In the previous post I shared some of the highlights of my testimony at the Order of Protection hearing against Patrick. Today we’re going to listen to, and comment on, James’ and his mother’s testimony.
Those of you who like James and think him to be reasonably intelligent might want to stop here – else your impression of him be tarnished. He seems to have a tendency to go off on rants and tangents that have nothing at all to do with the topic at hand – a common trait of chronic marijuana users.
The First Requirement of Obtaining an Injunction Against Harassment: Showing That There has Actually Been Harassment
Under Arizona law, in order for any given conduct to be considered “harassment”, it must be “directed at a specific person”. In other words, if the conduct in question is, say, verbal then you must be saying the allegedly harassing thing to the person who is supposedly being harassed (for those that are interested, see ARS §13-2921(E)). And in order to obtain an Injunction Against Harassment the petitioner (James, in this case) needs to show that there has been prior harassment.
The US Supreme Court has consistently held that public speech (whether verbal or written), directed at the public – not at a specific person – is protected by the First Amendment Free Speech clause – even when the statements being made are about a specific person and are potentially damaging or harmful to that person’s reputation. Particularly when the purpose of the speech is for the benefit of the community (for those that are interested, see for example Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe).
By now we all know the primary motivation of this website is to inform “the community” of the kind of dangerous, untrustworthy, harmful person I am. The community, in this case, means my neighbors, co-workers, potential employers, creditors, and anyone else that might ever come into contact with me. Therefore, ALL of the content on this site is, in fact, constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.
In the case of a publicly accessible website (such as this one), the supposedly “harassed” person must deliberately go to the site in order to read what is being said. A person simply cannot claim harassment when they are the one always initiating the contact – it just doesn’t work that way.
So now that you have all that wonderful legal background, let’s give a listen:
Say what?!?!? I know what you’re thinking: If harassment means “conduct that is directed at a specific person…”, then how can a person who has NEVER had ANY contact with the other person claim that other person has harassed them? Ah, the joy of the municipal courts!
Let’s continue, shall we? What follows is James’ paranoid rant about Patrick “surveilling” him. He goes on about how Patrick surveilled him by going to his LinkedIn profile – a public profile which he, personally, put on the Internet. He tries to explain, in some detail, how Patrick was able to gather information about him – information which, I should point out, Patrick is entitled to since Patrick’s child is living in his home.
It should be pointed out, James states Patrick said he could not possibly be held responsible if anyone broke into James’ house and caused harm to anyone in James’ household. But what was actually said was:
I have considered whether publishing the address of an openly racist, anti-Latino, who happens to be physically present at the same house which my son is also physically present at and, after careful consideration, have concluded if such an event as angry Mexicans showing up to express their discontent with you and your white supremist beliefs were to occur, the focus of their attention would be you – not our son. The Latino people are, generally, honorable and would not harm an innocent child if they had issues with the child’s misguided mother. So, no, I don’t believe [our son] would be put in any danger by publishing your address.
For those that are interested, you can view the actual, original email at this link. Isn’t it funny how stupid people only hear what they want to hear?
James mentions Patrick had reposted his resume “in an effort to discredit him”. Is he suggested that by being publicly associated with me he is being “discredited”? I would agree, that seems a logical inference.
He also seems to have completely misunderstood Patrick’s domain registrar’s response to his whining about this site. They’re email to Patrick, which as James points out Patrick immediately posted on this site, was simply saying Patrick hasn’t done anything wrong and it’s not their problem so deal with it yourself.
Pay particular attention to James’ mocking tone at 7:56, when he says “…in complete violation of his right to free speech…”. Bit of smugness there in his misunderstanding of constitutional law, if I do say. You might notice: even though James seems to think this website is illegal and is violating his rights in some way, he has been completely unable to get anyone to do anything about it. Yet he, like myself, will keep telling himself, and everyone else, that Patrick is breaking the law and the courts just aren’t fair to them.
As for all of James’ remarks about Patrick’s intention to continue his “harassment” of him via this website: Patrick openly admits it! Patrick has no intention of taking down this website. He’s not breaking any laws and he’s not violating anyone’s rights…some might say Patrick’s even providing a valuable public service to mine and James’ neighbors – Wouldn’t you want to know if drug addicts were living next door to you, decreasing your property values?
I find it particularly interesting that James closes by saying he could go on but he won’t waste the court’s time. Wasn’t this entire proceeding wasting the court’s time? What exactly has he accomplished by obtaining an Injunction Against Harassment against Patrick? By his own admission, they’ve never had contact before and Patrick has no interest in having contact with him in the future; James’ primary goal is to get this website taken down – which he has failed, miserably, at doing, and which no court would ever try to enforce; Patrick can’t go to his place of residence, but Patrick lives 1,700 miles away (and according to me and James, Patrick has been deported and cannot return to the US, anyway). So, in the end, how has his petition for an Injunction Against Harassment; the subsequent contested hearing; and now the appeal which is in the Superior Court, not been a ridiculous waste of the court’s time?
