Brendolina is back with a whole new flood of vitirol against you know who.
After enduring another of her conspiracy laden emails, stemming from Monday’s post, I warned her that
BTW, any further emails to me will be, from this point on, available for my use at my site
I figured that since she probably wouldn’t want anyone and everyone to see her acting as stupid as she does privately, and letting her know that any correspondence I received from her would be considered by me as agreed upon permittible for posting here, she would shut the hell up and leave me alone.
I was wrong.
She waited a day to run it through her thought synapses, if she does actually have thought synapses, and then fired off yet another email that repeated the same theme as her comment over last weekend.
(1) Â You don’t have the courage to register your little hate blog under your
own name, hiding behind the name of another man.(2) You provided false information to your ISP when you renewed your
registration.(3) You know that both your ISP and InterNIC has incorrect information.
(4) Â You are knowingly chosen to continue in this fraud by refusing to
correct (1)-(3).
She has gotten it down four points from the previous eight. I’m thinking this must be the Cliff Notes version. She goes on to threaten our good man RD with ‘Defaming her’ by his suggesting that I file stalker charges against her.
You might ask your 25-year-old police officer if threatening to file
criminal charges against someone is defamatory. Â Assuming that he exists,
you will find that it is. Â Now, I’m not you (thank the Good Lord), but if I
were, I would carefully consider your threat to post any information about
me in any public forum.
Of course, she doesn’t consider threatening to report me to the internet police, publically, on my own website, as ‘Defamitory’. Or maybe she forgot about that? I’m also certain that she does not have even middle school level reading comprehension skills. Otherwise, she would have ascertained that our good man RD is a 25yr VETERAN police officer, not a “25-year-old police officer”.
But hey, she probably is a product of the Seattle Public School system.
Her next paragraph is an attempt to frighten me into not publishing this email.
You might also carefully consider the copyright violation that will occur if
you publish or otherwise use any of my writing without my express written
permission. Â You have not received it.Â
Unfortunately for her, when I warned her that I would publish her this email if she ever sent it, her reply was, in effect, an agreement from her that it was alright to do so. She knew that it would be published before she even started typing.
And yet she did so.
After that bit, it was just random insults which didn’t even have the well though out analogical processes that a Klueless Kos Kid has. Which is strange, since you’d figure that because she is using one of the Kos Kids’ favorite tactics, she’d also have read about how to make an insulting analogy.
And on it goes. My reply to her is below the fold. Yes, it is a bit long winded, but I wanted to make sure I had everything in there. Please make a special note of the last paragraph. It was bolded in the email as well, to make sure that she saw it.
I found something at Captain’s Quarters this morning (I took most of yesterday off from the internet) that I’m pretty sure Brendolina has never read, and will much less will ever sign, The Online Integrity Statement of Principles, which came out just this Tuesday. How timely.
We’ll just post the first statement.
#1. Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private persons’ professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.
But then again, I’ve never said Brendolina was reasonable. She is, as all saw by her comments over last weekend, a leftist who believes that if her ideas are challenged, she needs to threaten said challenger until that person lets her win an argument.
you publish or otherwise use any of my writing without my express written
permission. Â You have not received it.”
own name, hiding behind the name of another man.”
registration.”
“The GAO report discovered similar results during the course of its research. According to the report, it submitted 45 error reports to ICANN for further investigation — 33 were not corrected, 11 were updated and the last was pending deletion.”
“If you ever email me again, I will post it on my site. Also, if you email me again, I will most likely not respond, and will instead call my local police agency to file a harrassment report and, most likely, a legal restraining/no contact order.”
Lovely.
Careful now…you may end up being reported to the appropriate American and Canadian authorities for once having driven with your hands outside of the ten and two postitions of your steering wheel. You are only allowed a variance in hand position if you are driving a Prius. Or turning LEFT.
I had a dim wit like this once just go completely bonkers that I don’t identify myself on my blog. Because I didn’t, she basically said my views didn’t count. What a load of crap.
My guess is the stalker has a little OCD problem. (Obsessive compulsive disorder).
Perfect. Nicely done AK.
Brendolina,
LOG OFF THE COMPUTER AND GET A (FUCKING) LIFE.
