Category: Patterico

Patterico Vindicated: Judge Rules Against Brett Kimberlin’s Failed Federal Suit

Posted on Comments

Nearly four years after Brett Kimberlin sued Patrick Frey, myself and numerous other defendants (including Michelle Malkin, Breitbart.com and Red State) in a bogus federal RICO suit, the case has finally concluded with Judge George Hazel granting Frey summary judgment.

There was no factual basis for this suit we had dubbed Kimberlin v. the Universe, et al., and the Pro Se Pipsqueak’s main claims were dismissed in March 2015, but Judge Hazel allowed Kimberlin’s case to proceed to discovery in regard to his claim that Frey had wrongfully acted “under color of law” as a county employee in California. A key component of Judge Hazel’s final ruling was that Patrick Frey sincerely believed that the July 2011 SWATting incident which sent to an armed police squad to his house was related to Kimberlin’s months-long campaign of retaliation against Frey because of what Frey had written about Kimberlin’s criminal history of bombing, perjury, drug dealing, etc.:

“Kimberlin has failed to submit evidence, rather than his own strongly held convictions, that Frey’s actions were motivated by an improper, retaliatory purpose, rather than [Frey’s] desire to spur law enforcement to investigate a crime of which [Frey] was the victim.”

Keep in mind that I was targeted by a SWATting in 2013, which eventually resulted in the perpetrator being sent to federal prison. SWATting is a very dangerous form of criminal harassment, and law enforcement was never able to solve the SWATting of Frey, who has extensively explain the reasons he suspected this crime was connected to Kimberlin. Given what is known about Kimberlin and his associates, and other aspects of the case which Frey has explained, certainly this suspicion was reasonable, even though the actual perpetrators of the SWATting were never apprehended. The fact that I was also the target of a SWATting, as were Mike Stack in New Jersey and Aaron Worthing in Virginia at different times, could be viewed as part of a pattern of criminal harassment. Let any intelligent person investigate the facts for themselves, and draw their own conclusions.

Go to Patterico’s blog and congratulate him on his success. First Amendment freedom has won, and the Speedway Bomber has lost.

It’s a great day to be an American!



 

Benghazi: A Hole in the Tick-Tock

Posted on Comments

Tick-tock: Journalism jargon for a story that recounts events in chronological order, as if accompanied by the soundtrack of a ticking clock.

Last summer, at the request of American Spectator editor R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., I spent several days trying to get the White House Press Office to answer a simple question:

The President of the United States is not only the most powerful man in the world, but also the most public, his daily life chronicled to the minute by the national press, his every word and action reported and analyzed by journalists and commentators. What the American president says and does is always automatically newsworthy and therefore it is profoundly mysterious that a hushed silence surrounds one of the most disturbing events of Barack Obama’s presidency, the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Where was the president? This is a simple question, one to which the American people might reasonably expect an answer, but more than nine months after that deadly night, we still have not gotten a detailed answer and most in the media seem to have lost all interest in the question. . . .

You can read the rest. The point was, and is, that we never got the “tick-tock” version of the White House’s Benghazi story — we don’t have a timeline of where Obama was and what he was doing, during the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2012. Here we are, nearly a year later, and journalists still haven’t gotten the tick-tock. Patterico did some poking around over the weekend:

Here is an interesting tidbit from the White House Visitor Logs for 9/11/12: Obama met with three people, at an unknown time, for “debate prep.” . . .
Obama appears [from the official White House schedule] to have been gone from the White House for much of the early part of the day. He observed a moment of silence on the South Lawn; visited the Pentagon Memorial; visited veterans at Walter Reed in Bethesda; returned to the White House; and met with Leon Panetta at 5 p.m. There are not too many holes in his schedule during the day — increasing the chances that the “debate prep” took place in the evening, after the meeting with Panetta . . . in other words, when the Benghazi attack was unfolding.

Patterico makes clear we don’t know when that happened, because we never got that tick-tock, and thus the question:

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

It makes a difference because everybody — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the likely 2016 Democrat presidential nominee — spent weeks lying about what happened.

When the truth began to trickle out, the White House press corps was negligent in its duty, and let the Benghazi lies go unexamined during the weeks while President Obama got himself re-elected.

