When you rattle the monkey cage, the howler monkeys start howling. So I get this in my email inbox tonight where Brynaert wrote to different officials at Yale seeking their help in obtaining my true identity. Let’s fisk this sucker bit-by-bit:
Ron Brynaert ronbrynaert@yahoo.com
reply-to: Ron Brynaert
to: "AaronJW72@gmail.com" ,
"publicaffairs.law@yale.edu" ,
"patterico@gmail.com" ,
"alumni.law@yale.edu" ,
[name and email of Yale official redacted],
[name and email of Yale official redacted]
Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM
subject: Lawyer slanders using fake name
To whom it may concern,
I'm a journalist...
Really? Because these days you are coming off as mainly an internet nutjob. But oooookay...
...working on a story, and I've been menaced and harassed by anonymous trolls on the internet that have connections to conservative provocateur Andrew Breitbart.
Which is a gloriously vague statement. I mean in theory, I have connections to you, Brynaert. Indeed, in theory you can connect any single person to any other person in six moves, hence the term “six degrees of separation.” And did you know that you can do something similar in Hollywood connecting every person in “six degrees of Kevin Bacon?”
That being said if you really have been harassed or menaced, that is unfortunate.
Who can I talk to regarding Aaron Worthing, a conservative/libertarian blogger who writes outrageous things about real people while hiding behind a false identity?
Worthing admitted he used an alias last week when he "resigned" from www.patterico.com...
Actually, I thought Patrick made it pretty clear that I was being asked to leave. No resignation occurred. Not that I hold any ill will toward Patrick about it, but facts are facts. And you know, journalists are supposed to pay attention to facts.
... a blog run by Los Angeles Assistant District Attorney Patrick Frey...where he often talked about being a Yale Law School graduate.
Wait, Patrick was a Yalie? Well, no, but apparently this former editor has trouble writing clear sentences leading to pronoun confusion. "He" is supposed to be me, but it comes after mentioning Patrick.
I will apologize for the atrocious you/Yoo punnery in that post. That is admittedly a pretty horrible thing for me to have inflicted on you. I will flog myself for it, now.
Disturbingly, for the last year and a half, Worthing ran a blog called [redacted] were he asked for people to send him their real names and hometowns so that he could post provocative cartoons...
And once again, you are having trouble with, you know, facts. By your phrasing you made it sound as though I attached their names to cartoons they didn’t even draw, when I fact I asked them to submit cartoons and suggested that they do so while naming their real name and town.
...including ones that would be offensive to "all Muslims."
But only if they chose to make such art. You left out that part.
He also took cartoons from other websites with real names attached to pump up his blog...
Which he knows because I did so openly, and in part because I was afraid that Facebook would suddenly start censoring these cartoons. I had some real cause for concern on this point.
...which he used to land the co-blogging job at Patterico's blog...
Again, Mr. “Journalist” please pay attention to facts. First, I was never Patrick’s co-blogger. I was a guest blogger. Of course I guess I was sort of like a guest who came for a week but ended up sleeping on your couch for the next three months, but still a guest and like that hypothetical couch-potato I was eventually shown the door. And unlike many couch potatoes in that position, I would like to think I wasn’t a jerk about it when that time came.
Second it was not a job. It was more like unpaid volunteer work, given happily because I frankly have a weird definition of fun.
Like right now, I am having fun. Weird, huh?
...and even some articles that were published by Andrew Breitbart's websites.
He also claimed he got death threats at his blog [link omitted] and at Frey's blog [link omitted] and that he would pass them on to the FBI, but since he was using a fake name it's unlikely he is telling the truth.
Because of course they would never accept a person giving an anonymous tip...
(And those links were omitted because I don’t trust going through a proxy of his choosing.)
Worthing deleted a comment I left at his blog an hour ago, asking for his real name and the state he practices law so I could sue him for lying about me in a defamatory article...
Well, by all means, feel free to lay out precisely what I misrepresented about you in your next email to me. And I will remind you, sir, that opinions are not actionable, but frivolous attempts to suppress freedom of speech are. And actually, I still have that comment in my spam filter and we both know you never mentioned any desire to sue me. Indeed, let me quote from it:
This is a bunch of cherry-picked Alinsky bullsh*t and shame on all your buddies for not condemning you for what you did. Heroes make a stand... I don't agree with what you set out to do, but you're a coward who let others risk their lives while you took credit. This entire blogpost is spin. All you Breitbart/Patterico/PornWikileaks scoundrels do is attack people for quoting your own words. Please tell me your real name and state that you practice law in so I can report you to the Bar Association.
