text:
Associate Producer of Polanski Documentary Spams This Blog With Multiple Anonymous Comments Attacking Me (UPDATED With More Evidence) (UPDATED With Admission and Apology)
Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:27 am
[UPDATE 10-4-09 at 9:53 p.m.: Ms. Sullivan has identified herself as the author of the post and apologized personally to me. She stresses that she was writing in a private capacity — without the knowledge of her former production team. She has also apologized to the producers for any embarrassment or misunderstanding caused. I ask my commenters to refrain from posting her picture, insulting her, or other similar behavior. — Patterico]
That's certainly what the evidence suggests to me. Looks like I touched a nerve, huh?
Tonight the following comment started to appear on every single post I have written about Roman Polanski. The commenter goes by the name of "kitty kat." I will bold the more insulting and/or inaccurate passages, to make sure you don't lose them in all the illiterate ranting and raving:
Dear Mr. Frey
Deputy District DA in Los Angeles? Where do you find the free time…to blog about Polanski… or IS this little recreation…. all part of the job? Big Election year coming up, right?
Shouldn't you be making sure justice is served through a just system? Justice for the victim and Polanski cannot be won under a corrupt justice system then and now.
I believe, two kinds of people when it comes to crime and punishment. There are those who understand that we are a nation of laws, and that our system does not serve vengeance but justice. And those who are like something out of the Old Testament, eye for an eye righteous, lying, arrogant fumers. I like to divide these groups into educated and ignorant
David Wells did not lie in the documentary. The interview was done years ago according to the director. He signed a release. The film premiered in 2008 worldwide. No word from Wells on his big lie until now? Me thinks Cooley is worried he will not get elected again. Clearly the LAJD has no respect for its own system but as we know corruption breeds corruption. The fact that the majority of the PRESS is IGNORING a corrupt judge in 1977 and now a corrupt DA speaks volumes. The question is how much are you paying David Wells or at least tell us what he's getting of it or were threats involved?
RE: Probation Transcripts: So many case facts have been spinned by your pal Marcia Clark, I cannot even begin to list them all. However the documentary: Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired interviews MAJOR participants from the case and witnesses to Rittenband's judicial misconduct who outline this heinous conduct in the film. How interesting that the PRESS also FAILS to mention that Rittenband asked a news reporter (as well as David Wells ) "What he should do with Polanski?" Ethics Violation…big time.
Also, please note that David Wells provided way too many SPECIFIC details. Lying? I don't think so…. Let's see if his current statement will hold up under a polygraph test, shall we?
Also, how interesting that the prosecutor Roger Gunson, says in the film ( paraphrase ) " had he been in Polanski's shoes, he would have fled as well." Yes, the highly respected MORMON PROSECUTOR!!!!. The Judicial misconduct was indeed….that bad…. Oh and did I mention the 2 PRETEND hearings that Rittenband concocted? The list of misconduct and ethics violations goes on and on and on.
How interesting that the PRESS neglects to mention… that Rittenband was removed from the case.
The LAJD says its been trying to get Polanski for 30 years. When questioned, they immediately scramble to produce a one page press release which they post on their website with some dates and blurbs over the years…. Anybody can write a press release. Let's see the original papers.
Seems evident that a corrupt justice department and a biased sensationalist News Media walk hand in hand these days… After all, an election year is coming up! Is it not?
No wonder Polanski fled. Anyone in their right mind would and should.
The question is… how can you can you condemn his corruption when you cannot condemn your own. What type of justice is corruption, dishonesty and finally hypocrisy ? It is he who thinks they are above the law, not Mr. Polanski.
I generally don't allow comments that attack me professionally based on what I blog, and I deleted several iterations of the exact comment, and banned the user. But the comments kept appearing in moderation. (Since I'm posting on this now, I have decided to approve a handful of them. You can read the comment here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. That's eight instances of the same comment — and I deleted at least as many instances of the same comment, if not more.)
