Partly Response-ish

[heidi]

I admit that I haven't read all of the posts from Micheka aka Laura aka Purple Popple aka Partly Bouncy, but I've read enough to know that people are going to have questions.

But more than that, it seems from Michela's account that various users of the Sugarquill and Gryffindor Tower forums/sites have been hearing lies about me for years. There's things in Michela's account which are completely fiction. I mean, what can one possibly say about

> It is also about this time, in the spring of 2002,
> unsubstantiated rumors circulated saying that Heidi Tandy was going after
> an adult woman who had left Cassandra Claire negative feedback. Along
> with Stacey and with Cassandra Claire's involvement in helping with IP
> information, they tracked down the woman and her employer. Supposedly,
> one of them contacted the employer and informed the employer of the
> woman's fannish activities. This led to the woman being fired. This story
> cannot be verified and the truthfulness of it is almost not important.
> What is important is that people heard this story and believed it to be
> true. The story helped stem a great deal of criticism regarding Heidi and
> Cassandra Claire's actions out of fear that the duo would do similar
> things to the unfortunate person who crossed them.

...except that it's entirely fictional. Someone created a story, perhaps to cause other people to fear me, and to fear Cassie. That's all it is - a story - the same kind of story that parents tell their kids to keep them from going into the candy store across the street. Urban legend, whatever you want to call it, it's a lie.*

So if you've been told of something evil, nefarious, underhanded, malicious or bad that I've done - ask me if it's true, and I'll let you know. But since tomorrow night marks the start of Yom Kippur, and thus I'm going to be mostly-offline through Monday night, I can't answer everything - but I'll answer any questions people have about any contents of her posts or any comments made on B_P before things were deleted there, or on her own JF account. Anon commenting will be on through Sunday and again on Tuesday, and IP logging will be off at the same times. If I can't do all the answering, I'll finish on Tuesday and afterwards.

But I do want to deal with a few things sooner than later, because they're attacks on my professionalism and on me as a lawyer.

By this time, Heidi was posting to fan fiction mailing lists from an
e-mail address that included information regarding the law firm she
was working for. The signature from that e-mail address added to every
post as a text file specified that the advice offered in it should not
be considered as legal advice.

I did use my blackberry on occasion to post to various private (ie ungoogleable archives that are not accessable by members of the public unless they join them) Yahoogroups. This was actually allowed under our internet usage policy - we could use our blackberries for occasional personal usage - the same way that people in many offices can use their office phones for occasional personal usage, like to make a lunch date with a friend or check in to make sure the kids have made it home from school.

I'll defer to Rebcca Tushnet's law journal article regarding where I based some of my feelings in 2000 and 2001 regarding disclaimers, and note that I don't think that there was a fandom-standard for disclaimers at that time, in any way, especially because "senior" fanfiction people like Cairnsy at ffn did not have any disclaimers on
their stories, not even of the HP characters and content. But YMMV and reasonable minds may differ.

I don't know where she's getting hte idea that Sinead stalked Cassie but on the matter of sinead, I'll defer to kelleyscorpio's post to Michela on B_P back in June - Kelley, I know you sent me the link this week and that was the first time I'd seen it, but I can't find the url now - let me know so I can edit it into this if that's ok?

I've seen that people are wondering why I discussed fannish things at work.

It's a long story... but a nice one.

My first month at Carlton Fields was in October of 2000. I was in a "satellite" office with attorneys from a law firm that had been a small and independent firm for over a dozen years, and had just merged into CF. At said small firm, there was a firmwide tradition of dressing up for Halloween, and in 2000, my boss, and at least one other attorney, and IIRC a paralegal, showed up in full Star Trek regalia. Boss told me that day that he was a Trekker, and it was then that I first saw his Klingon dictionary on his bookcase. I admitted to my Harry Potter and Crowded House fannishness (I used to mod the frenz.com forums with aswas) and he promised me a day off to go see the film the day it opened the following year, noting that he always took the morning off when a Trek film opened.

I felt comfortable being a fan because I knew I was around other people who had attended cons, who brought their fannishness into the workplace to some degree, and who didn't blink at the pre-release
Sorcerer's Stone poster I had framed on the wall.

