steve. They were found out to have shared Bill's private contact information, thus explaining some mysterious emails he'd assumed to be spam. They also seemed to be indirectly responsible for the theft of his mail at one point; some over-zealous soul took their warnings of a FBI agent to heart and decided to take it on themselves to open his mail to see who he was really talking to. One was a bill, the other, a letter from a relative. Judy and Steve found themselves facing a defamation and invasion of privacy suit.

Until then they had been claiming they were victims of a "hate campaign". Now they tried to say it was all a misunderstanding and they wanted to talk to Bill. The last thing Bill was going to do was get anywhere close to these two outside of a court of law. Bill's attorney agreed; given their history, any attempts to mediate independently would muddle the case. He did think that an official mediation might help. At the very least it would show their good faith in wanting to resolve this issue outside of court. Reluctantly, Bill agreed.

Bill's attorney contacted Steve and Judy with this offer. They balked. Why did it have to be official? Couldn't they just talk? Bill's attorney patiently explained that no, after slandering and libeling Bill, an informal discussion was out of the question. They argued but agreed to go. A meeting as arranged. They never showed.

Bill was irritated. If they weren't going to do mediation that was fine. He just wanted to get the rest of it over. He'd just met someone and was reconsidering the whole case. If it wasn't for his professional reputation he may well have dropped it.

Then, a week before they were set to go to trial, a law firm contacted Bill's lawyer. They were representing Steve and Judy. They were prepared to settle out of court. And they made a "very reasonable offer".

Bill's attorney advised him to take it. Bill didn't argue.

The group Bill used to belong to still exists, but Steve is no longer the manager. To anyone who asks, Steve says he's done organizing. Judy was forced to resign as treasurer and, soon after, left the group; no one has heard from her in months.

The other organization lost all credibility in the eyes of rank and file activists, who were vindicated months later when all charges were dropped against those arrested.

Bill's engaged now. He even goes to a rally here and there, but he's very careful of who to trust. He's thinking of starting a group with some of the old members , but doesn't want it to take over his life again. He does wonder about the trust and if it still funds the group he used to be part of. If anything nags him, it's that part. He sometimes thinks part of the reason for the settlement offer was to keep the trust's name out of public scrutiny that would come with a court case.

All of this has made him feel strongly about fiscal transparency. If he's to be part of a new group, they must make financial statements completely transparent. So far his friends agree.

Will he return to peace activism? Time will tell.

Note: all names and some details have been changed to protect the privacy of all parties...even those who may not deserve it.

Dumb Crooks: My Hardboiled Story for the Week

So this guy tries to bust in our house right? He's looking for something quick and easy to turn into cash, electronics, dvds, anything. Maybe he has a habit. Don't know. I didn't ask. So he breaks the back window and tries to push the door open. It won't budge. What the poor schmuck doesn't understand is the hippies who live in the house pile up the recycling there. The crash of carefully sorted glass, plastics and cans falling down, wakes me up in the dawn.

Goddammit, I think stomping down the stairs. I told JJ not to make a leggo project of it. So I'm stomping down cursing under my breathe when the door opens. The front door. I didn't turn any light on yet, so all I see is a short squat shadow that freezes in the dark.

I flip the switch and see the sorriest excuse for a burglar. No man of mystery this one. The ripped jeans and ratty sweat shirt might have been dark blue at one time, but now they're just dark. But it's the traffic cone orange hat that sticks out.

He's as surprised to see me as I am to see him. Goddammit, I think; JJ left the door unlocked again. She says unlocked doors bring more joy into the home. If she could only see "traffic cone" head. But she's gone to her BF house so I'm left to deal with the "joy". Oh joy.

I'm too tired and annoyed to be scared. Besides the clown starts to sway on his feet and act like he's drunk before sitting on the couch to look harmless. Something about that rings a bell, but I can't hear it too well. Stomping back up stairs I call the cops who act like it's an international emergency. Maybe they could see "traffic cone" hat all the way downtown. It was bright enough. "No I don't feel unsafe; just get here!" I grouse. As I hang up I hear the door open and shut. He's gone.

When the cop arrive I give them the best description I have which isn't good. The jerk's face was shadowed. But I couldn't forget that glowing hat. And what do you know--after a walk around the block and a quick check into the local 7/11, they collar "traffic cone" hat guy who I could ID with my eyes closed in a dark room.

Then I'm walking the cops through the scene when I see it on the couch: the three dvd players JJ's brother left right where the burglar sat down! He either sat on them or by them , but he wasn't bright enough or quick enough to grab the goods before he escaped, however briefly.

Not that I'm complaining. He's not either; all he's got is breaking and entering. It'll go on his record but he'll probably walk the next day. No big; all I lost was some sleep.

