Adask Threatening Libel After Violating Privacy Law

[Viral Absurdities]

Discovered Quatloos while helping a friend who is having a problem with Alfred Adask and has become worried about it. I would like to get some opinions from you all since there are many level-headed people here.

My friend using the name "TW" posted a comment on his blog that took him to task over a comment about the IRS on a recent radio interview. There were several back and forth posts between them containing insults on both sides. My friend finally bowed out of the discussion but that didn't stop Mr. Adask. He blasted back anyway. My friend ignored it.

Another person using the name "w.t." posted several hours later and came to my friend's defense. Mr. Adask concluded that TW and w.t. were the same person because both email addresses contained the word "sea" and he published the first part of my friend's and w.t.'s email addresses.

My friend responded with justifiably angry post insisting the partial email address be removed.
Mr. Adask responded by revealing my friend's full email address and claiming he will sue for libel if my friend takes legal action against him. This is where I got involved by helping my friend write the response to this clearly malicious post. Mr. Adask hasn't responded since.

Here is the link to Mr. Adask's blog where this all took place - http://adask.wordpress.com/about/.

It will be much appreciated if some of you can give some feedback. I don't know a lot about these Sovereign Citizen people. But I can understand my friend's concerns from what I've read and heard so far.

Thanks.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Visiting those kinds of sites is a waste of time; posting on them is an even bigger waste of electrons and only encourages the promoter. The other thing to realize is the number of people who actually visit and read is infinitesimally small in terms of the real world.

[LaVidaRoja]

Adask probably believes his threats to sue actually shut people up. Threats are meaningless. He would have to be able to PROVE that he was damaged by your friend's action. Then, he would have to prove that your friends posting was false, and made with the intent to damage him (Adask).

[Cathulhu]

When you can't argue with facts and logic, make something up and throw threats around!

[Maltese Falcon]

A late piece of advice - create alternate email accounts when trolling sovereign citizens. Trust me, it is worth the time and effort.

[Pottapaug1938]

Visiting those kinds of sites is a waste of time; posting on them is an even bigger waste of electrons and only encourages the promoter. The other thing to realize is the number of people who actually visit and read is infinitesimally small in terms of the real world.

Sui Juris, Lost Horizons and Saving to Suitors, to name but three.

[wserra]

Sorry, but both your friend's and Adask's threats are really silly - as 99.9% of online threats to sue are.

As LVR says, Adask can't show damages - but neither can your friend. Questions from Adask or his lawyer to your friend: "OK, Mr. TW, so Mr. Adask published your email address. It's true, isn't it, that googling it yields nothing whatsoever. [WS - It's twue, it's twue.] So what happened to you as a result? You're here testifying, so nobody killed you. Did someone threaten you? Who? Recording? Any verifiable proof? Did someone steal your identity? Police report, please."

You get the point, right? In fact, except for the fact that Adask peddles snake oil, he and your friend come off as equally juvenile. I don't see your friend throwing facts or law at Adask, despite the fact that it's eminently possible to score by doing so. Mud wrestling with a pig.

[webhick]

Okay, here's what you need to do. First, gather a tuft of fur from an American Bald Eagle, a fat red crayon (plain red, not one of those prissy colors like "razzmatazz" or "maroon"), three teeth from an attack enchilada, and a rubber stamp that uses a mixture of human blood and lard. Now, wrap the teeth in the tuft of fur. You may fasten it with a rubber band or two - do not use string because it invalidates the warranty on the neighborhood cats. Then take off all your clothes, use the stamp all over your body, place the fur wrapped teeth squarely between your knees and the crayon between your nose and your upper lip. It may take a moment to regain your balance, so do so. Now, for the final step, run through your neighborhood shouting "I pee a little when I laugh" until the people in the car with the flashing blue light comes. At this point, engage in evasive maneuvers until they finally restrain you. It will be difficult for them to do so because of the lard but they will succeed eventually. Once that happens, start flailing about uselessly (you're not trying to get away, just annoy them) and screaming "They're aliens and they're here to probe us all! Don't look into the lights!"