The fervor with which this person spammed each and every comment thread with this comment led me to wonder whether "kitty kat" might not have some personal stake in all this. So I decided to investigate . . . and the evidence I uncovered points to the conclusion that she is Michelle Sullivan, an associate producer of the Polanski documentary.
Here is a screenshot from my control panel, showing kitty kat's IP address and e-mail:
[I am removing the screenshot with Ms. Sullivan's IP address, given that she has admitted posting the comments. I will not remove the other screenshots that show her e-mail, since her e-mail address is already available online — but I ask readers not to send Ms. Sullivan any abusive e-mails. — P]
If you plug that e-mail address into Google you get this page, which associated the e-mail address with one Michelle Sullivan of Perpetual Motion Films:
Please e-mail me at maddietrich@gmail.com
Many thanks for any thoughts in advance,
Michelle Sullivan
Perpetual Motion Films
And a Google search for "Perpetual Motion Films" "Michelle Sullivan" Polanski yields one result and one result only: Ms. Sullivan's LinkedIn profile, where we can see that she was an associate producer of the Polanski documentary "Wanted and Desired":
Why, hello, "kitty kat"!
We need not rely on a single web page to tie in the above e-mail address to Ms. Sullivan. Her LinkedIn page refers to a Website called "Violet Planet."
That site turns out to be a Blogspot-hosted blog with predictably liberal opinions such as this anti-Bush screed. Plugging the e-mail address by itself into Google reveals other connections to Ms. Sullivan, such as this message at a Greta Garbo fan site:
Sure enough, Ms. Sullivan's imdb.com lists among her credits her stint as Greta Garbo, and her work on the Polanski documentary.
[UPDATE: I forgot this page, which also associates kitty kat's e-mail with the VioletPlanet site. This has some good anti-Bush and anti-PUMA screeching.]
It's perfectly clear that the e-mail address used by "kitty kat" is the e-mail associated with an associate producer of the Polanski documentary. If the commenter isn't Ms. Sullivan, then it's a very clever person who knows Ms. Sullivan and is trying to frame her as having left the comment.
Let's go with the common-sense conclusion: "kitty kat" is Michelle Sullivan, associate producer of the Polanski documentary.
Based on that assumption, I have these responses for Ms. Sullivan:
No, I have not done any of the Polanski-related blog posts while on the job. While I am a Deputy District Attorney, I blog on my own time and do not speak for my office on this blog.
I do not appreciate your unfounded insinuation that I have blogged on these issues on County time.
No, I am not writing these posts because I want to get Steve Cooley re-elected. I am writing these posts because I want to contribute to the public's knowledge of the facts surrounding the Polanski controversy. The documentary that you worked on both added to and distorted the body of knowledge available about the controversy. For example, the documentary was (in my opinion) not clear about the nature of what Polanski actually did, as revealed by the victim's grand jury testimony. Nor was it clear about the fact that Polanski was not promised anything in his plea deal other than a) dismissal of all charges but the statutory rape charge, and b) that he would be sentenced by the judge after the judge heard counsel's argument and read the probation report.
I do not appreciate your unfounded insinuations that I am writing these posts for a base political purpose.
I paid David Wells nothing, despite your suggestions that I did. I did not threaten David Wells, despite your suggestions that I did ("The question is how much are you paying David Wells . . . or were threats involved?"). I do not know David Wells and have never spoken to him in my life.
I do not appreciate your unfounded insinuation that I bribed David Wells.
I do not know Marcia Clark. I have never met or corresponded with her. Contrary to your claim, she is not my "pal."
No, ma'am, I am not corrupt, despite your suggestion to the contrary ("how can you can you condemn his corruption when you cannot condemn your own").
I do not appreciate your unfounded insinuation that I am corrupt.