Oh yeah, and feel free to publish that on your website, but only if you actually take the advice. Publishing that advice on your website means you will take it. You have an unhealthy obsession with what people say online, while outside your field of view of the computer screen there are beautiful and wonderful things happening which you can participate in if you LOG OFF AND GET A (FUCKING) LIFE. But if you want to continue and be angry at what people say online, one day a county coroner will be only doing his/her job when they pick your lifeless corpse off the chair in front of your computer because you had a fatal coronary at what someone posted on their website. So please, for your own cardiovascular health, LOG OFF AND GET A (FUCKING) LIFE.
“Brendolina”:
As a matter of fact, police officers “threaten” lawbreakers with the filing of charges all the time.
It’s required practice to tell someone that you suspect them before you actually file the charges.
The Constitution also requires that persons be advised of the charges pending against them.
I can’t make this any plainer, you HAVE committed acts which would lead a law enforcement officer to reasonably believe that you have violated the Stalking laws. That is called Probable Cause, and any other police officer getting the story from the host of this site would believe that also.
For your information, Probable Cause is cumulative. It is sometimes called PROOF OF A CRIMINAL CHARGE. In this instance, every time you attempt to delve into the private life of the host (and comment on your attempts later), you are demonstrating yet another violation of the stalking laws (and confessing to them publicly).
At this point, getting a stalking order against you would be very easy for the host, as would proving the charges for the District Attorney. Political affiliation means nothing in the defense of criminal charges.
It’s time for you to consult a criminal defense attorney of your choice, or you can wait to have a Public Defender appointed to advise you of your criminal defense options if you are arrested or served with a Stalking Order, but Public Defenders don’t do as good work, generally, so you should hire a GOOD attorney at this point, Madam.
AK:
My professional awareness tells me that Brendolina is probably not acting alone here, but, given her evident lack of education, but also her persistence in harassing contact, has probably shared her hate with someone else who is assisting her.
Look both ways before crossing the street, sir. Carry that extra clip. You never know how many baddies will come at you at once (since most of them lack the courage to come at you alone).
BTW, for personal safety, I would suggest removing pictures of your residence and vehicles from your site. With both posted, positive identification of your abode is possible, even for a dimwit like Brendolina.
Thankee for the advice about the pics of the abode and the transportation.
I will not, however, refrain from doing the things I would normally do anyway. The wife is fully aware of the happenings with Brendolina, and will do just fine by herself.
As for Brendolina’s not working alone, I have positively identified that she is in cahoots with the guy who tried this last fall.
If you remember, not only did he make the same threats to report me to the US and Canuck internet police, but in his introduction, he made physical threats.
I have pulled up his past comments/emails as well and am keeping copies of those and Brendolina’s in the same folder.
I had no idea trolls had morhped into this deranged version of a stalker. To disagree, even insult is one thing, making these kinds of threats is quite another. I have to agree with some of the comments that this person is at the very least,.. disturbed.
saintknowitall said it best I think, Obsessive compulsive disorder just about covers it.
You have now violated my copyright that I held in my private emails to you, an exchange that YOU started. As you have acknowledged, you know that you didn’t have my permission BEFORE you published this private email. You have thereby opened yourself to a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
And just for the record, I spelled “defamation” correctly.
Is there some reason that ou need the help of other people to fight your battles?
ahem,…
“You have now violated my copyright that I held in my private emails to you, an exchange that YOU started. As you have acknowledged, you know that you didn’t have my permission BEFORE you published this private email. You have thereby opened yourself to a lawsuit for copyright infringement.”
What does the law say?
“What is “fair use†of Copyrighted material?
Under U.S. Copyright law, “fair use†of a copyrighted work is allowed for the limited purposes of non-commercial comment, criticism, news reporting, scholarship, classroom use, or research and is not an infringement of copyright. Any other use is a violation of U.S. Copyright laws.”
http://www.gocopyright.com/guide.htm#13
Not only does this fairly fall into the “fair use” clause, but I could find no statement here saying that you could copyright a private correspondence. And, to be copyrighted a registration fee has to be paid to the federal government. Just calling it copyrighted isn’t enough. Besides, correspondence doesn’t seem to be covered here unless it was previously published elsewhere, which would destroy any claim that it was “private”. Even if it was published and copyrighted, again, posting it for criticism is completely legal according to the federal government.
I’m no lawyer, but it’s pretty cut and dried. You really shouldn’t write something and send it out to someone whom you are attacking with any expectation that it should remain a private. If you send a letter to the editor of a paper that you can’t stand…
Would you be surprised when they print it to rebutt it?