Archive for Los Angeles District Attorney

Voting Rights #WAR

Posted in politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 1, 2013 by Qritiq


Gee – who else (reading this right now) has received  similar emails?



Nadia,

We’re willing to book you a plane ticket to Boston to get some footage

from the SEIU busses . . .

i’ll be in new orleans causing trouble. im [sic] confident your training will take you far.

Interested in making some more video history?

James




conspirator

future inmate

from: The Pimp Stays In The Picture


Conspiracy Fact

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

.

From drumsnwhistles.com :

.

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:
.

a-right-wing-blueprint

.
.

Steve Cooley, Dist...

.
.
.

“SECRET EVIDENCE”

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?

.

.