Monday, August 07, 2006

Many have already seen this, but I will post it here for completness.

Read teh crazy

reply 2 shysta

MoneySucka: As you know, this firm represents Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Goldstein.

Word Warrior: Gotcha. U da shysta 4 da count and Mrs. Cockula.

MS: Pursuant to our conversation today, I understand you are not represented by legal counsel concerning this matter. If this changes, please notify me at once so I can communicate about this with him or her.

WW: That’s right. Will Do.

MS: You told me that you have been served with the Temporary Civil Protection Order issued from the Denver County Court. Please understand that any violation of the order is a contempt of the court, and will be dealt with immediately and severely.

WW: I understand that if I email Jeff or post a comment on PW, I’m toast. I am not 100% sure how the second condition is enforceable, since I could post from a pubic place and all Mr. Cockula would have would be a bunch of useless ISP addresses and “screenshots.” But that’s a side issue. I am totally cool wit no email to the mofo and no posts at the cesspool.

MS: You told me you intend to continue posting about Jeff and his family on your website until Jeff agrees to pay you what you claim are your damages. I want to make sure you understand the consequences of doing so, in addition to contempt of court.

WW: These actions would not be in contempt of court since they do not involve posting comments to lipid stupidity or emailing the dingbat. Read the RO, shyster.

MS: Your actions to date violate several federal, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon statutes dealing with stalking and related matters, as well as the common law of those states. Your actions subject you to significant liability, including punitive damages.

Your actionable comments to date include:

1) A threat to sexually abuse the Goldsteins' child1;
2) Multiple threats concerning the death of the Goldsteins' child2;
3) References to Mrs. Goldstein in the crudest possible language;
4) Claims that Mr. Goldstein sexually abuses his child, or presents a danger of doing so. You have made this claim as recently as today.

WW: Let’s agree to disagree about whether my actions are actionable.

FACT: Your client was quoted by Kim Smith in the Arizona Daily Star on July 11 as saying he never felt threatened and

FACT: the best you could muster was a RO barring me from emailing the mofo.

Conclusion: your action suggests your hand is much weaker than your words imply.

Go lay your pathetic tuff shyster shtick on someone else, u mofo.

MS: Now you are attempting to extort money from Mr. Goldstein in exchange for which you say you will stop some of your comments about his child and wife. Your attempt to unlawfully extort money from Mr. Goldstein is rejected.

WW: People make offers of the form “If you don’t give me $X, I’m gonna sue you.” This is not considered extortion. After a brief consultation with legal counsel (Mr. John Haas at Pendleton, Friedberg, Wilson & Hennesy), I decided it would not be cashflow-effective to involve the legal system in my attempt to recoup my $50Kish in damages from Mr. Goldstein. I assumed you would be smart enough to realize that a threat of legal action by me was silly. So instead, I wanted to bargain over a cash settlement from Mr. G. by offering to sign an agreement sparing his wife and child from further jokery and mockery on my web site and others about the count without the O, snatchel, etc. I thought that maybe if the count were a slightly honorable warrior, he’d be willing to pay up to protect his kinfolk. Clearly this is not the case, but I do not see how offering to negotiate a settlement protecting Mrs. G and Satchel from further embarrassment is extortion.

MS: Demand is hereby made:

1) that you immediately discontinue your stalking of my clients;
2) that you desist from any further threats against the life of the Goldsteins' son;
3) that you desist from any further threats to sexually abuse the Goldsteins' son;
4) that you desist from further publication of falsehoods concerning Mr. Goldstein, including the falsehood that he has sexually abused his child, or presents a danger of doing so.

WW: Oy gevult.

1.If by “stalking” you mean the same thing that is meant in the RO which is no email and no posting on lipid stupidity, that’s fine. If by “stalking” you mean making fun of the count and his clan on my web site or in the comments section of other web sites, no can do.

2. I never threatened to murder Satchel Goldstein. By using the phrase “desist from any further threats” you have commited libel and dragged your sorry-ass law firm Moye/White into the show. Thanks!

3. I never threatened to sexually abuse Satchel Goldstein. By using the phrase “desist from any further threats” you have commited libel and dragged your sorry-ass law firm Moye/White into the show. Thanks!

4. Jeff made up the auntie moonbat saliva quote and posted it on his web site pretending it was from me. It was not. The fact that Jeff would add pedophilia to my ramsey shpiel where I express indifference to the demise of a toddler suggests that he has an obsession with Satchel. It makes sense that a guy who:

a. stays at home all day faux-fighting with other boyz on the web
b. calls himself count cockula
c. talks about cockslapping people who outthink and outwrite him on his pathetic excuse for a blog
d. infuriates other bloggers ()
e. makes up pedophilic quotes to try to win a fight against a superior adversary
f. is a stay at home dad responsible for a two year old boy

might be sexually abusing his son or might pose such a danger.