Wendy Pendleton’s (James’ Mother) Testimony
Let’s hear what she had to say:
First, we get a further glimpse of James’ complete lack of understanding of constitutional law. I refer to the right to face one’s accusers – the “confrontation clause” of the Sixth Amendment.
The crux of Wendy Pendleton’s testimony was that Patrick had viewed her LinkedIn profile, back in July 2015. That’s it! Nothing more! According to her it was suspicious that Patrick would view her public profile because, apparently, Patrick would have “no reason to”. Does she not understand what “public” means? Does she consider it unreasonable for a parent to research and investigate the people who will be “caring for” their child? Particularly, in a case like me, who has a history of being with tweakers like Kristopher Lauchner and wife beaters like Michael Capuano?
And, based on James’ questioning, it would seem that he also considers it “unreasonable” for a person to view a stranger’s public LinkedIn profile. You know what I’m doing right now? This very moment? I’m on LinkedIn, randomly viewing the profiles of people I’ve never heard of! You know why? Because they’re public profiles! Public, you fucking morons! If you don’t want strangers looking at your profile then don’t make your profile public! I swear, the world is full of fucking idiots!
James’ Questioning of Patrick
So, you’ve read this far, now let’s get to the real heart of the matter: James’ examination of Patrick.
Notice, James jumps right into questions about possible copyright infringement? What the hell does copyright infringement have to do with his allegation of harassment? And where did he get the ridiculous idea that you can copyright a resume? Most of his questions were clearly objectionable, for lack of relevance, but at that point Patrick already knew the case was in the bag based on the clear failure to show that any harassment had actually been committed, so Patrick let him go down that road. If for no other reason than to get a good laugh afterword and to share his foolishness with the world.
From very early in the hearing, the judge had completely misconstrued the definition of “harassment”, to include public statements and statements made to third parties. Also, the moment the judge admitted that she had no authority to issue the order of protection but would go ahead with the hearing anyway, Patrick knew the entire hearing was going to be a farce. At that moment, she basically guaranteed the case would be overturned on appeal.
The damn fool (James) actually refers to his resume as “intellectual property”! Come on, nobody can be that stupid! Look up the definition of “intellectual property” before you try to argue it in court, for Christ’s sake.
And God damn “selfies”? Jesus Christ, you’re kidding me! He’s trying to claim that the selfies he took of himself and posted to his Facebook and LinkedIn pages are his “intellectual property”! Ah, my God, is there any bottom to this clown’s idiocy? Dude! For real, if you think Patrick infringed on your copyrights then file a claim with the copyright office or file a civil action – this is a fucking Injunction Against Harassment hearing – try to stay focused, ya fuckin’ pothead!
But the absolute best part, the part we all got a good chuckle about, is from 1:40 through 2:26. James asks, Patrick, if he would not feel harassed by a website like this then why did he (Patrick) redact his name from the copies of the Order of Protection and the Injunction Against Harassment which he posted on this website? And why does he expressly not put his, or his son’s names on this website? I love it! Patrick tells him in all frankness and candidness, it’s because he is embarrassed and ashamed that he would have been involved with someone like Desiree. Ah, motherfuckin’ snap! What followed was a dead silence that seems to last an hour. I could just imagine his face, being told on the record, in a court hearing, that his current girlfriend’s ex-husband is ashamed and embarrassed that he ever slummed it slow low as to fuck something that nasty and trashy! The same skanky, nasty bitch he’s been sticking his johnson in the past couple of years. Ouch, I say! Ouch, indeed.
Well, there was no more cockiness after that! Just stuttering and stammering. Uh-uh-uh…what’s the matter James? Hurt your feelings? Shattered that perception you had that you were banging a “hot chick”? Come on, dude! I’m in my mid thirties and I’ve fucked more strangers than both you and Patrick combined. Patrick was with me when I was 19 to 21, before I had 2 kids and started sagging. Face the reality, James, I’ve been ridden hard and often and what you got is very sloppy seconds…very, very sloppy.
Take a moment, and go back to 2:07 and listen to the next few seconds again. Notice when Patrick says “Because I feel embarrassed and ashamed…”, James says, in the background “You should!”. If only he knew what was coming out of Patrick’s mouth in the next fraction of a second! Oh, he shut the fuck up quick when he heard where Patrick was going! Oh that poor, dumb fucker.
Everything after that is James’ failed attempts to try to save even the smallest sliver of his self esteem. I hate to say it, because I really have nothing against the guy, but he was fuckin’ BITCH smacked! And, as if all of that isn’t bad enough, now Patrick’s gone and posted it on the Internet for James’ co-workers, family, friends, and every future potential girlfriend or hook-up to hear. Oh, that poor, pathetic bastard.
And with that, dear readers, I shall take my leave. Until next time…