After the cops left I wrote this, had a shot of ginger brew, then I went back to bed.

Moral of the story: if you're going to be a burglar, don't wear international orange on the job.

How Stupid Can You Get On The Internet?

Very stupid it turns out.

I have a friend in Michigan working on a case involving two clueless parents who helped their teenager spread rumors (or if you prefer, lies) about a classmate on the Internet.

I've discovered there seem to be many people who prolifically spread libel, but don't seem to understand how traceable their activities are. Criminal intent and ignorance of computer technology used for criminal activity is a very bad combination.

My Michigan buddy sent me this Youtube thread that was almost a mirror of the situation his office is working on. I'll print a portion; names etc have been changed, "therenow" is my friend:

"Wendy"

It's not what you think! How was I to know he'd catch me lying about the other men?

"DRSKA"

Ah, "Greg Smith" of San Diego. Your entire life is spent nipping at our heels like an entertainment dog chasing a red ball. Were you bred for amusement or stupidity?

"Therenow"

How you came to this conclusion will be an interesting read.

For the record I know neither "Wendy" nor "Greg Smith"

"DRSKA"

You must lead a boring life, then.

"Therenow "

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you feel it is important enough to bring up in your video thread, then it is important enough to explain how you know this and why you think it is relevant.

"Therenow"

So am I to take this to mean that was wild speculation on your part? "Greg Smith" is an anti poverty activist:
[LINK DELETED]

"Therenow"

He is in New York. He has posted his email address online:
[EMAIL DELETED]

Your information appears to be incorrect. Maybe you should email him about your concerns.

"DRSKA"

Why don't you knit me a sweater and get me some coffee too while you're at it. Sugar and cream, please.

"Therenow"

It seems you're saying you have no evidence to support your assertions. That's makes people wonder about your motives.

"DRSKA "

You're to learn how to read and stop interrupting the class with demands for attention.

Later in that same thread:

"Therenow"

That is my point. There is only evidence of a "Greg Smith" activist in New York. There is none for a "Greg Smith" activist in San Diego. You either have the wrong person or the wrong place.

"DRSKA "

Or perhaps you're not very good at finding evidence and should stick to your knitting.

"Therenow"

Sorry, but you obviously have no evidence to support your statements. If you had, you would have posted it days ago.

"...stick to your knitting."

Actually I fish. When I'm not working.

"DRSKA "

It's been up on the web for ages. Try using a search engine. Why do so you desperately crave my approval?

"Therenow"

"It's been up on the web for ages."

Gossip and innuendo are not evidence. If I get all my friends to say "DRSKA is a homosexual", that does not make you a homosexual no matter how much we repeat it. You have proven nothing. You are just repeating gossip.

The thread has been silent ever since. Whether it's because of complaints or because of "lost face" we don't know. This isn't serious on the surface but the dynamic is common enough to be worrying under the right circumstances.

This article by Purple Tigress makes it clear even if you're right, you are not "in the right" to "expose" someone working under a pseudonym, provided they are not breaking the law:

"Writing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth can keep you out of trouble — both in your personal and public life — only to a point. While truth is the defense for libel and slander, it is NOT a defense for invasion of privacy and the Internet is the new frontier where not everything is clearly defined..."

But in the Youtube thread above it was obvious that the individual making these claims "Wendy" was "Greg Smith", had no evidence at all. (After digging into some very fringe sources, my friend found more people making similar claims about "Greg Smith", but all sources were on the level of the Weekly World News. These people also claim that no planes were used in the September 11th attacks and the government is attacking them with secret mind weapons. Consider the source.) Even the most "libertarian" hackers aren't going to get behind spreading wild rumors just because.

It's not just unethical but, if damages can be proven, you can be sued for libel and invasion of privacy. So think before you post those juicy rumors you can't substantiate.

A certain teenager's parents wish they had.

Slander and Invasion of Privacy: The New Tools to Stifle Dissent?

Free speech is not a license for intimidation tactics. When a "troll" crosses the line from being vicious and unpleasant to threatening personal safety do not hesitate to take legal action.

