Archive for the censorship Category

pastebin sux

Posted in blogosphere, censorship, do the right thing, politics with tags , , , , , , on October 13, 2013 by Qritiq


pastebin leaves social security numbers and defamatory crap up…


but takes this down:



Vince in the Bay: My Leniency Letter to Judge Preska.




Protected: Tactics For Fighting Off Psychos

Posted in blogosphere, catchall, censorship, crime with tags , , , , , , , , , on October 1, 2013 by Qritiq

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Do You Know The Score?

Posted in blogosphere, censorship, Doh!, politics, reality check with tags , , , , , , , on March 7, 2013 by Qritiq


complainants v Bill are  HOGE, WILLIAM JOHN JOSEPH   and   STRANAHAN, LEE   and   WALKER, AARON J.

I’m not clear on why these 3 thought it was wrong for Brett Kimberlin to get a restraining order against Seth and Aaron, but that it’s ok for each of them to do exactly the same thing to Bill.

Hypocrisy much?


Conspiracy Fact

Posted in censorship, crime, illegal, politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 21, 2012 by Qritiq


From :


Los Angeles District Attorney Patrick Frey may be the most notorious right wing blogger to claim he was SWATted, and of course, he blames his left-wing bogeymen, Rauhauser and Kimberlin. There is absolutely no evidence to link either one of them to it, but that hasn’t stopped Frey from making the accusation.

There is some evidence suggesting that this was a setup, that there was no legitimate SWATting of Frey (though Mike Stack’s may have been legit), and further, there is no evidence it was linked in any way to Rauhauser and/or Kimberlin. Were it not for a prominent Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney claiming it was so with a very loud and well-funded echo chamber behind them, no one would consider them to be suspects.

Folks, this is an Assistant District Attorney presuming guilt about a man who differs with him politically and has no shame at bringing the resources of the Dallas FBI office and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office together to “get them,” without any credible evidence they are involved.


I’d like to know who in the Dallas Office took Frey’s “information”.


Interesting article, very much worth a look; the rest of it here:



Steve Cooley, Dist...


From The Desk Of:

Posted in censorship, mental, sockypuppets on October 22, 2012 by Qritiq

From: Qritiq
Sent: December 3, 2011 11:25 PM

Mike – I wish you had emailed me before you told her you were bleeker. It is NONE of her business. I asked you to blog with me because I know you had a lot to say about bullying, which I think is important. And now look – she’s bullied you out of blogging and speaking your mind. If those are “her friends”, they are real menacing potty-mouths.

I would recommend that you do not speak to her husband (certainly not without a lawyer) – I don’t understand how Michelle’s war with Neal involves you. And if you intend to sue Neal, Ron, whoever, it certainly doesn’t concern Michelle.

None of the bleeker posts support Neal or Ron in the slightest. You’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. And for her to intimate that you have, is repulsive.

I would appreciate it if you can give me her last name (I won’t give it to anyone else – I have no interest in outing her.) But she strikes me as a bit unbalanced due to her threat to call my workplace and her odd messages to people I don’t even know, about trying to get me in some way. I would have no interest in her if she hadn’t threatened me, but since she has, I’d at least like to know her name, in case she decides to stalk or threaten me again.

You do not owe Michelle or her husband any explanation for what you write about, or where you choose to publish it. You haven’t written one word about them. How dare they.

(Can you tell I’m mad?)

If Michelle’s husband is mad at Neal – hey here’s an idea: he should talk to Neal, not waste your time. It sounds to me like they are trying to intimidate you. Because why would they talk to you? If I had a problem with stuff Neal was saying, I’d have my lawyer send a cease and desist letter to Neal. Why would I call you – it makes no sense.

In addition to Michelle’s last name, I hope you will also give me permission to write about this. It’s really got me fired up. But of course I’ll understand if you’d rather I didn’t.



Posted in audio, censorship, crime, do the right thing, politics, spin with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on June 4, 2012 by Qritiq


Patrick Frey, an L.A. Deputy District Attorney, aka the blogger and James O’Keefe supporter Patterico, posted a document produced by one Kent Gibson, who also works with the L.A. courts (presumably an acquaintance, colleague, or friend of Frey’s.) Gibson describes himself as a “Certified Audio & Video Forensic Examiner”.

Based on a test that Gibson refers to as “the gold standard” of voice identification, Gibson determined that:

“Frey Swat [911 tape of caller that perpetrated a crime] and Brynaert Known [a recording from an interview show of Ron Brynaert, former Executive Editor of a political website] cannot be shown to be the same speaker”.


There were a lot of other words in this document about results of methods that Gibson indicates are not nearly as  reliable or accurate (if at all) as the test Gibson says is the “gold standard”, which he used to conclude the statement above.  There were also lots of words included in the document, which described opinion rather than statements of fact.)


oh, and i’d like to ask y’all a personal question:

Suppose you log on, and you see that a Deputy District Attorney asked someone (presumably a friend of his) described as a “Certified Audio & Video Forensic Examiner” for the courts, to compare a sample of your voice (found on the internet) to a criminal’s, (in order to try to come up with some basis, that sounds official, to make people think that you ARE the criminal), and this D.A. publishes the resultant document, that his friend wrote up, on his blog.

You see that this posted document says your voice was used in the comparison, because you are “suspected of being the Swat caller re: Frey”. And the “Certified Audio & Video Forensic Examiner” says his opinion is that you are a criminal based on a “totality” of stuff (though we’re not privy to know exactly what that stuff may be.)  He writes this opinion even though the results of the test, that he himself says is the gold standard of testing, indicated that you “cannot be shown to be” the criminal.

The D.A.’s  readers see this document; some of them blog about it, tweet it, and get more people to do the same…, and so on, and so on. And as a result, a lot of your former colleagues, people you correspond with online, friends and acquaintances, and anyone else who happens to search on your name, can see that you are being examined by Los Angeles officials because you are “suspected of being” a criminal.  (And needless to say, you’re not a criminal, you’ve done nothing at all wrong – and you’ve never been convicted of a crime.)

So how would you feel about that?

And what would you think the proper remedy would be?



Downright Dirty

Posted in audio, censorship, crime, do the right thing, illegal, mental, politics, spin with tags , , , , , , on June 2, 2012 by Qritiq





the upshot:


-Judge refuses to rule on Battle of Thessalonica

-Judge has a LOT of years on the bench; sure doesn’t know much about the internet, but knows about people and their probable future actions based on what he’s seen go down in the past.

-Judge rules Aaron may not contact Kimberlin by megaphone (or any other means.)

-Judge says Aaron is inciting death threats and threats against children.

-Judge finds Aaron is doing a “downright dirty” thing.



Believe me I’m no lawyer, but I have heard that there is a difference between the letter of the law and the intent of the law, and judges consider the intent of the law in their rulings. If you listen, you’ll see that since he is ruling on a protective peace order, (a pretty common thing), the judge’s primary concern is keeping both of these guys safe, not the intricacies of constitutional law as it relates to electronic communications, conspiracy,  death threats across state lines, incitement to commit violent acts, etc., etc.