We still don’t have the whole truth, but Democrats are calling for a “boycott” of a congressional investigation trying to get the truth, many in the media are dismissive of the investigation, and thus actively participating in this partisan cover-up!

The questions must be answered, and those who participated in the cover-up — including the media — must be held to account.

 

Did Roger Shuler Violate Alabama Law by Impersonating an Attorney as ‘RogerS’?

Posted on Comments

Portrait of a Kook: Roger Shuler

On Oct. 24, Patterico called attention to a commenter using the name “RogerS” at BreitbartUnmasked.com, a site rather notorious for attacking enemies of Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser. Conspiracy theorists won’t believe it was just a coincidence that, the day before Patterico published that post, authorities in Shelby County, Alabama, arrested blogger Roger Shuler on contempt of court charges.

Speaking of coincidences, however, when Brett Kimberlin fanboy Bill Schmalfeldt reported the arrest of Schuler, he described Shuler as an attorney — and Shuler is definitely not an attorney, so we have to wonder where Schmalfeldt got that mistaken impression.

Oh, Patterico, can you please tell us what “RogerS” was doing?

One of the cast of little transparent sock puppets at Breitbart Unmasked is a fellow who goes by the handle “Roger S.” This “Roger S” was recently on the site talking up the high quality of Kimberlin’s recent RICO lawsuit. My God, Roger S says, the defendants ought to be scared. And Roger S should know! He himself is a lawyer who has handled RICO lawsuits himself! With devastating results!

Hmmmm. So it seems that “RogerS” was presenting himself at a pro-Kimberlin site as an experienced attorney, and pro-Kimberlin blogger Bill Schmalfeldt erroneously “reported” that Alabama blogger Roger Shuler is an attorney. Just a coincidence?

Aaron Walker examines the evidence suggesting that this is not a coincidence, that Schmalfeldt and “RogerS” were in frequent communication, and that Schmalfeldt knew that “RogerS” was Roger Shuler of Alabama and, apparently, believed the bogus claims by “RogerS”/Shuler that he was indeed an experienced attorney.

Readers may examine that evidence and decide for themselves what to believe. Roger Shuler’s got himself a whole heap of trouble down in Alabama nowadays. Having frequently (and unsuccessfully) gone to court as a pro se litigant, Shuler is now on the defense against some very experienced attorneys, including the formidable Bill Baxley.

One might pity Shuler, were it not for the type of atrocious defamation that has been Shuler’s ouevre as a blogger. And if Roger Shuler was indeed “RogerS,” what about this comment?

RogerS on September 20, 2013 at 5:29 pm said:
Well, I think Kimberlin has it correct in his suit, saying that Mr. McCain is not a “legitimate journalist.” Legitimate means that the journalist follows legitimate rules of ethics established by legitimate governing bodies. As you have made abundantly clear, Mr. McCain refuses to follow these legitimate rules of ethics. Instead, he engages in what is obviously malpractice journalism, just as a lawyer who violates the rules of ethics on a wholesale level engages in malpractice lawyering.
I would go even further, and say that Mr. McCain could never be hired by a legitimate media or news company because of his serial violations of the rules of ethics. I believe that he knows this and that is why be engages is his smear blogging tied to tip jar donations.
Mr. McCain is a blogger, a smear blogger, but he is not a journalist as that term is used in the profession. As an attorney, I have no doubt that a federal judge will agree with Kimberlin’s portrayal of Mr. McCain.

Ahem. What horribly false things to say about me, “RogerS.”

Sitting your ass in the Shelby County Jail now, aren’t you, “RogerS”?

Maybe I should just let bygones be bygones, and work myself up some sympathy for Roger Shuler’s constitutional rights.

Trying.

Trying real hard.

Gosh, this is embarrassing.

Despite my profound commitment to the First Amendment, and my concern about “prior restraint” issues in the Shuler case, for some reason I’m unable to work up any sympathy at all for Roger Shuler.

Tell you what: Have yourself a look at the various comments of “RogerS” at BreitbartUnmasked.com and tell me what you think.







Now, it just so happens — lo and behold! — that on Oct. 31, “RogerS” showed up in the comments at BreitbartUnmasked.com to deny that he is Roger Shuler. “Xenophon” vouched for this and, of course, we can always trust what an anonymous blogger says when vouching for the veracity of an anonymous commenter, right?