Those of us who post on message boards are all familiar with the "troll", the individual who is compelled to cause discord and disruption apparently for the joy of it. "Don't feed the trolls" we are admonished; by starving them of the attention they crave it is hoped they will give up and move on to other haunts. By and large this analysis is correct:

"Trolling entails luring others into pointless and time-consuming discussions. The name derives from the practice used in fishing where a baited line is dragged behind a boat (Oxford English Dictionary, 1992), although some Internet discourse refers to the troll as a fictional monster waiting under the bridge to snare innocent bystanders. Trolling often starts with a message that is "intentionally incorrect but not overly controversial." In this respect, trolling contrasts with flaming, which is "[a]n electronic mail or Usenet news message intended to insult, provoke or rebuke, or the act of sending such a message"(Free Online Dictionary of Computing, 1998). Trolling further differs from flaming in that the goal of flame bait is to incite any and all readers, whereas the goal of a troll is to draw in particularly naïve or vulnerable readers. Catching inexperienced users or "newbies" is a commonly stated aim of trollers (Andrew, 1996; Donath, 1999). As one Internet user, Andrew, states on his web site dedicated to trolling, "The object of recreational trolling is to sit back and laugh at all those gullible idiots that will believe *anything*" (Andrew, 1996). In practice, however, trolling and flaming often merge, in that in both cases, there is intent to disrupt the on-going conversation, and both can lead to extended aggravated argument."

From : http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html


But there is another type of troll that primarily visits political forums, who is more akin to the "internet stalker", but is very careful to "blend" with other trolls until they have a target. Like the common troll they appear to start fights for no real purpose. But unlike the common troll, ignoring them does not make them go away. They may be quiet for a brief time, but they return as soon as the subject comes back around to their interest. They are impervious to logic, are experts at disingenuous argument, know no shame, and will go out of their way to target individuals outside of the forum in question, going so far as to call for them to be hunted down as enemies of free speech.

Examining the traits of this troll species, one might conclude we are dealing with a kind of sociopath; they do excel at the "pity play" when they find themselves banned, the "pity play" when confronted is a known trademark of the sociopath. But it is hard to image pure chance accounting for the sheer numbers, persistence and density of these individuals in highly controversial political forums.

Known disruptive individuals who focus on politically controversial areas:


Keith Bridgeman, variety of sock puppets; focus, Parkinson's disease, atomic bombings

"Superdude" focus, National Politics

"Killtown", focus, noplanes/911

"Kent", focus, women's issues

Following is part of a case study involving Kent:

"The trolling incident occurred on a web-based discussion forum sponsored by a large-circulation feminist magazine published in the United States. The purpose of the discussion forum is to provide a space for dialogue advancing feminist concerns and issues. The forum has over 4,000 members, of whom about 200 participate actively. In the discussion analyzed in this paper, 41 individuals participated, 90% of them female and 10% of them male. Participants sometimes disagree on individual interpretations of feminist ideology and action, but generally share an agreement that women are politically disadvantaged compared to men, and that feminism is the best way to address this problem.
In early February of 2000, this agreement was challenged from two different sources. Several gun rights advocates from another forum joined the feminist forum exclusively to advocate against gun control legislation, starting more than a dozen new threads to argue their point of view. During the same period, a new male participant, Kent, started posting messages that were intentionally antagonistic to the core values of the forum. In his introduction to the forum, Kent identified himself as a middle-aged man in a professional position that involved overseas travel. He claimed to have been previously removed from other feminist forums for his views, and he also claimed he would eventually be removed from this feminist forum. He described himself as openly hostile to feminism, and started attacking forum members in dozens of posts spread throughout the forum.
Over a period of eight days alone, more than 80 posts were written to a thread discussing Kent's participation in that thread. Partly as a result of this discussion, the forum administrators adopted a new policy for participating in the forum (see Appendix A). Kent was eventually banned from the forum as a result of the new policy."


This more serious type of trolls ups the ante, crossing into legal territory by stalking, threats, calling for people to be hunted down and revealing others' personal information, or, just as bad, revealing a completely unrelated person's information in the mistaken belief they are the troll's target.

Why would a person take the risk of breaking the law just to get back at someone on-line? They may believe they are protected by their Internet anonymity. Perhaps they believe that no one will take the trouble to pursue charges with the authorities. Filing a suit is more trouble than most people are willing to go through over what seems to them a simple political disagreement. Instead they are more likely to leave the forum or at least stop posting.

Was this the goal of the stalker troll all along?

It seems "out there" to most rational people that anyone would go to the trouble to hire people with the express purpose of driving people away from participation in on-line political discussions. But there is a solid precedent for this speculation:

In July of 2007 a story was posted at Daily Kos about rent-a-trolls:

"Rent a Trolls!!! They've Got F&^%ing Rent a Trolls?
by LunkHead
Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:07:24 AM PDT
For this campaign season, it looks like someone is offering the services of trolls and sock puppets for hire. "


This was in the run up for the election, but it would not be a stretch to think that a corporation or lobbying firm could take advantage of such services to spread their message. Or frustrate grass roots opposition to their message.

The "jury is out" as they say, but the combination of traditional trolling sociopathic traits(especially the "pity play") combined with targeting individuals for harassment, invasion of privacy, and threats, forces one to consider that some stalker trolls are part of an organized intentional plan to drive people out of online political participation.

