Previous month:
February 2014
Next month:
November 2014

idledillettante's False Police Report

"I'm pretty sure what Cernovich is doing is civil harassment in the state of California; and I feel badly about Quinn being harassed like this on my account." - idledillettante.

1. You are wrong. My conduct did not even close to the line of harassment in the state of California.

2. Nobody cares about how  you feel. 

Ms. idledillettante, your conduct is a criminal violation of Penal Code Section 148.5, which makes it a crime to file a false police report. I would suggest you retain a criminal defense attorney to help you  withdraw your report to avoid criminal liability.

I do not have any control over what, if anything, the LAPD decides to do with you. I do, however, have the right to sue you. This is a right I intend to exercise.

The false police report you filed allows me to sue you for damages. What's more, you incited others to file false police reports, which itself opens you up to liability under entirely other theories.

You seem to think this is a joke, or that you may use the legal system to vindicate your feelings. You are in for a rude awakening. I suggest you print this out and go to your college's legal department immediately.

Ms. idledillettante falsely accused Mike Cernovich of harassment.

Ms. idledillettante reported me to the Los Angeles Police Department (and encouraged her readers to file false police reports).  

What crime did I commit? In Ms. idledillettante's words, "I'm pretty sure what Cernovich is doing is civil harassment in the state of California."

As is turns out, California has a civil harassment statute. Anyone with an Internet connection can read it. 

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.6 provides:

527.6. (a) (1) A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.

There is, of course, an important caveat. CCP section 527.6(b)(1) reads: "Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of 'course of conduct.'"

Even if the First Amendment did not exist (God Bless America), none of my conduct would have remotely fallen under harassment under California law. Again, the law (not your feelings) provides:

"Course of conduct" is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, facsimile, or computer email.

I never followed, stalked, or made harassing calls to anyone. I write about whatever I want to write about. If people read what I write and dislike it, that is their fault.

You cannot actively seek out "offensive" or "harassing" material that hurts your feels and  later claim that the person who wrote something you actively sought out harassed you. Well, you can claim that in your crybaby gender studies courses. You may not, however, make that claim in a court of law.

That said, even analyzing my conduct under the harassment statute is a red herring, as all of my conduct falls within well-defined protections of the First Amendment.

(Have you not noticed that there hasn't been a single licensed attorney who has accused me of any criminal or civil wrongdoing?)

It is impossible for me to harass anyone if I am engaged in constitutionally protective activity - such as exercising my rights under the First Amendment.

The police report.

Ms. idledillettante issues with my conduct stem from my blog post about Chelsea Van Valkenburg A/K/A Zoe Quinn.

I was well within my legal rights to write about a legal dispute. This is so obvious as to be baffling that anyone would contend otherwise. You can read all of the case citations here

Ms. idledillettante became outraged that I wrote about Valkenburg's case and "doxxed" me.

Much of Ms. idledillettante's gripes concern conduct that is entirely lawful and appropraite. THe conduct is lawful as I have a First Amendment right to write about issues concerning the court system. The conduct is appropriate as Zoe Quinn doxxed me.

Ms. idledillettante posted my full address on her site. She also posted a Google street image view of my house. She coordianted her dooxing of me with Valkenburg. 

Ms. idledillettante complained to police that:

  • Mike Cernovich is a licensed attorney in CA. He became interested in a restraining order filed by the victim against her ex Eron Gjoni in MA. Gjoni harassed the victim via internet postings until ordered to stop by a court. Cernovich believes that filing a restraining order against Gjoni is an assualt on Eron’s rights & requested court documents from MA about the case. He then posted them on the internet to the prominent hate group #gamergate, who has been harassing the victim since late August.

This is true as to me, with the qualification that #GamerGate is not a hate group and that there is no evidence #GamerGate has been harassing Valkenburg (who is an alleged victim); no comment as to the truthfullness as to Mr. Gjoni.

I paid a courier service to obtain a copy of the restraining order Valkenburg obtained against Gjoni. The restraining order was a public record. I broke no laws. I obtained records anyone could obtain.

My conduct was entirely lawful. No reasonable person would believe otherwise.

  • Attached to this complaint is the victim’s handwritten complaint which Cernovich posted on his blog on October 23rd. Here, he reacts to something I did (posting a Google Street View of his house) by calling out the victim repeatedly by her legal name, which was not widely known before.

I have the First Amendment right to call Zoe Quinn by her real name or alias. No reasonable person would believe otherwise.

  • He has also been threatening on Twitter to hire a private investigator to research the victim []. He has been repeating this story with the hashtag #gamergate, a poorly organized internet hate mob.

This is all true, except that #GamerGate is not a hate mob.