(curse words censored.) Notice of course he doesn’t even allege defamation or falsity at all. He just alleges that it is spin. And of course Webster’s dictionary will tell you that definition 4 b(1) of the noun “spin” means the following:
a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation presented for the purpose of influencing opinion < put the most favorable spin on the findings >
Spin, in other words, is an opinion. And the law says that spin is not actionable. So in fact you have implicitly admitted that I had made no falsehood. But you know my email address. If I have made a false statement about you I want to hear it and I will correct it as appropriate. I will even apologize for the error, however innocently made.
...and report him to the bar:
And for what, precisely? Well, you do seem to be pretty hot on me for lying about my identity, but here’s the thing. Every rule of a bar association is a limitation on freedom of speech. As such bar regulations are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling purpose and are read as such. Now I know you think it is compelling to get me back for lying (despite your deliberate attempts to deceive us demonstrating you are not really opposed to dishonesty), but the law does not. There is, simply put, no “zero lying” rule in the bar association. If there was, just about every lawyer serving in Congress would be disbarred. And since extra-marital affairs typically involve lying to your current spouse, about half the legal profession would be cleaned out by a no lying rule.
Which, I admit, isn’t a very good argument against such a rule. Throwing half of the lawyers working out of the profession might seem downright appealing in our over-lawyered society. But it does show you that they are not applying such a rule right now.
He called me a "troll" after deleting it.
Yeah, imagine that. I called a guy who actually spent a whole post investigating a commenter at a blog and promised to make a frivolous report to the bar association a troll. Of course I admit I didn’t recognize him when he posted that. You see, he wasn’t posting under his real name. He was posting under a nickname, which was ironically called “nosockz.”
Worthing wrote many, many articles at Patterico's blog accusing President Obama of being anti-Semitic...
Actually I only recall one, here; and you can decide for yourself. Patrick and I respectfully disagreed on this point. But notice Brynaert wants to persuade them to pierce my right to privacy by appealing to their presumed political leanings. Which says to me that he has a lot to learn about persuading people if he thinks such a ham-handed approach will work.
...and he has a long history of making legal arguments and attacking legal groups and pundits.
“He must be stopped before he makes legal arguments and attacks legal groups and pundits again! Huzzah!”
Since he's using Yale as his alleged alma mater, incidents like this reflect poorly on your school: In a post published on November 15, 2010 called "I Know This is Wrong, But I am Really Having a Hard Time Not Enjoying it Anyway," Worthing blogged about "Westboro Baptist @$$holes" who had their tires slashed while protesting a soldier's funeral. "Of course it is always wrong to do violence or property damage to anyone over a mere disagreement, however big a bunch of @$$holes they are, but really it couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch, right?" Worthing blogged.
So he thinks that my denouncing the Westboro Baptist Church will reflect badly on the school. Is he under the impression that the Yalies support those idiots? The Westboro idiots are the great uniters of our time, bringing together people from all over the political spectrum to declare that these people are schmucks.
Added to Worthing's post, "UPDATE/DISCLAIMER BY PATTERICO: I do not approve of criminal acts in response to speech acts, no matter how heinous the speech act in question."
Which was nothing more than Patrick making it clear that he didn’t endorse the conduct either, which was necessary because after all he has stalkers... like Brynaert.
Worthing may not be a real lawyer...
He keeps see-sawing between being sure I am a lawyer, and doubting it.
...but Frey is, and he is responsible for every word Aaron Worthing posted at his blog.
Also, Worthing gave legal advice to a person accused of cyberstalking, who was arrested shortly after.
Notice of course he doesn’t mention who this person was or who was being stalked. You see he is hoping that they conflate this with the harassment he alleges at the beginning. But Brynaert is almost certainly referring to this case, involving the alleged defamation of Brett Kimberlin, the convicted terrorist known as the Speedway Bomber. I suppose next he will assert that I have defamed bin Laden. Seriously, defamation is a cause of action for damage to reputation; does Kimberlin even have a public reputation capable of being damaged?
The accused lost a civil case but Frey and his associates have been enabling him, preparing a future blog post celebrating him, even though he faces a contempt charge for continuing to blog about the defendant and may face a criminal contempt charge for calling the judge "fatfuckface" and an ambulance chaser. The judge recused himself from the case because of the attacks.