As an associate producer of the documentary about Roman Polanski, you do not cover yourself in glory by coming on my blog and spamming a dozen identical anonymous comments that baselessly insinuate that I have a) bribed a witness on this case; b) blogged this issue on County time; c) written these posts to improve Mr. Cooley's re-election chances; or d) engaged in "corrupt" behavior.
A decent person would apologize to me for all these baseless accusations.
Whether you will, I have no idea.
P.S. If you're going to come on my blog and criticize me by name, I'd have a lot more respect for you if you used your own real name. Lobbing anonymous insults is kind of chickenshit, in my book.
UPDATE: More evidence that "kitty kat" is Sullivan here. Namely, "kitty kat" spammed the comment at The Daily Beast as well — and then scrubbed it after I reported that evidence indicated "kitty kat" was Michelle Sullivan.
UPDATE x2: See the top of the post for an update with Ms. Sullivan's admission and apology.
262 Responses to "Associate Producer of Polanski Documentary Spams This Blog With Multiple Anonymous Comments Attacking Me (UPDATED With More Evidence) (UPDATED With Admission and Apology)"
What, I get to comment on this first?
I'll just echo Mr. Frey: chickenshit
Icy Texan (43c637) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:52 am
Patterico,
"Lobbing anonymous insults is kind of chickenshit, in my book."
Then why are you such a fan of commentators like daleyrocks and juan, Patterico? They regularly lob personal insults anonymously.
The reality is that anonymous insults are only "chickenshit" when they are aimed at you. Otherwise, so long as they are aimed at others, you welcome them on the site.
Cyrus Sanai (3b1f29) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:20 am
And I'll add this, To Michelle: It's probably not going to be good for your reputation and your resume to mess with someone that — for his living — investigates people with both an eye & an ear tuned to discerning the truth.
He will make you look the fool every time, just as he did here.
Of course you didn't do too bad a job of making yourself look the fool, with your typical libby if-you-can't-attack-the-message-attack-the-messenger ad hominem insults and false accusations.
Have you ever thought of soliciting Michael Moore for a job?
P.S. to Michelle: Do you have a flamboyant relative named Andrew?
What I like most about this blog is how Mr. Patrick Frey, Esquire loves to trumpet private infomation on those that disagree with him, despite the field on his 'leave a comment' template that says:
He did the same thing to The Angry Optimist during one of the Balko spitball fights a few weeks ago.
(my real name)
(w/ my 'real' email address in the required field)
Kenny (72b7a1) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:39 am
Perhaps Mr. Patterico should change his template to read: "Mail (will not be published — unless you make libelous claims under a chickenshit pseudonym)"
Susan Lee Mills
(my whole real name – not just my first)
Susan Lee Mills (584151) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:59 am
Is what Kitty posted slander, or libel?
I can never remember which is which…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) —	10/4/2009 @ 4:04 am
Comment by Kenny — 10/4/2009 @ 2:39 am
See, the difference is that when you blatantly engage in anon sniping, and attack Mr Frey's good name, you cross a line.
Heck, you don't even have to use your real e-mail. I know several people who use either a dead-end or utterly fake address.
And a lot of people here use an alias here. DRJ, NK, Jack Dunphy, just to name a few. It is common and accepted.
But a self-serving post that with only a bit of leg-work leads to someone with a clear vested interest in discrediting both our host and his boss?
Yeah, you're kinda asking to be outted. When you abuse the anonymity of the blog, you get outted.
I won't be shedding any tears over this, and I'm shocked you are bothered by it…
Kitty, is that you?
It was probably neither — since Mr. Patterico himself did not identify it as such — he called them "unfounded insinuation(s)."
My post was meant to be humorous, not necessarily accurate . . .
"my post"?
Funny, I don't see you name anywhere near this post…
Is that you, Kitty?
Somewhere in LA, there's a laptop in front of a smoldering spot of grease.
Jim Treacher (796deb) —	10/4/2009 @ 4:48 am
You Dunderhead!
I'm on Mr. Frey's side on this!!! My comments to Kenny were "tongue-in-cheek."