 I did in fact hire a private investigator to look into Valkenburg and her boyfriend, Alex Lifschitz. I also hired the same private investigator to look into Ms. idledillettante.

Hiring a private investigator is entirely lawful. No reasonable person would believe otherwise.

The lies contained in the police report.

Ms. idledillettante did not merely report me for a non-crime. What she did was even worse. She lied about me in her police report.

Ms. idledillettante told the Los Angeles Police Department several lies, including:

  • 1. "He has ... sent the victim [Valkenburg] threatening direct messages []."

Direct messages (or DMs) are a method of communication available by using Twitter.

I have never sent Valkenburg an email or DM. In fact, I do not even send @ Tweets to Ms. Valkenburg. If Ms. Valkenburg is bothered by what I write, it is because she actively reads me. I send her nothing.

  1. 2. He "seems convinced that the victim doxxed him when in fact she did not."

This is false. I have proof that Valkenburg and Ms. idledillettante acted together in doxxing me. 

Ms. idledillettante has a big mouth and it wasn't hard confirming that she coordinated her doxx of me with Valkenburg.

The causes of action.

Get a lawyer, Ms. idledillettante.

He or she will walk you through the many causes of action I have against you. You may talk about defamation (both for your blog post and the police report), abuse of process, harassment (filing a false police report is not constitutionally protected), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and more.

Because you used the interstate wires to transmit your false police report, there may be federal causes of action there, too.

Again, please consult with a licensed attorney. Go to your university's General Counsel. Get help. You need it.

The lawsuit will be filed in California.

Ms. idledillettante is a student located outside of the State of California. She recently contacted the Los Angeles Police Department to file a false police report against me.

Since Ms. idledillettante contacted authorities in Los Angeles, jurisdiction in California State court would be proper. Ms. idledillettante will need to retain an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California. 

This will be my last open letter.

Ms. idledillettante, the false police report you filed was beyond the pale of what I could have expected. I understand that people play dirty on the Internet. I did not anticipate that you would break the law. You reported conduct that wasn't criminal. You also lied.

As you have neglected to accept my generous offer that you apologize and move on, I have instructed my attorney to file suit.

We will likely wait until the holidays are over, as we are good guys. 

Have a good day, Ms. idledillettante.

Anil Dash, Doxing, and SJW Lies

"Doxx up, don't doxx down." - Anil Dash (source)

Screen Shot 2015-05-25 at 12.14.55 AM

Anil Dash claims I doxxed him. Does his claim hold water or is he being dishonest?

The alleged dox.

Several years ago Anil Dash wrote about his apartment hunt. He mentioned that he would likely be moving into a certain apartment building. He identified his apartment building by name.

Over a year ago I asked Anil why he, a man who hates white people, lived in a nearly all-white neighborhood. I pointed out that he lived in a certain apartment building to prove my point.

I did not identify Anil's unit # or even the floor he lived on.

The apartment building.

The apartment building Anil lives in has 200+ units and over 30 floors. Further, this apartment building has a door man and security. You can't just walk up to his front door.

I pointed out that he lived in a very privileged neighborhood. He hates white people yet chooses to live with them.

I asked Anil why he chooses to live in a bastion of wealth and white privilege rather than with the downtrodden.

The neighborhood - the Upper East Side.

Although I will not identify the apartment building Anil lives in, I will identify the 'hood this hero of the downtrodden lives in.

Wikipedia notes that the Upper East Side is a bastion of power and (by Anil's logic white) privilege:

The racial makeup of the neighborhood was 88.25% White, 6.14% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 2.34% African American, 0.09% Native American, 1.39% from other races, and 1.74% from two or more races. 5.62% of the population were Hispanic of any race. 

Not only does Anil Dash choose to live among white people, he chooses to live among rich white people:

The Upper East Side maintains the highest pricing per square foot in the United States. A 2002 report cited the average cost per square meter as $8,856; however, that price has noticed a substantial jump, increasing to almost as much as $11,200 per square meter as of 2006. There are some buildings which cost about $125 per square foot (~$1345/㎡).

I did not dox Anil Dash. 

I pointed out that Anil Dash lives in a huge complex.

Anil Dash himself has spoken about where he lives.

Over one year after the aleged doxx, Anil Dash's complete address is still listed in his WHOIS. Clearly this is not a man who is concerned about his personal safety. He is playing the victim, as he often does.

Anil Dash believes in doxing. 

Even if I had doxxed Anil Dash, that would have been my prerogative.

Anil Dash has power and privilege. He is a rich man who can afford to live among the power elite.

Even so, I never doxxed Anil Dash. He lied once again.