He was sent an email which contained a death threat...
Actually, again, you are stumbling on facts. In a moment he will quote that email, and you can judge for yourself, but this is how I see it. First, he did make statement suggesting he might resort to violence, but it was unclear if he was at all serious. Second a key ingredient in any threat is that it is communicated to the target of the threat. So it is emphatically not a threat. For a guy who just whined that I had “slandered” him, he seems to get a lot of facts wrong.
Also, it’s funny , Mr. Journalist, because apparently you don’t know the definition of the word “slander” either. Slander refers to defamation that is spoken. Libel is defamation in writing. So pretending I have put to virtual paper any falsehood about you, that is at best libel. And I do expect Journalists to know that.
...and even though Deputy DA Frey and Worthing received it (Worthing was the primary recipient), only Mandy Nagy aka Liberty Chick reported it to the authorities.
I won’t confirm whether Mandy, a personal friend, did any such thing. And I certainly don’t know how he can claim to know whether I reported it or not. But I will point out that when a duty to report arises, it can be satisfied by knowing that someone else has reported it. You know, because it is silly to require a person to report something to the authorities when they already know about it.
Anyway, he continues, now quoting this email:
From: Truth Seeker
Date: Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Making progress - urgent request
To: Aaron Worthing
Cc: Liberty Chick , Andrew Breitbart , patterico@gmail.com
Hi Aaron, thanks for the response. I think the default judgement is just for the preliminary injunction of deleting my blog. I am going to file motions myself. I will try to make it down to the next court session. But this is bogus. I need to know who this sherriff is. The record is in that courthouse, not at the website you mention. Brett Kimberlin is lying. That sounds like perjury and I want his parole officers to find out if he has yet again perjured himself. And all this time Breitbart just stands on the sidelines as if I don't even exist. I'll get this done myself if possible. I need to know that sherriff's name. I'm no lawyer, but you can't make claims in court that are lies. That means Kimberlin should go back to jail if that's true. Whatever, maybe I should murder him. Maybe that will finally get me some justice. This life sucks anyway. All anyone cares about is themselves and their own money. Freedom of speech is dead in America. Thanks for nothing Breitbart.
Thanks,
Ron Brynaert
So the timeline is pretty obvious. He puts out a deeply dishonest post on his blog. Then I spank him publicly for it. And he responds... by trying to out me. It seems obvious that this is nothing more than cheap thuggery. “You humiliated me! Then I will try to expose your real identity in retaliation!” If that is not your intent, Brynaert, then why did you choose today of all days to write to Yale?
And recall from that deleted comment that he said that he didn’t agree with what I set out to do. Well, I set out to reaffirm the principle that people should not be afraid to express themselves, free of thuggish threats. And you don’t agree with that? Well, it seems less surprising by the minute. While your thuggishness this evening is certainly not of the same order as that faced by Salman Rushdie, the difference is one of degree and not kind. It’s amazing that a so-called journalist believes so little in freedom of expression.
And it I think it is telling that as of this moment that is the only response he has had. He claims I “slander[ed]” him but if that were true, why didn’t he hold that aloft as his trophy in victory over me. Imagine how great it would feel for him to be able to say “Aaron Worthing caught lying again!” And yet instead his response was to try to shut me up. It is a silent confession that I had his number.
By the way, Ron, if you really want me to stop talking about you, let me make this suggestion: leave me alone. I am unlikely ever to notice you again if you just leave me alone. And then you can go unravel your conspiracy theories on your own. I am sure the Templars are involved. Indeed, I heard that there was an ancient order of freedom fighters you might consider joining...
----------------------------------
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.
I can't wait for the full story.
ReplyDeleteParticularly on Ron and pal's continued slander of Socrates and their continued fawning over Brett.
Ron's derangement at those who criticize him is a trend for this circle of people, and sadly it probably extends beyond the strange behavior we see here.
I also just want to note that these folks are truly great at trolling. It's not just attention they want. They want to infuriate their targets (those who tell the truth about Brett seems to be the most common trait) into making mistakes.
Of course, Ron has smeared just about everyone he's come into contact with... even friends, which I guess is some kind of game theory in play. So have most of his buds. They smear at will, and yet if they also are quick to threaten to sue if 'defamed' with something accurate, such as Ron's criminal record (at least Ron claims he has one... for all I know that was BS too).
There's no point applying the notion of fairness to these people. They are just playing a game. Get a reaction, hopefully a horrible reaction, and then they use that to drum up division and fear and anger, even when what prompted the anger was far worse.