____________________________________________________________


Note: The "pity play" is described in "The Sociopath Next Door" as the calculated attempt of a sociopath to evade responsibility by claiming they are the hurt and injured party when confronted about their actions. This manifests in the stalker troll when, in spite of meticulous documentation of their misbehavior, they claim to be the target of a "censorship" or "hate campaign". At no point do they accept any responsibility for their part in the situation.

References:

Keith Bridgeman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TOJO

"Superdude"
http://www.politicsforumpoliticalworld.com/member-feedback/11566-banned.html

"Killtown"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12116

"Kent"
http://rkcsi.indiana.edu/archive/CSI/WP/WP02-03B.html

Referencing "illegal trolling"
http://fixunix.com/linux/347144-re-trolls-censorship.html

Miscellaneous
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/17/9137/01266

http://www.flayme.com/stalker/spiro.shtml

Bloggers Beware: Libel and Invasion of Privacy
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/18/043121.php
________________________________________________________________________
This article is the result of on going research into the activities of a political stalker troll. Feel free to email me about your own stories of being stalked online(email harassment, calls to "hunt you down", invasions or attempted invasions of privacy) as a direct result of your online political participation: tambro12@gmail.com

If you find yourself the target of illegal attacks from a "troll" online, including but not limited to threats to your physical safety, demands to reveal your personal information, especially when they do not, calls for stalking, document everything and do not hesitate to contact any of the following, urging them to take prompt appropriate action:

the site administrator/owner
your local police department
an attorney
a computer consultant to check your security

Free speech is not a license for intimidation tactics.

What Do I Do, Now I Got This Stinkin' Blog?

I suck at "hard boiled". So sue me. But I warn you: I ain't got much.

I'm more the soft boiled, indy lib type more likely to stop my Volvo to let a squirrel cross the road. If I could afford a Volvo. As it is the squirrels beat my beater nine times out of ten.

Anyway, my point is I started this blog with the idea of detailing some of the interesting research dug up along the way. But obviously if it's ongoing that's not going to work so well. I wanted to avoid that trite standby of "all names and situations have been changed". Looks like "cliche" is just an over-hyped truth.

So I'll still use this blog to deconstruct cases, but if something is ongoing or inconclusive I'll be changing names etc, unless the information is out in the public domain and not in dispute.

Welcome to the "cliche".

Now I need a smoke to go with this scotch; the phone hasn't rung in four days. Then this dame walks through my door...

How I Got Gum in My Shoe

It all started with PBS. I was a public TV brat. Even liberal parents use the TV to babysit. They made their excuses of course: it's educational, it's Sesame Street, it doesn't have(too many) commercials. Then one day I tuned in to Inspector Morse when the Rents weren't around, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Yes, I became a Mystery Junkie at 12. And I blame them completely. It didn't hurt that John Thaw, who plays Morse, is a bit like Dad. Not as traditional but he's got that gentle matureness about him that was reassuring. Reassuring, but not "hot". That came later.

Then I saw Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes. I'd never been into Sherlock Homes before that. Other interpretations were low on detecting and high on womanizing, or suggested womanizing. As it turns out the books have no womanizing, suggested or otherwise
and Brett's interpretation was the most faithful to the character
as written that I have yet seen.
Years later came Second Sight staring Clive Owen. Finally "hot" had arrived. Who says contemporary gumshoes can't be stylish? Or brooding. Creegan in "Touching Evil" owned brooding.(This is the BBC original. Don't waste your time with the American knockoff)

Needless to say my detective obsession spilled over into books, and lighthearted interpretations like the character "Judy Drood". And we can't forget our classics: Sam Spade.

And it all began with the PBS babysitter.

You know at first they were happy their not so little girl(tall for my age) had taken a precocious interest in adult programs. Then they hid the "I, Claudius" tapes. Happy, but still clamping down on the sex and violence. (Years later I can't see what the hang up was with" I, Claudius". Like Shakespeare, most of the bad stuff happened off screen) They didn't really start to worry until high school when I'd got it
into my head that I was going to be a private eye.


"Is that very practical?" they asked. "Don't you have to be a
cop first?"

I found out no, it's not very practical. You don't have to be a cop first, but it helps. Many PI's are lawyers or have a law degree. But it's not romantic like Bogart, or genteel, like Holmes, or even cool, like Veronica Mars. It's a lot of hard work and a lot of waiting in parked cars, with no
guarantees and the threat of bullets and shady characters.

So I decided to study journalism instead, which was a great relief to Mom and Dad. But you know what? There's just as many bullets and shady characters in journalism. Who knows, maybe I'll come full circle after all. And it'll all thanks to the Rents and the PBS babysitter.

Thanks Mom! Thanks Dad! To badly mangle a Sam quote, "Here's your kid looking at you!"