No, I am not "Kitty." I am not "maddietrich." I am not Michelle Sullivan. I am who I say I am.
I'm sorry my sarcasm wasn't more obvious.
Nor was this comment towards Kenny…
Clearly, Ms. Sullivan did the best she could to obfuscate an indefensible and unpunished crime perpetrated by a "friend". Sadly, her immorality led her to arrive at an intellectual gun fight with a blunt knife. She wasn't even bright enough to heed Mr. Obama's advice to his followers on the campaign trail. Shame on me for assuming that Ms. Sullivan is both a leftie and lame based solely on her accomplishments and vitriol.
marvls (60e073) —	10/4/2009 @ 4:59 am
Almost as chickenshit as drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. Birds of a feather, etc etc etc.
Isn't it amazing how clueless Hollywood apologists for Polanski are? Kitty-Kat seems awfully sensitive to the ghastly crime of blogging on work time (which Patterico doesn't do), but anally raping a 13-year-old after drugging her with a Quaalude and alcohol so she can't effectively fight back? No big deal!
Hollywood values at work, people.
Ed Morrissey (b3fb00) —	10/4/2009 @ 5:02 am
the Ratio of Normal to abnormal people just went down a bit
EricPWJohnson (415ecd) —	10/4/2009 @ 5:08 am
This is what the extremists do. They distort the truth and weave a delusional thread based on the false logic that the end justifies the means. To them we who disagree are mere speed bumps slowing their visionary progress down. The rule of law never applies to them unless they can twist it to their favor.
The good news is that they are predictable. The bad news is that Obamasan has empowered them through hopeandchange to pursue their anarchy. Keep a weather eye open and call them on it. They hate light.
vet66 (996c34) —	10/4/2009 @ 5:23 am
Kenny:
I kinda understand that if I comment on Patterico's blog and sockpuppet and spam, then I give up my anonymity — when I am actually a participant in the story. Kitty should have commented AS a participant – with a dog in this fight.
That's kitty kat's real crime. Oh yeah — Patterico says he's right and she's wrong, and in this case I tend to see Frey's side more clearly.
I think Frey has been very clear about his separate roles as blogger and Assistant DA. Personally I think he should be on the sidelines as a blogger, but he can't stand stupid. So he speaks up. Good on him.
ukuleledave (3aa293) —	10/4/2009 @ 5:26 am
Michael Moore is many horrible things, but he isn't stupid. He would never hire someone as incompetent, naive, and sloppy as "kitty kat".
dfbaskwill (2c7f7f) —	10/4/2009 @ 5:37 am
Pat is scary good with the internet skills.
Kind of reminds me of the days spent at LGF.
I always thought, "Charles Johnson isn't someone a healthy mind would want to fool with."
Just a casual observation.
papertiger (894e4f) —	10/4/2009 @ 5:44 am
Well — assuming that's her real email address — she did at least give you her actual, traceable addy. That's either very dumb or semi-honest.
On the other hand, if that's not Michelle, the actual perpetrator is a double sneaky bastiche.
S. Weasel (932300) —	10/4/2009 @ 5:45 am
Is this the same Michelle Sullivan – Special Effects Coordinator House Party?
kitty kat looks like road kill now.
Alvin (70ea2d) —	10/4/2009 @ 5:48 am
What part of "statutory rape" do liberals not understand? Come folks, it's a bad thing and should not be supported.
tyree (119dcf) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:05 am
It wasn't even statutory — he drugged her and forced himself on her. Rape. If he doesn't like his sentence (50 some odd days IIRC) then get him a jury full of dads. Lets retry the bozo.
ukuleledave (32fa20) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:08 am
Kenny,
What is your second favorite thing about this site?
The fact it has no minimum IQ to meet for posting privileges? There is a logic in expecting a host to allow untruthful things to be written about him with no recourse,but bI just don't understand it. I'll go by the hospital today and see if one of the radiologist will zap my skull repeatedly. Then,I'll be able to think at your level.
