It’s another episode of “As the Right Wing Turns”, gentle readers. This episode features Patterico aka John Patrick Frey, who is about to face Nadia Naffe in court on Thursday over her lawsuit concerning Frey’s conduct with regard to her personal information.
Frey, who claims he doesn’t act in any “official capacity” when he blogs, forgets that claim when it comes to being the attack dog to protect Islamophobes who outright call for the death of all Muslims. Patterico whines:
Kimberlin and his supporters — including Neal Rauhauser and Bill Schmalfeldt — have badly harassed Kimberlin’s critics. After I wrote about Kimberlin’s past in October 2010, Kimberlin and his supporters launched a harassment campaign against me and other critics of Kimberlin’s, including: harassment of wives and family members; publication of home addresses and pictures of people’s homes; frivolous workplace complaints; the filing or threatening of frivolous lawsuits; frivolous applications for restraining orders; outing people’s identities; whisper campaigns; frivolous claims and reports to law enforcement of criminal wrongdoing; frivolous State Bar complaints or threats to file State Bar complaints; publication of a photo of a nude man that was falsely claimed to be a photo of the victim; defamation; daily abusive name-calling; and other harassment.
Why yes, Mr. Deputy District Attorney, that “bad harassment” has been so bloody awful that every single attempt on the part of you and your compatriots to get the courts to recognize it has been summarily denied. Awful, awful harassment indeed. But enough about you. Let’s talk about your conduct. Particularly your online conduct. There’s a pattern there, one we believe investigators in the District Attorney’s office should know about.
On April 18th, John Patrick Frey will have to appear before a judge and defend his indefensible abuse of power with regard to how he bullied Nadia Naffe. Please read the paragraph we quoted above once again. It’s quite official-sounding, isn’t it? Almost sounds like a prosecutor’s argument. According to Naffe’s complaint, Frey demonstrates a pattern of conduct of using his official position to intimidate others and elevate himself because of his official standing. One might even see that in tonight’s post, where he offers his “services” to Erik Rush. We quote:
That’s five people who have now been SWATted who were either critics of Brett Kimberlin, or did something to upset an associate or friend of his.
Mmmmhmmm. Erik Rush wasn’t SWATted at all, but we will leave that aside for now. He goes on:
None of this is an accusation of any sort. I don’t know who is responsible for the SWATting of Erik Rush, or any other SWATtings, with certainty. However, I think the investigators on Rush’s case should be aware of the above facts. I will be sending him a link to this post, and will be happy to speak to him or his investigators further at any time.
We’re sure Frey wasn’t accusing Nadia Naffe of lying about James O’Keefe and wasn’t accusing her of anything when he posted a deposition he obtained and posted online. No, no, just a concerned citizen. Here’s what Naffe thinks about what he did, according to her complaint against Frey:
The inquiry into whether an official is acting under color of state law “‘turns on the nature and circumstance of the officer’s conduct and the relationship of that conduct to the performance of his official duties.’” Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2006), quoting Martinez v. Colon, 54 F.3d 980, 986 (1st Cir.1995). An official acts under color of state law when “he abuses the position given to him by the State.” Atkins, 487 U.S. at 50. In Anderson v. Warner, the Ninth Circuit set forth a three part test to determine whether a § 1983 defendant is acting under color of state law:
First, the defendant’s action must have been performed while the officer is acting, purporting, or pretending to act in the performance of his or her official duties. Second, the officer’s pretense of acting in the performance of his duties must have had the purpose and effect of influencing the behavior of others. Third, the challenged conduct must be related in some meaningful way either to the officer’s governmental status or to the performance of his duties.