See, there are coincidences and then there are coincidences. As anyone can see from the comments I’ve screencapped, “RogerS” had been commenting quite frequently: Oct. 17, Oct. 18, Oct. 19, Oct. 21, Oct. 23 and then . . . silence, beginning the same day Roger Shuler was arrested in Alabama, continuing for a full week until, after Aaron Walker pointed out that it is a crime in Alabama to impersonate a lawyer, suddenly “RogerS” pops up to say he is definitely not Roger Shuler.

What kind of coincidence do you think that was? And don’t you think that authorities in Alabama, who seem to be very zealous in their enforcement of the law, might be able to get a subpoena to determine whether Roger Shuler was indeed the phony lawyer “RogerS”?

Because it seems to me that if there were probable cause to suspect Roger Shuler of actually committing a crime — as opposed to a mere contempt of court problem regarding civil litigation — they could get a search warrant for Roger Shuler’s computer.

However, that’s just common sense talking. I am not a lawyer, and I sure as hell would never impersonate a lawyer on the Internet.

 


Who Tipped BuzzFeed About Weiner’s Cyber-Girlfriend Sydney Leathers?

Posted on Comments

My friend Donald Douglas this morning was rather shocked at how quickly I jumped onto the Sydney Leathers story, but I explained on Twitter what I said on the blog Tuesday night: Before I ever heard of Sydney Leathers, the BuzzFeed article was already a banner headline at Drudge, so there wasn’t really anything left to debate. Certainly I wasn’t “outing” her. Ezra Dulis at Big Journalism was all “[redacted] this” and “[redacted] that,” as if ignoring the news could make it less newsworthy, but the news business just doesn’t work that way.

What I added to the story — on the basis of tips from a keen-eyed Twitter buddy — was that (a) Sydney Leathers is a former Obama campaign worker and (b) Sydney Leathers authored a 2011 petition that condemned Sarah Palin for “inciting violence.” That’s news.

If anyone wants to criticize BuzzFeed, they ought to ask: Where did they get the ID of Sydney Leathers? Was this just  a case of clever “investigative journalism” or was it — as I strongly suspect — the result of a tip from a source allied with Team Weiner?

This is not to say, however, that BuzzFeed should not have run with the story once they got that tip. Once you know somebody is shopping around that kind of info, you’re confronted with a kind of devil’s dilemma: “If I don’t take this scoop, somebody else will.”

Such dilemmas occur all the time in political reporting, where people with obvious motives offer you oppo-research materials.

Do you really want to turn up your nose at the offered dossier, knowing that if you do, you’ll probably find it reported in all its tawdry glory somewhere else? Remember that in 2008, there were reporters for major news organizations who knew about the reports of John Edwards’ extramarital affair, but wrongly dismissed them as “tabloid gossip.”

I’ve got a particular interest in the question of who ID’d Sydney Leathers because, for months, Ladd Ehlinger Jr. has entertained the possibility that the harassment of Brett Kimberlin’s enemies was somehow being funded by supporters of Anthony Weiner.

Speculation isn’t my business, but when you observe extraordinary behavior, you can’t preemptively rule out extraordinary motives.

One of the bloggers who did the most damage to Anthony Weiner during the 2011 scandal was Patterico who — just coincidentally, FYI — was also a target of relentless harassment by the obscure alliance of forces that we call Team Kimberlin. Today, Patterico returns to the saga with a devastating timeline of how Weiner’s enablers made this latest scandal possible, and don’t miss this:

And, disturbingly for a guy who was talking about “cape and tights” to a high school girl in Delaware — a grooming line he had used with an adult woman with whom he had sexted — Weiner asks Sydney Leathers if her “pussy” is “smooth” . . .

Oh, my goodness. That seems rather weird, eh?

And while the New York Times sees a pattern, they apparently can’t be bothered to notice that pattern.

Do we know anyone else reputed to have a similar interest in young girls? Seems to ring a bell for some reason . . .