I actually do not believe JG is physically abusing Satchel. But I am sure that he is emotionally and intellectually abusing him by leaving such a disgusting google trail for the poor tyke to find in four or five years when he learns to surf the internet. Jeff Goldstein is about the worst daddy-o you can imagine, in terms of how proud a tyke will be when googling said daddy-o. He needs to stop the count cockula crap asap, for satchel’s sake.

MS: Based on your post this afternoon, I want to disabuse you of one notion. Your suggestion that "the legal scuffle between us began and ended this a.m." is wrong. We are exploring a variety of legal remedies for your unlawful behavior. I caution you that if you continue to post the sorts of death threats, threats of sexual abuse, rank lies, and abusive language you have to this point, you will make things much worse for yourself.

WW: I’m shaking in my boots, hombre.

Very truly yours,

Deborah Frisch, Ph.D.
Posted by Deb at August 7, 2006 07:06 AM | TrackBack
Wow, just wow. I am too stunned to comment.

Update: In comments to another post, twocow said it perfectly:
i'm very close to be awed by being able to witness what could be, quite possibly, the single biggest act of stupidity on the net since the thing was invented by al gore...all those many years ago.
Very well put, very well put indeed (tm Insty).

More from twocow:
i mean how does one type when one's jaw is laying on the keyboard?
Well, it looks a little like this:
zs tgf .;p gghv

Whaaaaa? fdhjiovc oiqml


Update II: Still reading the comments, but I thought that the following was the best advice given to Dr. Deb, "evah":
I sincerely hope this is not what you really replied to his lawyer.

"I thought that maybe if the count were a slightly honorable warrior, he’d be willing to pay up to protect his kinfolk. Clearly this is not the case, but I do not see how offering to negotiate a settlement protecting Mrs. G and Satchel from further embarrassment is extortion."

Demanding an individual to pay up in order for you stop harrassing said individual is about as clear cut an example of extortion as I could ever hope to give you. Even putting everything else aside, this one statement from you is almost enough to win a case against you for attempted extortion.

"People make offers of the form “If you don’t give me $X, I’m gonna sue you.” This is not considered extortion."

Yes, it is. If two lawyers make a settlement on behalf of their respective clients, it is with the clients' express permission, and that's ok ..or if the other party has indicated they are agreeable to such an arrangement, then it's ok too, but if you just say "give me cash or I'll sue you" then the express intention of suing that person is for personal monetory gain, not equitable settlement of a perceived injustice. You have admitted repeatedly on this weblog that you are in it for the money and media attention. You have already killed your own case. This IS legally extortion, whether you think so or not.

"I never threatened to murder Satchel Goldstein. By using the phrase “desist from any further threats” you have commited libel and dragged your sorry-ass law firm Moye/White into the show. Thanks!"

Ok here you accuse the lawyer of libel.. well you need to do some research Deb - the lawyer did not make that statement in public, you published it yourself, therefore he cannot be held libel. To have a successful case of defamation (libel or slander) the accused has to have made the defamatory statement public by his or her own actions, and furthermore, the statement has to be at least somewhat credible to those who read or hear it. For example, I could say publically that you are a rabid triple-breasted vampiric gorgon with a lust for human blood, and you couldn't sue me for defamation (well, you could try, but law wouldn't hold it up) - the reason being that such a claim is not credible. In this case the lawyer did not make any PUBLIC statement and therefore cannot be held libel when you are the one that made it public. You, on the other hand, have publically made suggestions that Mr Goldstein is a danger to his own child and have inferred very clearly that the endangerment may be of a sexual nature. This is most certainly a legally defamatory statement which you can and most likely will be prosecuted for, because that sort of statement is a credible one to a third party who have no knowledge of your or Mr Goldstein's character. Does this make it a bit clearer for you? The Ramsey reference, by the way, was considered by almost every reader but yourself as a thinly veiled threat. The reaction it precipitated clearly inferred that the 'threat' was credible. Whether you intended it or not is immaterial at ths point.

The rest of your post is unbelieveably naive in a legal sense - you again state Mr Goldstein might be sexually abusing his son or might pose such a danger, based on 'facts' that simply don't support your claim. Physical bruising or trauma, statements or social behavior by his son can be indications, but the reasons you have given are ridiculous. Look at (d) - "infuriates other bloggers" - well you've certainly made a lot of people furious with your statements - does that constitute proof that you're a pedophile? No it clearly does not, yet somehow it does when in reverse in your twisted thinking.

On a personal note, after reading the way you have treated this situation with absolutely no remorse for your actions and with utter contempt of the law, I hope Mr Goldstein's legal representation hit you with everything they have, and believe me, there's a LOT they can prosecute with - after reading this most recent post, you deserve everything that's coming to you. You are beyond contempt imho.
Posted by: freeadvice at August 7, 2006 08:19 AM
Nice!