I know I'm lucky to have had these experiences, but I am not the only one. I know of lawyers who have served as counsel to fandom groups, with the knowledge and support of their firms - and they sometimes even get pro bono credit for it. I know accountants who've done the same. And I personally think it's terrific.

I was not fired from Carlton Fields in November of 2001 because of posts I made online in June of 2001. No law firm would ever wait nearly six months to fire someone for violating firm ethics rules or guidelines. Too much liability risk. I left Carlton Fields, along with the other attorneys in my department, when the firm disolved the San Jose office and the entire Internet Law department when we just didn't have enough business after the death of the department's co-head, Keith Stephens, the previous spring, only six months after the department had started. I left on good terms with everyone and have lunched, dined and hung
out with former colleagues since.

I hope this clarifies a few things, and I'm off to re-allow anon comments and turn off the IP logging.

ETA: Anons are unscreened again.

Comments

[titti]

> What is important is that people heard this story and believed it to be
> true. The story helped stem a great deal of criticism regarding Heidi and
> Cassandra Claire's actions out of fear that the duo would do similar
> things to the unfortunate person who crossed them.

See, I agree with the first part, that it was important, but not with her conclusion. If anything it shows that you can't trust every story you read on the internet.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

No, you can't - look at the kitten bonsais! But there's no Snopes for fandom...

[photosinensis.livejournal.com]

I've always thought that the idea of a Grand Unified Fandom Conspiracy theory was amusing. To see it posted as the absolute truth, however, just takes the joke a bit too far.

Simply put, I have a hard time believing a cabal of two that doesn't include sockpuppets.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

I am amazed how little people understand despite reading the words right in front of them. It didn't seem odd to anyone that she justified her dislike for you by posting a rumor because it's a given in the minds of some people who then spread it? Gee, been on the internet long folks?

Actually, while not being that much interested in internet wanks, I have wondered why you weren't defending yourself as much a I might have. I realize it's a waste of time with most of these people to even try to explain things to them. Nuance and facts have no place in their world.

I did read someone's comments awhile back about how it doesn't help to have your friends defend you in these situations. There is a point to that. It's probably best to explain your side and they'll either believe it not. You don't have to convince some at all. You'll never convince some. It's those that have no stake in these type of events that might actually take the time to listen and could possibly be persuaded to see your side.

However, they also shouldn't assume that lies and insults, as opposed to actually stating facts, will fly. This ain't B_P.

*That was as polite as I could write that* ;)

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

The reason I haven't been defending myself this summer as things have been posted attacking me has been, in large part, because I wasn't around for a really long time. When the msscribe stuff was heating up, I was off to Maine for a bar mitzvah and from that day through the first week of August, I was traveling for all but 10 days. I couldn't keep up with reading or with responding.
I'd planned to catch up when I got back in August, but then Brian - my sister's husband - had a seizure and heard attack on July 31 - the same day we flew home from LA. The next night I went back to LA, and he died two days later, so the weeks after that were spent at the funeral, sitting shivah, and helping my sister pick up the pieces of her life. When she went back to LA a week ago to pack to move, a window opened in my life for the first time since early June. Liz comes back in a week and I don't know what will happen then in terms of time, but at least I'll be "local" more than I was in june/july.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

In a psychological way, it was a method of controlling the information release and response. If you asked me about it, you'd be banned for life from Bad Penny. What a way to make sure that anyone who wanted to remain a member of Bad Penny couldn't ask me or anyone else mentioned in there, from folk to praetorianguard to Sinead or bookshop about anything in there.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Well, it's her unique use of dramatic keywords she seems to like in meanings unrelated to what, actually, most dictionaries give them. There's "stalking" and there's "PR" and there's "accepted norm" and there's...

[kelleyscorpio.livejournal.com]

I don't know where she's getting hte idea that Sinead stalked Cassie but on the matter of sinead, I'll defer to [info]kelleyscorpio's post to Michela on B_P back in June - Kelley, I know you sent me the link this week and that was the first time I'd seen it, but I can't find the url now - let me know so I can edit it into this if that's ok?

Sure, it's right here:
http://www.journalfen.net/community/bad_penny/1074.html?thread=10546#t10546

I made a sort of follow-up post with more specific info in Part ... 4, I think, so a bit bummed that comments are gone. I have the majority of it, though, so will find that and post it, too.