Ron knows he's just a disposable tool of provocation. I have no idea if there even is a person out there really named Ron Brynaert. There was no Larissa Alexandrova, after all.
I get the impression several of the players here are the same person, and some of the bickering between them is a show. I'd really love to know what the freaking punchline is at this point. It's been going on for quite a long time.
Yes, I will confirm, I reported it to authorities. But I will also add that I did not know the person at the time and was unsure how to interpret that email or what his situation truly was. Months later, having since gotten to know this person, and having had the opportunity to investigate thoroughly, I've come to learn that he is not a bad person at all. In fact, it's disturbing to see how some people have grossly manipulated the incident. Let's just say that there are some very talented and diabolical trolls out there who've learned how to make their victims look like the guilty ones. Imagine years of enduring the shenanigans Aaron is exposing above. The online world sometimes makes it difficult to get to the true story without stepping into the real world for facts - perhaps something Ron should try. He seems to coddle together his version of reality by cherry picking tweets and blog comments and crafting them into the narrative that suits his needs. Or more importantly, the needs of others.
ReplyDeleteApparently Ron is complaining that I am 'libeling' him for noting he has some kind of criminal record he claims was expunged.
ReplyDeleteAs I said above, I have no idea if there even is a Ron Brynaert, or which version of his claims about his criminal record are accurate.
Alicia Pain (whom I think IS Ron) left comments discussing Ron's criminal record in one of Patterico's monster threads. I actually complained about these comments to the mods, and they were quickly deleted. I then complained about the use of thug tactics against Ron, and Ron started acting insane towards me. He claims there was some kind of criminal record and that his crimes were expunged, and frankly, I have no idea if that's true. He also claims that because the court expunged his record, it's some kind of crime if I mention this event in any way. That is obviously absurd.
Ron, what crimes were you arrested for? Were you convicted? Can you prove that you are actually named Ron Brynaert? Why are bashing people for being arrested if you yourself were arrested?
Regardless, I have no idea what the truth is about this character. I do know that whoever is commenting as Ron is in fact a criminal because I've seen this person threaten people with violence and threaten their families with violence. Personally, I have a hard time believing anyone would do that by their true name, but maybe this guy is that crazy.
Anyway, Ron promised to sue me quite a while ago, and apparently he's mad again, which is great... my angering a violent, racist slimeball like Ron gives me a warm feeling inside. I wanted to share my basis for my comments, which are Ron's own claims that he has an expunged criminal record. If this is not true, then Ron shouldn't have claimed it was.
Ron, the "journalist", is still hanging onto Weinergate for dear life, and even calls the entity known as "Dan Wolfe" his source.
ReplyDeleteYet, when he doesn't get the info he wants, he immediately accuses one of being a thug, a goon, stalker, or brings up my past by posting it everywhere.
But this isn't the first time he has emailed or tweeted someone's boss or colleague or friends. He seems to be proud of being a troublemaker.
Look at his timeline. He finds a victim and tweets like mad for a few days, tires of that person, and goes onto a new target.
And, I'm sure he and his thug buddies will have a field day with me today and tonite as they all commiserate together. I look forward to it now.
Bravo, Ron, for wasting so many people's time.
Funny that even Raw Story wont even take your calls.
Wait, Dan Wolfe just called. He said that there is going to be a scandal with the downed drone in Iran. Get hopping buddy
If someone slanders someone using voice-to-text software, does constitute libel? Or would the use of text-to-speech software convert libel to slander? Ah, what a wondrous world with computers in it!
ReplyDeleteI think it's libel in both those cases.
ReplyDeleteI know you were just kidding, though.
Here's an interesting civ pro question: if some state judge in New York ordered that some aspect of Ron's record be deleted, does that judge have any jurisdiction over me in any way (I'm not in New York)?
OK... that's actually not very interesting. And to be honest, I doubt his order would have any impact on me unless I were actually in his courtroom and openly contemptuous, or if I were processing records for New York. But I don't know, or care, as I am not under their jurisdiction. Oh, and I have a fundamental, constitutional right to criticize Ron and his political thuggery, as well as the thuggery of 'Alicia Pain,' whether these are the same people in some bizarre ruse, or separate thugs.