UPDATE: Linked at American Power — thanks! — and welcome, Instapundit readers! Since this involves a mass readership who may be unfamiliar with the background to which I’ve alluded, let me briefly rehash what regular readers of this blog already know:

The seeming convergence of (a) Brett Kimberlin’s Enemies List and (b) a number of bloggers — including Ace of Spades and Lee Stranahan — who had written about WeinerGate could be explained as entirely coincidental. But there were reports that Team Weiner, in planning his political comeback effort, had engaged the services of various lawyers, researchers and consultants. Those of us who know how politics works behind the scenes are well aware that money is fungible: If Politician W hires Consulting Firm X for $20,000, this firm may then hire Freelance Researcher Y for $5,000 and Internet Operative Z for $3,000 on a basis of confidentiality, so that the activities of Y and Z cannot be traced to X, and Politician W then has clean hands (and plausible deniability) if Y and Z get caught red-handed.

Also: Progressives into young girls? Probably just a coincidence.

 


Glenn Greenwald Is a Ridiculous Joke (And Alas, the Internet Never Forgets)

Posted on Comments

Ali Akbar called and I had to tell him about the infamous — indeed, epic — nay, world-historic — exposure of Glenn Greenwald’s sockpuppetry back in 2006. Many people currently active in conservative New Media didn’t really get hooked in until 2008 (Sarah Palin) or 2009 (Tea Party), and have no memory of The Way Things Used to Be back in the misty early dawn of Ye Olde Internette.

Often these newbies will ask things like, “You mean Andrew Sullivan used to be a Republican?” or “Charles Johnson? Who’s that?”

It would be easy to get lost in nostalgic reveries, but rather than bore you kiddies with tall tales about UseNet and dial-up modems, I’ll see if I can bring it to a point pretty quickly:

If a monomaniacal hysteric like Glenn Greenwald is a “serious journalist,” then the threshold of seriousness is dangerously low, indeed.

That might seem harsh, if you don’t remember July 2006:

The Glenn Greenwald Sock Puppet Story,
From Start To (Almost) Finish
— Ace of Spades

Annotated WuzzaDem: The Facts
Behind the Greenwald Sock-Puppetry
— Patterico

Please, if you don’t know the backstory, click both those links and read carefully, because it reveals three important facts:

  1. Glenn Greenwald is a raging narcissist;
  2. Glenn Greenwald is habitually dishonest; and
  3. When caught in one of his stupid lies, Glenn Greenwald’s first instinct is to try to save himself by telling another stupid lie.

Here’s an interesting question for you: Why didn’t Glenn Greenwald graduate law school until he was 28? What year did he complete his bachelor’s degree, and what did he do during the years between finishing his undergrad education and deciding to attend law school?

That’s just something I’m throwing out there, not knowing that the answer would be of any relevance, although it’s an intriguing question in light of his subsequent legal adventures:

Before he was a reporter and commentator for The Guardian newspaper, Glenn Greenwald was a lawyer — and had a part-time job in the porn business.
“It was a long time ago,” Greenwald told the Daily News. …

(Ancient history! The Bronze Age!)

The Queens native became a lawyer in 1995, after graduating from NYU.
Greenwald was enjoying a career as a litigator when friend Jason Buchtel offered him a partnership in his consulting company, Master Notions Inc., back in 2002. …

(It was “back in 2002” — mere juvenile mischief!)

Court papers show that one of the company’s clients was then known as HJ — short for “Hairy Jocks” — and that Greenwald was the one who negotiated their deal. …

(“Trust me, Jason — there’s big money to be made here!”)

Owner Peter Haas “had this pornographic company he wasn’t able to maintain,” Greenwald said.
Greenwald and Buchtel agreed to help Haas in return for 50% of the profits. …
[Haas] accused Greenwald of having bullied him into signing the deal, citing several twisted emails that he said were from Greenwald, whose email address was, “DomMascHry31.” In one, Greenwald allegedly called Haas “a little bitch” and “a good little whore.” …

Well, you can read the whole thing, which includes Greenwald’s denials, and threats to sue everyone for libel, and climbing up on the cross to suffer as a Sacrificial Martyr for Truth.

Here’s the thing: We know from the 2006 sockpuppetry escapade that Greenwald is a liar with a habit of masquerading behind online aliases to achieve his dishonest purposes. (“Thomas Ellers” and “Rick Ellensburg” can vouch for this.) And here’s a dirty little secret about why Greenwald is now an expatriate living abroad:

The New York County Clerk’s office shows Greenwald has $126,000 in open judgments and liens against him dating to 2000, including a $21,000 from the state Tax Department and the city Department of Finance. . . .
Records show the IRS has an $85,000 lien against him.