Chelsea Van Valkenburg A/K/A Zoe Quinn v. Free Speech

"You are also ordered not to post any further information about [Chelsea Van Valeknburg] or her personal life or online to [unclear] hate mobs." - Chelsea Van Valkenburg (AKA Zoe Quinn) v. Eron Gjoni.

When people say mean things about us online or even smear our reputations, our first impulse is to fight back. Some people file frivolous defamation lawsuits - called strategic lawsuits against public participation - or SLAPP for short. Others combat speech they disagree with by getting their own message out.

Still others call the police to arrest their criticis. That is what Chelsea Van Valkenburg elected to do.

Chelsea Van Valkenburg (who goes by the alias Zoe Quinn) cheated on her boyfriend, Eron Gjoni. More than that, according to Gjoni,  Valkenburg mentally and physically abused him by exposing him to STD risk, as she cheated on him with several different men and it's uncertain if she used protection.

(Gjoni weighs 135 pounds and has a fondness for cats.)

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 12.25.53 AM

(Zoe Quinn is much larger than Gjoni and possess a dominant physical presence. She is, in all ways, an alpha female.)

Screen Shot 2014-10-23 at 12.23.30 AM


Zoe Quinn obtains a restraining order against Eron Gjoni.

In Massachusetts a victim of domestic violence may obtain a protective order - a 209a order for short. A 209a order is nothing unusual. It's what we all understand of as "restraining order" or "peace order."

Essentially, a person subject to the 209a order is not allowed to come within 1,000 feet of the person who has obtained the order. He may not call her or contact her or stalk her. Pretty basic stuff.

Zoe Quinn made several frightening allegations against Gjoni. The truth of those accusations are not at issue here. In fact, I have no interest in their personal squabble.

My interest lies solely in the free speech issue. Gjoni's has been silenced. Much worse, he has been ordered to appear in court for allegedly violating the court order.

Gjoni may go to jail for merely speaking his mind and sharing his story.

Zoe Quinn's conduct is lawfare.

Quinn's actions were not surprising. In fact, First Amendment wonks have a term for it. It's called a Kimberlin v. Walker issue, and it is a form of lawfare. 

Kimberlin v. Aaron Walker was widely covered by a politically liberal blogger who also has a high regard for free speech.

As Ken at Popehat observed in his discussion of Kimberlin:

3. Aaron's arrest illustrates how well lawfare can work and how dangerous unprincipled rubber-stamping of protective orders can be. Imagine it: you write something about a dispute. Someone involved in that dispute goes to court in another state and accuses you of harassment and gets a "peace order" against you. That person claims that your writing is threatening, that it has led to threats, or that it constitutes persistent harassment. If you are very lucky, the judge denies the application because it is too vague, or because it seems to complain about protected speech — but if you are unlucky, the judge rubber-stamps it without even demanding to see the allegedly offending posts.

In Kimberlin, the plaintiff "sought, and obtained, a new 'peace order' (Maryland law-speak for a restraining order) against Aaron, trying to portray Aaron's protected expression as harassment and threats." The protective order prevented Walker from exercising his free speech rights by providing commentary critical of Kimberlin.

Walker was arrested, "apparently on the grounds that by blogging about Kimberlin's behavior, he had violated the peace order."

As Ken at Popehat observed:

Brandenbug, as I mentioned in my earlier post, is the United States Supreme Court case that articulates the relevant standard: speech may only be banned on the theory that it is incitement when it is intended to create, and likely to create, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action.

One might argue that Gjoni's earlier blog post describing the alleged physical and mental abuse he suffered "intended to create, and likely to create, a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action."

In that case, the protective order should have clearly stated what sort of speech Gjoni was not allowed to make.

Instead, the order was vague and overbroad, as its very terms cover any and all speech Gjoni would make.

The order read, "You are also ordered not to post any further information about [Chelsea Van Valkenburg] or her personal life or online to [unclear] hate mobs."

What does any personal information about Valkenburg mean? By the terms of the order, it would seem to prohibit constitutionally protected speech. After all, Gjoni has the right to talk about the alleged abuse he suffered at Valkenburg's hands.

Eron Gjoni has the right to speak out about the abuse he allegedly suffered at Chelsea Van Valkenburg's hands.

Eugene Volokh is one of the country's leading experts on the First Amendment. In his article Free Speech and Criminal Harassment Laws (here) he covers the use and abuse of protective orders as they relate to free speech.

Volokh's article distinguishes between speech to one person and speech to many people. Think of it this way.

You may obtain a protective order preventing me from harassing you or talking to you. That is one-to-one speech. You may not, however, prevent me from talking about you to other people (one-to-many) speech.