I have been exchanging emails with Ron and I will share to a degree some additional context. He states that his "record" consisted of being arrested once. He was not convicted and to hear it told, it was kind of a bullsh-t situation. Basically as he tells it, a member of his family had been abducted at a club, and he attempted to get management to help him locate this family member. They refused and he called the police and while the police was dragging their heels, he yelled at them and was arrested for that. If you credit his account, even if he was a little in the wrong (a big if), I don't think it does any discredit to his character. How calm would you be if a family member is missing? How patient would you be?
ReplyDeleteAnd i say that bluntly leaving out a lot of details out of respect for the primary victim of this crime. From his account it fairly sounds like a nightmare.
He further asserts later that the judge agreed to expunge his arrest from his record. So as far as the law is concerned, it didn't actually happen.
I will say that he has submitted to me no objective evidence to support this story, so we only have his veracity to go on. For what it is worth, for all the bad feelings I have had with him, and the deliberate deception I have accused him of, I actually believe him on this one. You can take that for what its worth.
"How calm would you be if a family member is missing? How patient would you be?"
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is an entire couple a threads at Patrick's blog where I explain exactly how I would act in such a case.
While "calm" might possibly be an accurate description, one certainly would never call it "nice".
Aaron, that is an incredible story. I mean that literally. Knowing, as I do, that Ron lies like you or I breath, and that he has a story where he explains an arrest with a tale about how he is the oppressed hero, I flatly do not believe a word of it.
ReplyDeleteAll I know is that apparently Ron claimed he was arrested, and then he bashes someone else for being arrested. He claims he wasn't convicted, and yet he's bashing someone who also hasn't been convicted. He claims he was frustrated by slow justice, yet he's bashing someone who was being screwed by a con artist and violent felon (whom Ron loves to defend).
In short, Ron is at best a total hypocrite.
But I agree, if Ron is telling the truth (for once) it does not harm his reputation for this to be mentioned. But to be blunt, it wouldn't harm his reputation if he were caught doing something awful, as that is the reputation Ron rightly has.
And the bottom line for me is that I will mention Ron's criminal record if I feel like it, and I personally vouch that Ron is a criminal for, at minimum: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/204/ronbrynaert.jpg/ where he threatened a man and his family.
And while I cannot vouch for worse, I believe Ron has done worse.
Also, if Ron is telling the truth that this record was expunged, how did Alicia Pain know about it?
ReplyDeleteIf it so happens that this story lionizes Ron, why did Alicia Pain mention it?
And why did Ron turn from friend to foe like flipping a light switch when I complained about Alicia posting Ron's criminal record?
This is pretty weak, and circumstantial anyway, but I think Alicia knew about Ron's little adventure because Alicia was Ron's sock and this is some kind of show.
Ron *is* a criminal. Ron claims he isn't a criminal if he isn't convicted, but this is not true. He's a criminal if he breaks the law.
I think this: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/ronbrynaert2.jpg/ is criminal behavior.
I think this: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/225/ronbrynaert3.jpg/ is both criminal behavior and Ron smearing Patterico with lies.
Not that anyone is surprised to learn that Ron told lies about someone. That's something Ron does several times a day. For him to now scream and whine and cry and moan that he is upset about what someone said about him is very amusing.
Anyway, all I know is that Ron admits he was arrested for being drunk and yelling in a public place, and that Ron, a pathological liar, was actually rescuing someone at this time. Ron then demands I accept his word, even though Ron knows he has absolutely the worst credibility imaginable.
"Anyway, all I know is that Ron admits he was arrested for being drunk and yelling in a public place, and that Ron, a pathological liar, was actually rescuing someone at this time."
ReplyDeleteOops. There's a type. All I know is that Ron, a pathological liar, claims he was rescuing someone. Now, what would you expect Ron to do if faced with a record of being arrested? Personally, I would expect him to spin an emotional tale where everyone but Ron is evil, and Ron is the hero.
Regardless, if you don't want to be called a criminal, Ron, you shouldn't commit crimes. Which you did (id).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSoc
ReplyDeleteI have removed your comment, because frankly I know you presently have some kind of injunction related to all of this, and i want to avoid any violation of it. If you could do me a favor and forward a copy of the injunction, I will certainly let you post if it is in obedience to the injunction. i am sure that is annoying, but i have to protect myself from liability in that mess you are dealing with.
Then delete me completely, like I was never here. That's rubbish moderating. There's no injunction against me posting. I thought you were an attorney.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the injunction covers or doesn't. I don't know anything about it. I have, however, seen injunctions that cover exactly that in cases like this.
ReplyDelete