Douchebag, thy name is Greenwald!

 

EVIL SHALL NOT PROSPER

Posted on Comments

Neal Rauhauser was a speaker at the 2010 Netroots Nation conference

“Kimberlin’s associate Neal Rauhauser recently admitted in a complaint to my office that he introduced [Nadia] Naffe to attorney Jay Leiderman . . .
“In the same document, Rauhauser declared that if Naffe is successful, he believes it will put an end to my career as a Deputy D.A.”
— Patrick “Patterico” Frey, Oct. 4, 2012


This is indeed very happy news, my friends:

Ken and I in particular got to face, not just criticism, but “vapid and dishonest partisan hacks” who criticized both of us for standing up for free speech — including “the greasy, demi-literate, demented Hutt who wrote an extended quasi-sexual fantasy about a mob murdering Patrick and me.”
Hi, Bill Schmalfeldt! I understand you were curious about the result of this case. I’m happy to be sharing that with you! And, your sick, twisted fantasies notwithstanding, nobody has yet beaten me or Ken with baseball bats or tire irons. No group of men has thrown us in front of a moving truck as part of a conspiracy to cause our deaths.

Now, it was actually Ken at Popehat who described Bill Schmalfeldt as a “demented Hutt,” but I read it at Patterico‘s so . . .

Why is this such happy news? Because this nuisance suit against Patterico was self-evidently part of a deliberate vendetta against one of Brett Kimberlin’s chosen targets, an attempt to silence Patterico and intimidate others, as I explained in October:

I can’t imagine any court finding Patterico guilty of anything, but this lawsuit is just another typical product of the Kimberlin-Rauhauser “accuse the accusers” strategy. Once they target someone, the accusations proliferate endlessly as part of an orchestrated effort to discredit anyone who might accuse them of wrongdoing.

Off the top of my head, I could name a half-dozen people who have been targeted in this manner by either Kimberlin or Rauhauser or the various sociopathic trolls in their online mob. This is not merely harassment and cyberstalking — although it is that — but it is in fact political terrorism, and this lawfare harassment of Patrick Frey was an effort to silence him for having said so:

Keep in mind that Rauhauser, by inciting Nadia Naffe’s lawsuit against Patterico, has obligated Patterico to avoid writing about this subject on advice of counsel . . .

Well, how’s that working out for you, Neal Rauhauser? Patterico promises to tell the truth — the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God — on Monday. Meanwhile, go hit Patterico’s tip jar, and encourage him to plunge the knife of truth as deep as it will go.

Evil shall not prosper, nor will the wicked triumph. Selah.

 

Kooky Tuesday Continues: Is Social Media Breeding Monsters? Oh, Hell, Yes!

Posted on Comments

Having begun the day with a post about deranged cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt, followed up with a post about a maniac professor at Columbia University, and then added a discussion of the (allegedly) felonious kook Barrett Brown, let’s stick with the theme, eh?

In a post at Breitbart.com’s new group-blog thingie, Mandy Nagy asks “Is Social Media Breeding Monsters?” and offers this sampling of evidence in support of the answer, “Oh, hell, yes”:

Facebook Postings Prompted Stabbing, Accused’s Sister Says
Facebook argument escalates into real-world crime when boy grabs gun
Facebook gangbanger turns himself in after threatening Brooklyn’s cyber crime-fighting captain
Briton charged over Facebook threats to kill 200 US children
Police investigating Facebook predator
Man pleads guilty to sexually assaulting underage girls he met on Facebook
Tulsa Man Arrested For Using Facebook To Solicit Sex From 12-Year-Old Girl
Facebook Sting Nets Illinois Perv On Federal Rap
FACEBOOK MURDER CASE: Defendant concocted “sinister plot,” prosecutor says

Kind of an obvious pattern there. Ace of Spades comments:

The downside of the internet’s egalitarianism is that people who have no social peers in their own lives — because, most likely, they are insane or too repulsive in character to attract real-life friends — flock to the internet. They’ve alienated everyone they’ve ever known in real-life; now it’s time to try out their off-putting schtick on the millions of new potential victims at their fingertips.