More Sinead info

[kelleyscorpio.livejournal.com]

Michela in pt 4:
"At the same time that the Jeff situation was going down, there was another alleged stalker incident. This involved a university student named Sinead. Cassandra Claire, Heidi and Stacey were accusing Sinead and her boyfriend, Dai, of hacking into Yahoo accounts of HPforGrownUps and John Walton in November 2001."

"On December 15, 2001, John Walton's yahoo account was alleged cracked by Sinead or Dai."

Two issues with this paragraph: I don't know the timeline of Jeff's stalking and harrassment of Cassie, but for sake of accuracy, Sinead and Dai's hacking of John's account was after, i.e., not November, but mid-December, as you say below in the second remark.

My second issue is that the characterization is very misleading. Stating that Cassie, Heidi and Stacey were "accusing" Sinead and Dai of this makes it sound, to me, as though they were making unfair and baseless accusations for whatever reasons of their own. In truth, they were behaving towards Sinead, speaking to her, in a manner of full conviction that she did indeed, along with her boyfriend, hack into John's account. And the fundamental reason they behaved this way was based on Sinead's AIM confession to me that she and Dai *did* hack John's account. This confession tallied perfectly with independent IP evidence, so on strength of these, many of us are fully and firmly convinced of what Sinead and Dai did.

So I will say again that they were not randomly 'accusing' her for no good reason, picking on her, being mean bullies for kicks, etc. They were angry at her for what she had done, what she herself said she had done.

I've done some checking, and here's some further information:

If you recall in my account of the Sinead/HPfGU events, I mentioned that John's hacker had sent a 'tee-hee, gotcha' type of email back to John, basically flaunting that they'd been able to access his account. Also I'd said that because the situation with Cassie being harrassed and stalked was so recent, folks trying to learn who'd hacked John were making an FA/fic connection to those events. Well, I've found the text of the 'gotcha' email (the email was dated Dec 16, 2001, as John was in Scotland at the time), and see that there was even stronger reason to connect John's hacker to the situation with Cassie. The first line of this email is removed as it explicitly states John's personal info that Sinead and Dai used to break into his account; that is all that's been removed, though:

---
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 13:27:18 -0800 (PST)
From: John Walton <johnwaltonvu@...>
Subject: you
To: john@...

I thoroughly enjoyed looking at the inner sancdom of the fictionalley
mods. I was also amused by the ease by which I gained access.
love
bunny
---

Sidenote -- While I don't *know* whether she read mod discussions at FA, by her own statements made directly to me, and her statements made on the HPfGU OTC list, she *did* read HPfGU mods' discussions, so I'm guessing she did indeed read FA discussions as well.

Kelley's chat with Sinead, pt 1

[kelleyscorpio.livejournal.com]

Excerpts from my chat with Sinead; I'm dana73w, she's LucyYDesi. This chat occurred on AIM, Saturday, 16 Feb 2002. Times shown are US Central. Again, these are just excerpts, but this is probably about 90% of the chat that was specifically about the hacking; some lines that are irrelevant have been left out, but these are the highlights. (When I posted this I'd added some remarks to this para about how this is the chat Sinead said on the Writer's U board that I fabricated, plus that this chat was far longer as S had told me a number of personal things and I edited all that out, leaving just the stuff about the hacking. No one but she and I ever saw the personal stuff, and I no longer have it.)

dana73w (5:49:00 PM): Can I ask, why not just send the letter to Penny and/or the Mods in the first place?
LucyYDesi (5:49:19 PM): I was not thinking... I know ... it was dumb
dana73w (5:49:56 PM): How did you know that "E.D." was being
considered as an elf?
LucyYDesi (5:50:23 PM): Um... that's not really my position to tell
dana73w (5:50:34 PM): Why's that?
LucyYDesi (5:50:45 PM): I really don't want anyone to get arrested or get into big trouble
dana73w (5:51:11 PM): What? Arrested? What do you mean?
LucyYDesi (5:51:44 PM): Dai was the one that hacked into John's
profile a while back and I read into the boards using John's name.. It was harmless.. I told him to give it back because I felt bad reading the private boards
LucyYDesi (5:51:59 PM): don't tell anyone please
dana73w (5:52:10 PM): Oh, I see. The Mods list you mean?
LucyYDesi (5:52:14 PM): yes
LucyYDesi (5:52:22 PM): Please don't tell anyone, Kelley
LucyYDesi (5:52:31 PM): he was just having a bit of fun
LucyYDesi (5:52:41 PM): we didn't do anything bad with John's name
dana73w (5:53:08 PM): Oh, okay. We couldn't figure that out. We were concerned that E.D. would be hurt about the not being an elf due to her post part.
LucyYDesi (5:54:18 PM): we weren't the stalker like John said in chat