Three tests, all relating to conduct. Now let’s have a look at the conduct she alleges:
Through his own blog posts, Defendant Frey made clear that “Patterico’s Pontifications” (“Patterico”) was the product of a Deputy District Attorney. FAC ¶ 10. In fact, Frey explicitly acknowledged that “Patterico’s Pontifications” was linked to his position as a Deputy District Attorney. Id. ¶10(n). In a September 9, 2009 blog post entitled “Patterico Banned at the L.A. Times???,” Frey wrote “[a]re they banning all Deputy District Attorneys? Or just the ones that make them look like fools on a daily basis?” Id. (emphasis added). Frey’s own words indicate that Patterico is an expressive outlet for Frey’s official work as a Deputy District Attorney and shows that Frey perceived any purported ban on Patterico to also be an attack on Frey’s position as Deputy District Attorney. And based on Frey’s repeated reference to his position as a prosecutor, this is precisely how other media outlets viewed “Patterico’s Pontifications.” Id. ¶15. Additionally, Frey repeatedly invoked his position as a prosecutor to lend substance and weight to his opinions.
Patterico has a long running history and visible web presence as the work product of a Deputy District Attorney. Frey simultaneously disclaims his position as a Deputy District Attorney to avoid liability and invokes it to seek credibility and issue threats of criminal investigation. Against this backdrop, Defendant Frey issued statements to Ms. Naffe, which a reasonable person could infer were threats to investigate and prosecute or to influence others prosecutors (including federal prosecutors) to do so. Frey only uttered such threats to Ms. Naffe after she informed Frey that she would report him to the District Attorney’s Office and the State Bar.
Because Frey’s online persona, found through “Patterico’s Pontifications” and on Twitter with @patterico, was a digital extension of his real life role as Deputy District Attorney, Frey acted under color of state law when he threatened to investigate Ms. Naffe for criminal misconduct and then retaliated against when he published her Social Security number and other private data on his blog.
And once again, that same pattern of conduct exists with respect to his “offer” to Erik Rush to speak to investigators “any time” about people who have absolutely no connection to recent events in Boston or near Rush’s residence. Despite Frey’s protestations in his response to Naffe’s complaint about how prosecutors do not conduct their business online, it is unrealistic to believe that his position as prosecutor has no bearing on his influence on others when interacting online. Would a district court judge be permitted to opine online in such a way, while informing observers that he was, in fact, a district court judge? No. That would violate the code of judicial conduct. Frey’s position as Deputy District Attorney is one he touts as a way to wield wider and deeper influence and trust with those who interact with him.
We at BreitbartUnmasked wonder why, in his hysteria over the SWATting that wasn’t anything of the kind, Mr. Frey neglected to mention the closure of the Carroll County Courthouse on the very day nuisance complaints against Neal Rauhauser, Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt were to be dismissed. Would it have proven contradictory to his online prosecution of Kimberlin, Schmalfeldt and Rauhauser? We believe so, yes.
Sheriff’s officials said Circuit Court officials got an anonymous phone call around 8:30 a.m. claiming that an explosive device had been left in one of the court buildings. Courthouse officials said the threat was not specific.
What interesting timing. Look at the scheduled time for the hearing when the dismissal was to have taken place:
Cancelled due to bomb threat
Where is Patterico’s outrage? Why isn’t he calling the tip line and sharing all of his information with them? It was, after all, a bomb threat. This particular bomb threat, however, didn’t fit Frey’s case before his audience. Why would Brett Kimberlin shut down a courthouse when he was about to have cases dismissed in that very courthouse? Of course he wouldn’t. It’s not in his self-interest, nor is it John Patrick Frey’s interest to mention the coincidental timing of a very serious incident.
Please note: We aren’t accusing anyone related to the case scheduled on Tuesday of calling in the threat, and we’re quite certain an investigation will turn up the culprit. We simply find it fascinating that John Patrick Frey is quick to invoke Brett Kimberlin’s name when he can associate him with a smear and a bomb, but not quite so fast to mention situations that contradict his prosecutorial arguments against Kimberlin, et al.
We wish Nadia Naffe luck on Thursday as she stands up to the bully who robbed her of over one year of her life in order to protect a lying weasel who actually should be prosecuted instead of held up as some kind of hero.