Volokh writes (emphasis added):

Restrictions on public speech about a person, then, stand on very different First Amendment footing from restrictions on unwanted speech to the person. Such restrictions on speech about a person can be constitutional when limited to speech that falls within the recognized First Amendment exceptions, such as threats, libel, and intentional incitement to likely and imminent criminal attack. But when one-to-many speech about people falls outside these exceptions, it should be constitutionally protected.

As I mentioned above, I don’t want to claim that one-to-many speech is less harmful than one-to-one speech. Indeed, many people might be much more upset about insulting things said publicly about them—to listeners who might be influenced by such criticism—than about insulting things said directly to them.

Nonetheless, for reasons discussed in Part I, one-to-many speech has full First Amendment value because it involves the expression of facts and opinions aimed at informing and persuading potentially willing listeners. It should therefore generally be constitutionally protected, notwithstanding the offense and distress it causes to its subjects. And this is certainly where current First Amendment doctrine points.

Eron Gjoni's First Amendment rights are being violated.

Gjoni has the right to discuss the abuse he allegedly suffered at Zoe Quinn's hands. The 209a order is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment. It's overbroad because it could not possibly cover anything and everything that Gjoni might want to talk about. It's vague because it doesn't put a reasonable person on notice as to what speech is prohibited.

On a moral level, Chelsea Van Valkenburg's conduct is despicable. She is abusing the court system to prevent legitimate criticism of her.

Valkenburg's position on doxxing.

Indeed, in her affidavit for the 209a order, Chelsea Van Valkenburg complained about "doxxing" - the practice of posting a person's information online to harass others. Yet Valkenburg herself "doxxed" me.

Valkenburg and a co-hort have posted pictures of my home as well as my address on a website. According to Valkenburg, doxxing is done when a person wants  third partiess to torment, harass, or harm another.

By Valkenburg's logic, my life is in grave danger.

According to Valkenburg and her supporters (including many in the mainstream media such as Rebecca Vipond Brink), posting my personal information only and disseminating it out to a hate mob is OK, because I am an evil person who said some of the types of things people who write for Gawker say.

Not only does Valkenburg abuse the court system, she also is attempting to incite others to stalk and harass me.

Unlike Valkenburg, I will not be seeking a court order.

Instead, I will continue to exercise my First Amendment rights by talking about her case.

I have only just begun exposing Chelsea Van Valkenburg a/k/a Zoe Quin and her lies.


Rich Gaspari, Myofusion, Marc Lobliner, and Amino Spiking Lawsuits

UPDATE: Marc Lobliner and I had a long talk about this issue. Marc is a good guy and my issue is with Gaspari, not Marc.

Marc Lobliner is a supplement company ownder and he is the Chief Marketing Officer of Tiger Fitness Nutrition. Lobliner was one of the first supplement company owners to call out the practice of amino spiking protein powders. Amino spiking is the practice of adding cheap amino acids into protein powder and then falsely claiming on the label that the protein powder contains more grams of protein than it actually contains.

For calling out amino spiking, Lobliner earned a tremendous amount of goodwill. Forgetting Warren Buffet's warning, "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and 5 minutes to destroy it," Lobliner has now partnered with Rich Gaspari, a supplement company owner notorious for the practice of amino spiking his signature protein, Myofusion Elite Protein.

What is amino spiking and what does that have to do with Marc Lobliner and his good friend Rich Gaspari?

Several lawsuit have been filed against various protein powder manufacuters for adding cheap amino acids like taurine and glycine to their protein powders. I am currently researching a lawsuit against Rich Gaspari and Gaspari Nuturition, as I purchased Gaspari Myofusion under the belief that it contained the amount of protein listed on the front of the container.

For some reason, Marc Lobliner is now heavily marketing Rich Gaspari's products. Lobliner is using his popular YouTube channel to rehabiliate Gaspari's reputation.

Rich Gaspari has never apologized for amino spiking Myofusion Elite Protein. He has never given me a refund, even though I used Gaspari Myofusion protein for several years. In fact, I have two jugs of amino spiked protein sitting on my kitchen counter.

Lobliner claims that no one should care about Gaspari's past, telling me, "I care about NOW." I care about NOW too, Marc. Right now I have jugs of amino spiked Gaspari Myofusion protein sitting on my counter. Right NOW I have emptier pockets because Rich Gaspari tricked me into giving him  my money

As a licensed attorney in California, I believe it's my duty to call out fraud when I see it. I believe that Gaspari committed labelling fraud when he marketed his protein as containing 25 grams of protein, as taurine, glycine, and other amino acids are not protein and should not be counted as part of the claimed protein content of Myofusion Elite Protein.