Sinead chat, pt 2

[kelleyscorpio.livejournal.com]

LucyYDesi (5:55:01 PM): when he gave it back (I was out to dinner)
LucyYDesi (5:55:10 PM): I heard pandemoneum erupted
dana73w (5:55:34 PM): Well, of course there was a lot of concern.
LucyYDesi (5:56:08 PM): John made a pretty big deal out of it and
everyone rushed to change their secret question
LucyYDesi (5:56:37 PM): I didn't change my secret question because I have no idea what my secret question's answer is
LucyYDesi (5:56:53 PM): it's soooo obscure I forgot what the answer was
LucyYDesi (5:57:10 PM): so I'm being careful not to forget my password at all lol
dana73w (5:57:16 PM): John did say on the mods list that his account had had the password changed or something. He did say hacker, but not knowing who it was or why they would be interested in his account, so didn't know what to make of it. Oh, what was the question?
LucyYDesi (5:57:21 PM): therapy
LucyYDesi (5:57:24 PM): that's what it is
LucyYDesi (5:57:28 PM): I have no idea what the answer is
dana73w (5:57:52 PM): Ah! Hope you don't need to ever use it, haha...
LucyYDesi (5:59:16 PM): I've tried to answer it
LucyYDesi (5:59:41 PM): John's was _____________? [I've left this out, even though it was changed back then and is no longer relevant.]
LucyYDesi (5:59:58 PM): and it was easy...
dana73w (5:59:59 PM): Wow, you mean Dai guessed what it was?
LucyYDesi (6:00:12 PM): I guessed it

LucyYDesi (6:00:18 PM): and Dai didn't believe me
LucyYDesi (6:00:30 PM): and it worked
dana73w (6:01:35 PM): How long were you able to access his account that way?

LucyYDesi (6:02:19 PM): it was really easy

Sinead chat, pt 3

[kelleyscorpio.livejournal.com]