[Cathulhu]

Webhick, you weren't supposed to tell the Secret Illuminati Wedding Ceremony!

[Viral Absurdities]

Thanks for the replies guys and gals. Not sure what to make of webhick though.

Visiting those kinds of sites is a waste of time; posting on them is an even bigger waste of electrons and only encourages the promoter. The other thing to realize is the number of people who actually visit and read is infinitesimally small in terms of the real world.

I agree on both points. My friend actually tried to call in to Coast to Coast AM that night but never got through. Posting on Mr. Adask's blog wasn't originally the plan. It was more of an afterthought.

Traffic for the blog is extremely low no doubt. My friend's biggest fear is that it would take only one person sympathetic to Mr. Adask's cause to take the address and wreck havoc.

Adask probably believes his threats to sue actually shut people up. Threats are meaningless. He would have to be able to PROVE that he was damaged by your friend's action. Then, he would have to prove that your friends posting was false, and made with the intent to damage him (Adask).

When you can't argue with facts and logic, make something up and throw threats around!

This is what I've been trying to impress upon my friend. Mr. Adask is shouting libel as a counter-suit scare tactic because he knows he has committed a malicious offense. Not sure whether it is civil or criminal though. I personally believe it is criminal.

A late piece of advice - create alternate email accounts when trolling sovereign citizens. Trust me, it is worth the time and effort.

This was the first piece of advice I gave my friend. It's something I've been doing for years to head off spammers when I want to get some kind of online quote or price that requires providing an email address.

Sorry, but both your friend's and Adask's threats are really silly - as 99.9% of online threats to sue are.

As LVR says, Adask can't show damages - but neither can your friend. Questions from Adask or his lawyer to your friend: "OK, Mr. TW, so Mr. Adask published your email address. It's true, isn't it, that googling it yields nothing whatsoever. [WS - It's twue, it's twue.] So what happened to you as a result? You're here testifying, so nobody killed you. Did someone threaten you? Who? Recording? Any verifiable proof? Did someone steal your identity? Police report, please."

You get the point, right? In fact, except for the fact that Adask peddles snake oil, he and your friend come off as equally juvenile. I don't see your friend throwing facts or law at Adask, despite the fact that it's eminently possible to score by doing so. Mud wrestling with a pig.

I'm not sure I really agree. Mr. Adask was the one throwing sue and counter-sue around. My friend only referred to legal action and legal remedies. There are other legal actions and remedies that can resolve situations such as this one. Initiating a privacy violation with Mr. Adask's internet service provider would be one. ISPs take a really dim view of malicious acts involving privacy and they do prosecute violators.

I would agree that neither Mr. Adask nor my friend can show damages with respect to libel. It's a wash. But publication of a private email address is completely different. The damage is yet to be determined since it's only been 4 or 5 days. Wouldn't your scenario apply only to a civil matter. Isn't a criminal matter different? I think this matter is similar to the SmartPhone hacking in the news from a privacy point of view.

Not sure what facts or law could have presented to Mr. Adask to score. Can you give some examples? My friend is just a person who knows that what Mr. Adask has done is both wrong and malicious. I'm just trying to help because I fully agree.

I thought my friend took a much higher road than Mr. Adask did in their discussion. I could be slightly biased. Don't think so though. I always try to look at any situation objectively even when friendship is involved.

[wserra]

I'm not sure I really agree. Mr. Adask was the one throwing sue and counter-sue around. My friend only referred to legal action and legal remedies. There are other legal actions and remedies that can resolve situations such as this one. Initiating a privacy violation with Mr. Adask's internet service provider would be one. ISPs take a really dim view of malicious acts involving privacy and they do prosecute violators.

Confusion there, perhaps some of it semantics. I (and I think most people) would not call a complaint to an ISP "legal action". Whatever you call it, it clearly differs in kind from an actual lawsuit. And a violation of your ISP's TOS is a civil matter, not something that results in "prosecution". Hence what I said: as the facts stand, your friend no more has a basis for "legal action" than does Adask. So it's dumb to threaten it.