Exactly so. And it’s also a fact the Internet facilitates deceit, impersonation and fantasy role-playing, all of which involve blurring the line between perception and reality. As a famous Steiner cartoon pointed out, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog,” and people with an appetite for fraud or make-believe therefore find the Internet irresistible. Not all of these people are criminals or nutjobs, but there are enough of the insane/dangerous types to create a critical mass whenever they find some cause for common action and — no matter how narrow their fringe appetites — it’s possible in an international communication matrix with hundreds of millions of users for a few dozen of them to cluster together and bask in the warm support of their fellow crackpots.

For example, feminists: Tracy Clark-Flory writes about the “labia pride movement,” as if this were something significant.

If there is a critical mass for that kind of delusion, then you see why Bill Schmalfeldt may believe there must be an eager audience for his bizarre fixation, as Lee Stranahan reports:

Bill Schmalfeldt shows no signs whatsoever of stopping public discussion of his sexual obsession with me and my family. He’s been writing about my wife Lauren for months, in insulting and prurient terms that have including fantasizing about having her perform sexuals acts on him and then do menial labor before discussing the death of our daughter Collette
Somehow today, he’s gotten even worse.
On today’s podcast, Bill Schmalfeldt had not one but two new ‘comedy’ pieces, both of which make explicit sexual references to my minor daughter in deranged fake commercials that are about me selling her.
Remember: Bill Schmalfeldt has said repeatedly that he is a serious journalist following a story as any professional would.

Meanwhile, as Stranahan further notes, Bill Schmalfeldt had Neal Rauhauser as a special call-in guest on his two-hour podcast.

Yes, I said, two-hour podcast.

Five days a week, Schmalfeldt rants for two hours about his selected list of enemies which — curious coincidence — exactly matches the Kimberlin-Rauhauser enemies list.

For example (and here we close the circle, as it were), the title of Schmalfeldt’s Feb. 12 podcast was, “It’s Mandy Nagy Day!” Reasonable people may ask, Why would Bill Schmalfeldt single out Mandy Nagy for an entire day of abusive podcasting?

A reasonable answer might be that Mandy Nagy wrote an October 2010 article entitled, “Flashback: Progressives Embrace Convicted Terrorist,” about “Speedway Bomber” Brett Kimberlin. In other words, it is a fair assumption that Schmalfeldt’s entire extravagant oeuvre of harassment — dating back to June, when he began cyberstalking Aaron Walker — was undertaken to defend Kimberlin.

Brett Kimberlin, who reportedly became obsessed with a pre-teen Indiana girl whose grandmother’s murder is still an open case.

Coincidence, probably.

Did I mention that Brett Kimberlin threatened to sue Mandy Nagy? Did I mention that Brett Kimberlin also threatened to sue Patrick “Patterico” Frey, who had also written about Kimberlin’s criminal career? Did I mention that Bill Schmalfeldt also occasionally lashes out at Patterico on his podcast which seemingly serves no other purpose than to attack Brett Kimberlin’s enemies?

Some of these random coincidences crossed my mind today after I received an e-mail from Schmalfeldt with the subject line, “DENOUNCE THIS, OR OWN IT!” The e-mail included a screen-cap of a death threat to Schmalfeldt from a Twitter account. But when I checked the Twitter account — which I  suspected of being bogus — the account had been suspended. So I replied to Schmalfeldt’s e-mail:

STOP CONTACTING ME. FURTHER CONTACT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS EVIDENCE OF HARASSMENT.

By the time I got back on Twitter, Schmalfeldt was already sending me unsolicited messages and trumpeting to various others my reply to his e-mail as proof that I endorse death threats. But there was no way for me to verify that the Twitter account which sent the threat is anything but another of Neal Rauhauser’s notorious collection of sockpuppets.

This morning, I remarked on “Schmalfeldt’s lack of self-awareness, his failure to understand the transparency of his own motives” — he seems to think he is cleverly deceiving people when, in fact, no intelligent person could be deceived by him. In the vastness of the Internet, there may be a sufficient audience of stupid people to justify Schmalfeldt’s daily podcasts, but what are the chances that all these stupid people are also obsessed with Brett Kimberlin’s enemies? Not very good, really.

So many crazy people, so little time.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! The indefatiguable psycho Schmalfeldt has kept at it, so that there is already new cyberstalking craziness, chronicled by Lee Stranahan.