LucyYDesi (6:04:09 PM): I guessed it and also supplied the zip code as well
dana73w (6:04:31 PM): Impressive.
LucyYDesi (6:04:51 PM): Not very... I think John got ballistic
LucyYDesi (6:05:06 PM): I remember reading that he was like oh my god my name was stolen!
LucyYDesi (6:05:15 PM): and I felt bad and told Dai to give it back
dana73w (6:05:51 PM): How long can you have access that way? Doesn't it alert John that his password was changed or something? How do you give it back? (I'm tech-clueless, haha...)
LucyYDesi (6:06:07 PM): As long as we wanted
dana73w (6:06:21 PM): Wow, so you had it a while then?
LucyYDesi (6:06:48 PM): I think John got a notification that his
password was changed at his john@... e-mail
dana73w (6:07:20 PM): Did that happen as soon as you got in? Or did you have some time before?
LucyYDesi (6:07:50 PM): it took him some time since we did it around 1 am his time in Scotland
dana73w (6:08:18 PM): Oh, so it was hours, not days or something then?
LucyYDesi (6:08:45 PM): yes
dana73w (6:08:54 PM): Okay, I see.
LucyYDesi (6:09:05 PM): No one knows who John's hacker was so everyone concluded that it was Cassie's stalker that hacked into his account
LucyYDesi (6:09:11 PM): and it's been that way since
LucyYDesi (6:09:43 PM): but would you think Cassie's stalker would have given it back?
dana73w (6:09:47 PM): How do you give it back? Yep, I think that's what people were figuring. Not knowing who or why was pretty upsetting for him, of course.
dana73w (6:10:02 PM): Did they ever learn who her stalker was?
LucyYDesi (6:10:19 PM): or would you think that Cassie's stalker would have posted on the boards?
LucyYDesi (6:10:27 PM): Yes I can't remember his name
dana73w (6:10:47 PM): Oh yeah, it was a guy and a girl, right?
LucyYDesi (6:10:47 PM): they found out him through his ISP
dana73w (6:11:11 PM): Wasn't there a girl involved, too? His wife or something?
LucyYDesi (6:11:12 PM): well mostly the guy but the girl used to be a mod over at a HP website
LucyYDesi (6:11:17 PM): wife
dana73w (6:11:21 PM): Ah, okay.
LucyYDesi (6:11:33 PM): Dai couldn't be found out though because he used an AOL ISP
dana73w (6:11:54 PM): Oh? How is AOL different?
LucyYDesi (6:12:01 PM): I don't know
LucyYDesi (6:12:08 PM): Dai's the technic
LucyYDesi (6:12:09 PM): lol
dana73w (6:12:32 PM): Yeah, I'm so not a tech.
LucyYDesi (6:13:56 PM): I don't want Dai to get into big trouble because of that
dana73w (6:14:17 PM): Oh, with John's account, you mean?
LucyYDesi (6:15:43 PM): yes
dana73w (6:16:05 PM): Well, sure, I understand that.
LucyYDesi (6:16:05 PM): he gave it back and I don't think he should be punished at all
dana73w (6:16:44 PM): How would he be punished? If John turned him in, you mean?
LucyYDesi (6:17:12 PM): yeah
LucyYDesi (6:17:18 PM): John got his account back
LucyYDesi (6:17:22 PM): changed his password
LucyYDesi (6:17:34 PM): made his secret question unanswerable
dana73w (6:17:50 PM): Ah. Yeah, he hasn't said anything about having any more problems, so guess all is well now.
LucyYDesi (6:18:14 PM): I wanted to see what he chose as his secret question and it's sooo unanswerable
dana73w (6:18:24 PM): Oh really?
dana73w (6:18:59 PM): Guess he's safe now, eh...
LucyYDesi (6:19:06 PM): it's one really long question but shortened like this (taking the preceding sentance as an example) iorlqbslt
dana73w (6:19:42 PM): Wow, yeah, guess that's unanswerable all right.
LucyYDesi (6:19:47 PM): but I think my "therapy" secret question is the most obscure of them all
LucyYDesi (6:19:57 PM): even I don't know the answer to it
LucyYDesi (6:20:04 PM): it's so obscure I don't know the answer
LucyYDesi (6:20:12 PM): I've tried answering it
dana73w (6:20:19 PM): Ha! That's a bit of a drawback, isn't it?
LucyYDesi (6:20:19 PM): but none of them were right
LucyYDesi (6:21:06 PM): anyway, john got his account back, nothing bad happened with it on the mod boards, we didn't do anything wild with it,
LucyYDesi (6:21:19 PM): so I don't think dai should be punished
LucyYDesi (6:21:29 PM): or me because I answered the question right

[geoviki.livejournal.com]

This story cannot be verified and the truthfulness of it is almost not important.

I think this should be the disclaimer for the whole 12-part mess, except that real people are having their names dragged through the mud. Again. Yeah it's a history, if by history you mean vendetta.

Would you mind...

[(Anonymous)]

...if I link here (http://www.journalfen.net/users/michelaecks/5875.html?view=36083#t36083) the comment I've made on Michela's journal regarding the sort of "editing" which is going on between what she originally posted on b_p and what's going up now?

The suspicion that at least one motive for the switch was to remove the comments (which were getting increasingly critical and pointing out specific factual innaccuracies with dates and cites) and to allow her to indulge in revisionist history is certainly borne out with that example of the change between the original and what she's now putting up. Any more examples which people can find?

AJ Hall

Re: Would you mind...

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, frabjous day! The silly bint has deleted my comment!

Please feel free to deploy the screencapped version as appropriate!

AJHall

[shezan.livejournal.com]

You know, I wonder why answer that monomaniac logorrhea at all. (That insane woman has only named me once, and she's already managed to make mistakes, as might well happen since I haven't heard from her, don't know her, don't WANT to know her, and think she can't research OR write for toffee.) She makes those ridiculously grandiose assumtions about "normal practice in fandom" (huh?) which are just words for her own prejudices and envies. And how can anyone take seriously someone who thinks nothing of calling "a major PR effort" a couple of posts on a Yahoo list? That's a parallel world all of her own making. I hope fer her sake "Michela Ecks" is not her real name, because any potential employer, googling this, would flee in terror.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, as demonstrated above, one can't answer her, in fact, because she deletes negative comments. And then, of course, the usual sheep sheep up and make comments like, "And if the other side had any real challenges they'd have made them" and she posts in reply to say "Exactly!". It's a moderately interesting example of how, provided one sews up the territory sufficiently tightly, a debate can be manipulated, but I agree about not trying to argue.