I would agree that neither Mr. Adask nor my friend can show damages with respect to libel. It's a wash. But publication of a private email address is completely different. The damage is yet to be determined since it's only been 4 or 5 days. Wouldn't your scenario apply only to a civil matter. Isn't a criminal matter different? I think this matter is similar to the SmartPhone hacking in the news from a privacy point of view.

Please tell me the crime - state or federal, but complete with cite - that one who reveals an email address on a blog commits. It's night and day different from hacking a cellphone, which violates numerous state and federal criminal laws.

I think Adask is a scamming idiot. But stupidity need not have a legal remedy - or the only effective remedy may lie in the hands of those with the authority to prosecute.

[LPC]

But publication of a private email address is completely different.

One of the problems with defamation actions is that, by suing publicly, you republish the defamation and spread it around a wider audience.

Similarly, taking legal action to enforce privacy is more likely to result in less privacy than more. Adask already has the email address, and you can't unring that bell. Piss him off and you might incite him to post it (anonymously) all over the Internet, and then what would "your friend" do?

I thought my friend took a much higher road than Mr. Adask did in their discussion.

Who cares? I don't. The only question now is whether "your friend" is going to be rational or whether he's going to be as obsessive as Adask.

As Wes has already pointed out, you're talking about mud wrestling with a pig. There's no tactic that let's you stay clean.

[Maltese Falcon]

I shouldn't post in a thread that has already run its course, but if you really want to get back at Adask, you could troll him some more and write a blog about it. I mean, you and your friend already wasted this much time on him, why not get really dirty?

Pro tip: Alfred's beliefs are extremely well entrenched. His mind is impervious to facts. He is, however, very receptive to other sovereign ideology and other right wing conspiracy theories. Perhaps you could sell him your own made up ideology?

[notorial dissent]

I think it can safely be said that old Alfey never met a dingbat sovrun theory that he didn't like. He'd certainly rather deal in that than anything rational, which he has proven time and again.

[David Merrill]

Visiting those kinds of sites is a waste of time; posting on them is an even bigger waste of electrons and only encourages the promoter. The other thing to realize is the number of people who actually visit and read is infinitesimally small in terms of the real world.

Sui Juris, Lost Horizons and Saving to Suitors, to name but three.

Thank you for the honorable mention (around here anyway).

I think it can safely be said that old Alfey never met a dingbat sovrun theory that he didn't like. He'd certainly rather deal in that than anything rational, which he has proven time and again.

Alfred Norman has already scanned the email address to find that there is no "friend" at all. The author here is the same as there. He did not "help" to write the post. He wrote the post and his friend is more imaginary than you imagine my suitors are. I like the handle though! But it is a bit ironic to think of it as viral, just because it made a thread on Quatloos?

[Viral Absurdities]

I would agree that neither Mr. Adask nor my friend can show damages with respect to libel. It's a wash. But publication of a private email address is completely different. The damage is yet to be determined since it's only been 4 or 5 days. Wouldn't your scenario apply only to a civil matter. Isn't a criminal matter different? I think this matter is similar to the SmartPhone hacking in the news from a privacy point of view.

Please tell me the crime - state or federal, but complete with cite - that one who reveals an email address on a blog commits. It's night and day different from hacking a cellphone, which violates numerous state and federal criminal laws.

I think Adask is a scamming idiot. But stupidity need not have a legal remedy - or the only effective remedy may lie in the hands of those with the authority to prosecute.

Guess that's what I was really trying to find out for my friend. Whether federal and state criminal hacking laws apply to Mr. Adask's activity. Everything I've discovered on the internet so far is vague at best. I was hoping someone here at Quatloos could have pointed me in the right direction without my friend having to consult an attorney at this point.

But publication of a private email address is completely different.

One of the problems with defamation actions is that, by suing publicly, you republish the defamation and spread it around a wider audience.

Similarly, taking legal action to enforce privacy is more likely to result in less privacy than more. Adask already has the email address, and you can't unring that bell. Piss him off and you might incite him to post it (anonymously) all over the Internet, and then what would "your friend" do?

