"I address the following comments to TxBluesMan :No, please, after you.
Tx Blues Man,
After reading the Modern Pharisee’s posts from today, and considering that Hugh continues to attempt to out you, as well as considering Hugh’s continued harassment of your attorney, Natalie Malonis, I suggest that you expose the identity of the Pharisee’s wife, ******, in detail.
Hugh simply cannot respect anyone’s desire for privacy, and he deserves a taste of his own medicine.
You should publish his wife’s full name, as well as the name of her family of origin, and relevant details regarding her employment, so that he can learn exactly what it feels like to be 'exposed' when someone wishes to remain a private citizen."
Anonymous said this on April 13, 2010 at 8:35 PM
I'm not publishing my wife's first name, again. My wife's first name doesn't lead to much useful. You'll have to trust me on that for now.
A while back I did, precisely because you'd have to know more than just my wife's first name, to know anything else. Since it was being said that I had "published" her name, I removed it from my blog. This was not to "cover up" the evidence that I had "published" it, but to make it clear I wasn't inviting investigation. There is nothing about my wife's name that would lead, to her. You have to know far more than that.
When someone publishes copious detail about their "background," assaults the character of others from behind the blind of anonymity, and suggests that they can simply "out" people in some sort of "tit for tat" type of combat, they're wrong. They can try it, they can find out how wrong they are.
Natalie Malonis is an attorney. She works with attorneys. Attorneys are required to make public declarations about themselves as they are licenses to practice law in a state under it's laws. When an attorney practices law and tries a case and the progress of that case reveals a level of judgement (perhaps) and or lack of skill, and when that attorney fails so miserably in the discharge of their duties (for whatever reason) that the object of their legal attacks (which were no the first amendment) illustrates the supremacy of that right by doing a little in your face dance, it's fair game, and it's news.
And it was.
When that attorney later partners with one of the biggest FLDS enemies who in the humble estimation of many did a laughable job, it's worthwhile upon discovering that fact, to point to it. Bad attorney's who argue against their own arguments paired with losers who dared go up against the First Amendment, well, that's interesting.
The fact that J. Scott Reib Jr.'s resume resembles almost exactly what Natalie Malonis' client "TxBluesMan" claims, well, that's interesting too.
To equate that with license to parade about the private details of my anonymous wife's identity when she holds no professional license and eschews the limelight entirely is laughable. The only reason I wouldn't invite them to try, or say, rhetorically, "Bring it on," is that it could be misconstrued as a real invitation to go fishing.
These are evil people. They need to be defeated.
They need to know that I have no history of being intimidated.
Sphere: Related Content