AJH

[jayabear.livejournal.com]

I joined fandom early 2002.

How is it I missed the entirety of all of this? *so confused*

*hugs*

all I can think of is...

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I think maybe because it didn't actually happen. Not in this universe, at least.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't much like you for many reasons but I would just like to say that even those of us who dislike you see right through the punctual and citation errors in Michela's account so rest assured that you'll loose no fandom credibility because of her "history".

Where does it graze?

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Oh, good Lord, there is such an animal as "fandom credibility"?

[faithfulreader.livejournal.com]

When the plagiarism issue appeared, I thought, ‘Why would someone get their knickers in a twist about *plagiarism* in fan fiction? It’s ridiculous!’

When the last bit of ‘history wank’ appeared, I thought, ‘Oh, HP fandom, I pity you.’

What did *you* think?

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

The problem with what Michela wrote is that just reading it makes you believe that something in it might contain some truth. Look at the bit that I pasted into my post - "in the spring of 2002, unsubstantiated rumors..."

Now, weirdly enough, I'm vaguely curious as to whether that bit is true, because in the spring of 2002, when the *only* interaction between me and Cassie and the denizens of Gryffindor Tower had been our request that they remove admin access by Chryslin when her husband admitted to sending Cassie emails that were, at a minimum, harrassing and frightening.

1. I don't know if Michela's statement is true or isn't - even if it was early 2003 and not 2002, though, it still predates msscribe's participation in fandom in a manner that interacted with Cassie, or me, or anyone at GT. If people were spreading fictional stories of Bad Behaviour by Cassie and me because they were angry about how we reacted to Jeff and/or Chryslin, then that's pretty malicious and wrong.

Then again, I think it's wrong and weird to write something, and cite to something else you wrote as if it's independently-generated-or-sourced confirmatory evidence.

2. Of course, Michela may be making the whole thing up, just like she made up other stuff in there, and it's possible that the rumor was never generated and spread around. I honestly don't know whether it was or wasn't, and nobody seems to want to bother to tell me.

I'm going to break some rules now.

[(Anonymous)]

I’ve read through the msscribe account, the heidi and cassandra accounts, and the other fandom history expose’s with great interest. The msscribe account, admittedly, interested me the most. Since I’ve never met any of the people involved, my first impression was that it was a wonderful thing for the fandom and for those that were wronged to finally have closure.

I know something about the justice system. I am a 12 year veteran of an investigative until dedicated to mostly fraud, but I’ve had some experience with other crimes more personal in nature. I won’t be revealing who I am and I’m sure you can understand that concern. If you choose not to believe what I’m saying, that’s certainly your right. There are two sides to every story and I have no doubt that the people behind the accounts that have been posted have reason to stand behind what they do.

Wanting to uncover a few things, I did some digging on my own. In order to remain neutral, I didn’t contact either the people in question or the accusers. This is what I discovered.

‘Clarabella’ – was the first ‘sockpuppet’ that msscribe was accused of using. She took the blame and was the loyal fan. I certainly felt that she was a sockpuppet, but since this particular ‘puppet’ was the most important to the bad_penny account, I felt it should be looked into further.

Part II

[(Anonymous)]

I am going to say this now. I broke some major fannish ethics while gathering this information, and if it were discovered I could very well lose my job. Please know, however, that I have seen the horrors of people abusing their power and I only pulled information relevant to these exposes. I won’t comment on what these things mean because I think that people can draw their own conclusions and take the information as it is.

Some things I discovered:

Msscribe sued a trucking company entitled J & P trucking using personal injury attorney Fred Freibott in April of 2002. The suit alleged that the injury’s included head injury, a broken rib, a broken arm, and a dislocated shoulder. The case settled five months later.