Womder if Obama care will cover it?
corwin (6aa824) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:12 am
Corwin – A 10lb rubber mallet to the temple, repeatedly, should do the trick.
JD (40d7f4) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:19 am
"The tongue of the wise commends knowledge,
but the mouth of the fool gushes folly." (Proverbs 15:2)
I think that our vernacular for
the Hebrew 'ivvehleth' (folly)
is "spam".
Rocin (606cf6) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:24 am
[…] With utterly predictable – and funny – results. To those rushed for time: Michelle Sullivan (of Perpetual Motion Films) was an associate producer of the recent attempt to whitewash the reputation of the infamous child-rapist Roman Polanski; and she apparently felt the need to engage in 'anonymous' comments on Patterico's site that attacked him personally. […]
Moe Lane » Michelle Sullivan (of Perpetual Motion Films) tugs on Patterico's cape. (da2344) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:25 am
Michelle Sullivan (of Perpetual Motion Films) tugs on Patterico's cape. - Moe_Lane's blog - RedState (2dbb8b) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:27 am
Pat, Looks like KittyKat posted this on the Daily Beast blog:
KittyKat
Justice for the victim and Polanski cannot be won under a corrupt justice system then and now.
David Wells did not lie in the documentary. The interview was done years ago according to the director. The film premiered in 2008 worldwide. No word from Wells on his big lie until now? Me thinks Cooley is worried he will not be elected again. Clearly the LAJD has no respect for its own system but as we know corruption breeds corruption. The fact that the majority of the PRESS is IGNORING a corrupt judge in 1977 and now a corrupt DA speaks volumes.
RE: Probation Transcripts: So many case facts have been spinned, I cannot even begin to list them all. However the documentary: Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired interviews MAJOR participants from the case and witnesses to Rittenband's judicial misconduct who outline this heinous conduct in the film. How interesting that the PRESS also FAILS to mention that Rittenband asked a news reporter (as well as David Wells ) "What he should do with Polanski?" Ethics Violation…big time.
The LAJD says its been trying to get Polanski for 30 years. When questioned, they immediately scramble to produce a press release which they post on their website with some dates and blurbs over the years…. Anybody can write a press release. Let's see the original papers.
Seems evident that a corrupt justice department and a biased sensationalist News Media walk hand in hand. After all, an election year is coming up! Is it not?
No wonder Polanski fled. Anyone in their right mind would.
She's not giving up!
pesto (44bf37) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:32 am
I see that Michelle Sullivan is credited with a part in the 1991 movie "Poison" playing the part of "Prostitute."
'Nuff said.
Crusty (2fb454) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:46 am
Bwookth, Dionne, and MadCow are on Meet the Press. I am wretching.
JD (5b1232) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:46 am
It looks like her real objective is to drum up business for the documentary. I wonder what her ongoing financial position in its DVD sales is and how a spike in sales would benefit her bottom line? How many people even knew of the documentary's existence before Polanski's recent arrest?
epobirs (bec491) —	10/4/2009 @ 6:47 am
I'm considering calling this film company monday morning, and asking what they think of someone libeling a DDA…
Bad kitty!
harkin (f92f52) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:06 am
"kitty cat" calls prosecutors liars, refutes not one thing Patterico has written about the case.
That's some case she's got there. And I've seen the documentary — as have people like Bill Wyman — who has written at length about what a distorted whitewash it is.
Karl (246941) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:16 am
I gotta admit. I just don't get it.
Why anybody would attempt to defend that reprobate sleazebag, that is.
At the time, I thought he should be hanged (as in, by the neck until dead).
Can't say that my opinion has changed any.
EW1(SG) (edc268) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:17 am
It looks like her real objective is to drum up business for the documentary.
Business dependent on rehabbing David Wells, one could conclude.
All the above is good for the documentary and good for the blog. It unfortunately doesn't flesh out crucial facts.