I thought my friend took a much higher road than Mr. Adask did in their discussion.

Who cares? I don't. The only question now is whether "your friend" is going to be rational or whether he's going to be as obsessive as Adask.

As Wes has already pointed out, you're talking about mud wrestling with a pig. There's no tactic that let's you stay clean.

I agree on all points. There are no perfect solutions.

I shouldn't post in a thread that has already run its course, but if you really want to get back at Adask, you could troll him some more and write a blog about it. I mean, you and your friend already wasted this much time on him, why not get really dirty?

Pro tip: Alfred's beliefs are extremely well entrenched. His mind is impervious to facts. He is, however, very receptive to other sovereign ideology and other right wing conspiracy theories. Perhaps you could sell him your own made up ideology?

My friend prefers to continue on the higher road and keep the full weight of malice squarely upon Mr. Adask's shoulders. These ideas are interesting though. I can think of a couple of more off the top of my head myself.

I think it can safely be said that old Alfey never met a dingbat sovrun theory that he didn't like. He'd certainly rather deal in that than anything rational, which he has proven time and again.

Agreed.

Alfred Norman has already scanned the email address to find that there is no "friend" at all. The author here is the same as there. He did not "help" to write the post. He wrote the post and his friend is more imaginary than you imagine my suitors are. I like the handle though! But it is a bit ironic to think of it as viral, just because it made a thread on Quatloos?

I will not participate in a conversation with any sympathizer of Mr. Adask. Your comments have been duly noted and fittingly discarded. Except for your first sentence. I certainly hope Mr. Adask isn't cyberstalking my friend. That would be very serious indeed.

I shouldn't post in a thread that has already run its course...I mean, you and your friend already wasted this much time on him...

I agree with Maltese Falcon. This thread has pretty much run its course. I thank all of you for your comments and input. It has been very helpful in determining how my friend needs to proceed.

I don't consider time spent helping out my friend as a waste of time. It has been quite an eye-opening experience discovering the evils of sovereigns and associated fringe groups.

Thanks again.
VA

[David Merrill]

You are welcome.

I will not participate in a conversation with any sympathizer of Mr. Adask. Your comments have been duly noted and fittingly discarded. Except for your first sentence. I certainly hope Mr. Adask isn't cyberstalking my friend. That would be very serious indeed.

You are the one who got on his website being a big asswipe, remember? You registered with the intent of insulting and libeling. According to Demo your SSN is xxx-xx-xxxx. Reading a computer screen is not cyber-stalking. Insulting people in cyberspace is not worthy of calling libel. You have to prove how it damages you before you can justify action.

Live with it.

[David Merrill]

P.S. Alfred Norman first showed only enough of your address to show that you were spoofing yourself, like you have any friends!

You really need an attitude adjustment, before your multiple personality disorder gets out of hand.

[The Observer]

You really need an attitude adjustment, before your multiple personality disorder gets out of hand.

David, are you practicing psychiatry without a license? Isn't that the very thing that you have complained about people here at Quatloos doing to you?

[Arthur Rubin]

You are welcome.

I will not participate in a conversation with any sympathizer of Mr. Adask. Your comments have been duly noted and fittingly discarded. Except for your first sentence. I certainly hope Mr. Adask isn't cyberstalking my friend. That would be very serious indeed.

You are the one who got on his website being a big asswipe, remember? You registered with the intent of insulting and libeling. According to Demo your SSN is xxx-xx-xxxx. Reading a computer screen is not cyber-stalking. Insulting people in cyberspace is not worthy of calling libel. You have to prove how it damages you before you can justify action.

Are you trying to get your posts moderated? In any case, you need to pay attention. Adask was (claiming to be) suing for libel; the poster here (I mean, his/her friend) was going to sue for invasion of privacy for releasing his/her E-mail address.

And Demo probably knows his/her SSN, but wouldn't have released it here. (And, in case you were wondering, the original version of the post had "xxx-xx-xxxx"; no numbers were ever present.)