16 Comments:

At 10:59 AM, Blogger twocow said...

"Wow, just wow. I am too stunned to comment."


join the club. i'm starting to think of it as a natural high! my brain just freezes up for a minute or two...

 
At 11:03 AM, Blogger Sinner said...

Check the update!

 
At 11:20 AM, Blogger twocow said...

lmao and shaking my head at the same time...

 
At 11:39 AM, Blogger Staci said...

This just can't be for real.

 
At 11:47 AM, Blogger twocow said...

boggles the mind. i've said wow more in the past month than before in my whole life. sounds like she has two brain cells left and they trying to find each other up there in that dark cavern of a head. absolutely fascinating!

 
At 1:26 PM, Blogger Icarus said...

Wow.

Speechless is the right response, methinks.

By the way, the motivation for Dingbat Debbie's current behavior can be summed up in two words:

Judgment proof.

Darlin' Deb has nothing. No job, no reputation, no friends, no life.

She has nothing to lose. It doesn't matter that Goldstein now has a legitimate cause of action (or three ... or four ...), because Deb is truly judgment proof.

So what does she care?

She'd even enjoy a criminal prosecution. Jail time is unlikely and would be short if it happened, and she'd enjoy every minute of it.

Deb's got nothing to live for except the conflict she's created.

She can't be touched. She's invincible, immune, and she knows it. She just doesn't care, and has nothing left that can be taken away.

Well - there is one thing. Sooner or later, people will lose interest.

When this blog shuts down, and other bloggers stop paying attention, and no one remembers her site ... well, at that point, I wouldn't sell her life insurance.

 
At 1:38 PM, Blogger lunarpuff said...

Yes to all of the above.

I'm reduced to one syllable words when reading her.

Wow. No Way. NO WAY. OMG. No, no, no.

Then I start all over with wow again.

 
At 1:42 PM, Blogger Sulla said...

batfrisch crazy. The sky's the limit.

 
At 1:48 PM, Blogger Sinner said...

Judgement proof, eh?

Now that's an interesting theory!

She prob. has no assests, true, but she has gotta make a living somehow. I hope it isn't teaching, but she's gotta get a Wal-Mart job or something, right?

I suppose she could just become a ward of the state, which would suit me but would be a waste of Jeff's hard earned cash.

Interesting...

Any lawyers out there have a comment on this?

 
At 1:59 PM, Blogger twocow said...

lunarpuff said "Wow. No Way. NO WAY. OMG. No, no, no.

Then I start all over with wow again."

lmao...me too. i say it backwards and forwards...wow.

 
At 3:15 PM, Blogger lunarpuff said...

Sinner, I keep thinking the same thing.

Of course, I don't want her teaching, but I certainly don't want her living on my tax dollars.

But that's looking mighty bleak.

Even if a potential employer doesn't google her, what about even the simplest of background checks? Would an RO show up there?

 
At 3:37 PM, Blogger Sinner said...

Maybe not the RO, but if... say... she had a wage garnishment order on her, I am pretty sure that would show up in a background check.

Employers would need to know about that before hiring, right. I would think that they would need to have some sort of system set up for that.

 
At 5:46 PM, Blogger Bilgeman said...

lunarpuff:

"Even if a potential employer doesn't google her, what about even the simplest of background checks? Would an RO show up there?"

Most jobs that are worth having, or involve ANY kind of position of trust, the applications want your criminal history.

If "Do it, Deb" doesn't show up for that hearing, I have every reasonable expectation that based on her subsequent conduct, that "Temporary" will be amended to read "Permanent"...and that means that any potential employer will scent right back up that trail forevermore.

Kinda "Denver Does Debbie", if you will.

And hell yes, the can garnish or attach any of her future income from picking green beans in the Willamette Valley.

Garnishment orders can even be enforced against a seaman's wages, and we have some VERY strong protections against anyone touching our "rice bowls"...for all kind of interesting historical reasons that I won't go into.

Regards;

 
At 6:25 PM, Blogger lunarpuff said...

bilgeman said

"Kinda "Denver Does Debbie", if you will."

Heehee

This is the t-shirt that some enterprising soul should be be selling outside the courthouse!

 
At 6:31 PM, Blogger joeschmo1of3 said...

I noticed that Jeff's lawyer apparently reads Deb's blog everyday. I can't believe that she would post all that dribble, still violate the terms of the restraining, and insult the intelligence of the lawyer. Unbelievable! This lawyer is going to go into "squash mode" just like Denny Crane said.

 
At 7:18 PM, Blogger Hawksp said...

"Of course, I don't want her teaching, but I certainly don't want her living on my tax dollars."

In the words of Judge Elihu Smails...

"Well, the world needs ditch-diggers too!"

 

Post a Comment

<< Home