From that April 2002 until 2003, msscribe’s tax records indicate that she and her husband employed someone who has a very similar last name to that belonging to the sockpuppet ‘Clarabella’. The title of the position they gave her was ‘home health aid.’ That person also claimed their income on their own tax return. Using the real name on the tax record, I was able to access their college information as well as other information regarding them including the fact that they had been employed at a nursing home for two years prior. The employee of msscribe’s last employment record is as a nurse’s aid in Florida in 2004, the prior record being a child care worker in late 2003.

Msscribe was hospitalized at least five times in that three-year period, twice for surgery according to her application for disability status in 2003. (I would question why someone who is married to a lawyer needs disability, but that might be me being judgemental.) When I gave her real name to the records department at Christiana Hospital in Delaware, this was confirmed.

The alleged stalker: This is a tricky one. The bad penny people can’t be blamed too much for this, but it turns out that there is a record, although it isn’t a police report, rather an incident report, and at the time msscribe appeared to still be using her maiden name and not her married one. In addition, the name ‘Louis’ turned out not to be a legal name, but a nickname. At first attempt to uncover the report, I was told they could find it, but upon inquiring about an incident record, I was able to retrieve more information. It was reported as telephone harassment and not internet harassment, and the charges were dropped. It appears that she lied about any death threats and that even though she may have been harassed, she dropped the ball when it came down to pursuing it, perhaps because she didn’t have a clear case. I’ve dealt with numerous police departments regarding Internet cases and they are pretty inept at handling these things. I toyed with posting the report, but most of the information would be blacked out and I don’t think it would add all that much weight.

In any case, her alleged stalker has no prior criminal history and none since, with the exception of one citation for public consumption of alcohol in 2005.

By accessing tax records from a payment made to Cassandra Claire to her real name, I can confirm that there is a police report regarding her harassment. It doesn’t appear to have been followed up on, however, and I have to say that as people who were harassed they are certainly more than willing to ‘drop the ball’, but this report also does exist.

I am continuing to plow through these reports, but I’ll be happy to take requests. I don’t want to flood the system with inquiries however (things like Lexis and other national databases require logins and often money) but I will be happy to try to clarify things.

I said before, I’m not a writer so this won’t be anything but quick and dirty, but since we’re on a truth seeking mission I think someone who is effectively outside of the situation and who has real access to things most people don’t should be involved.

I'm thinking of setting up a journal and post ing what I find, although please know that it sometimes takes a few days to access information.

[(Anonymous)]

What is annoying is that she's ignoring everything pointed out as a logic error and demanding people provide citations or links to prove things. So, if we say "This statement isn't supported by anything you've said", she ignores that to focus on how many people were on HP4GU at what time - because that somehow excuses the incredible amount of logic errors?

For what it's worth, I don't think a lot of people believe her, and I think they do all see the really significant axe she's grinding. What I want to know is who's been feeding her this information, why they've done it, and why they're leaving her out to dry.

[hedwig-snowy.livejournal.com]

Wahoo! I got a mention at B_P!!! My life is complete. What are these people, 12?

I know, I know. Not worth responding as they've already made up their minds about how they'll behave toward others and twist whatever is said and expect that everyone is talking specifically about them. Still, it's always a bit disappointing to realize what crawls around on this planet.

Wanky enough? LOL Actually, the reason I made the comment in the first place was out of a concern as to where this was all heading and the possible problems with how easy it is to get people's private information. And, how this rift in the fandom isn't worth someone going to jail for breaking the law. That somehow became, I believe, an idea that I posted to become 'famous'. Huh? Nope. (Twist away)

[royalmidnight.livejournal.com]

I'm not afraid of you 'cause you're a lawyer.

I'm afraid of you for myriad other reasons! ^^*

[bchsbunny2005.livejournal.com]

Some people should just let the past be exactly want it is, The past. All of this (fandom wank in general) happened forever ago and people are still talking about it, I who wasn't involved or really knew anything about it can find everything I want to know about it. I think that it's alittle sad, I think that people should just forgive and forget.

But I think you have all the reason to stand up for yourself (Cassie and anyone else has that right aswell), Because people don't want others to believe lies about them.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

You go through this shit all the time? Jesus.

I just don't have any respect for people who can't think for themselves and buy whatever yellow news is hanging out there, without even taking it with a grain of salt.

Icarus