I'm confident that Pat is NOT acting on behalf of Steve Cooley's re-election effort. Any regular reader realizes this.
Polanski has been sought worldwide by Interpol since 2005.
steve (759e3b) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:19 am
Need anymore evidence Hollywood is corrupt and rotten to the core, and to the Corps?
PCD (40988c) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:25 am
Orthogonally: if the judge's conduct was heinous — rather than, as it appears to be, unfortunate for Polanski while utterly reasonable — that is a matter that can, and presumably will, be addressed during Polanksi's appeal process. It's an interesting question, I think; is it improper for a judge, when considering a sentence after a plea, to consider the facts that a: there is evidence in support of and that b: the defendant has, under oath, testified to? I guess we could ask, if we'd like, if a judge is bound by conditions of a plea bargain that aren't in the plea agreement, but that's kind of an easy one.
Joel Rosenberg (677e59) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:31 am
Lately, Charles Johnson has been doing enough fooling with Charles Johnson for the rest of us.
BTW, if people associated with the documentary want to discuss the case, perhaps someone would agree to be interviewed about it by Pat.
Or maybe they would prefer to hide behind a fake name and launch ad hominem attacks, rather than defend their work.
Comment by dfbaskwill
I hear CBS is hiring. I think she would fit right in.
Lefty ? check
Stupid ? check
Doesn't understand the internet ? check
Sounds like a match made in heaven, or somewhere.
Mike K (2cf494) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:45 am
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that he's still a convicted felon and needs to return for sentencing for the original crime. Only now he he has to go to trial (or plead guilty) to the fugitive from justice thing.
This seems to me to be their (Michelle, et al) general argument – they want to overturn a conviction that had no irregularities because the sentencing was buggered.
Is that possible in L.A.?
Jeff Weimer (952d52) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:53 am
[…] wonder why? Go there and find […]
BizzyBlog (6d60e8) —	10/4/2009 @ 8:07 am
Just a little relevant trivia: "Kitty Kat" was the name Polanski called Jack Nicholson in "Chinatown" in a cameo as a hired goon who sliced Nicholson's nose with a knife.
Dr Carlo Lombardi (79f9fa) —	10/4/2009 @ 8:13 am
I eagerly await the furious attack from She's My Sister And My Daughter.
Sounds to me like kitty kat doesn't have enough real work to do.
glenn (757adc) —	10/4/2009 @ 8:16 am
I wish my user name was 'Jasper Lamar Crabb'
Only in L.A………
Keep phucking that chickenshit…LOL
NYC Retired (b5264c) —	10/4/2009 @ 8:56 am
Wowzers.. this was like shooting fish in a barrel, only without intelligent fish involved.
Defending a convicted child rapist is a hard job as it is. Spamming a blog while doing it is several layers of stupid to boot. Yikes.
itzWicks (bebf5f) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:02 am
I'd say that there's a non-trivial chance that someone is setting up Michelle Sullivan. Non-trivial, because Kitty Kat's post was so stupid and illiterate, which seems to conflict with the resume posted on Sullivan's LinkedIn profile. I understand Sullivan works as a movie producer, and not a writer, but she still seems too intelligent to post something like that. And too worldly to post an putatively anonymous smear using a non-anonymous e-mail address.
But I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Brian (952f3a) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:09 am
"I'd have a lot more respect for you…"
I'm surprised you have any respect for her at all. You're a bigger man than I.
rrpjr (a184e0) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:09 am
I'm sorry. I got through about half of the fourth paragraph and concluded the diatribe was merely a hodgepodge of inane ramblings. Not even worth reading, never mind taking seriously. kittykat seems to have merely a hairball between her ears. Granted I was not the one slandered, but it seems here that it hardly merited any of your time to respond.
Mike (84edde) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:11 am
I wonder what her ongoing financial position in its DVD sales is and how a spike in sales would benefit her bottom line?
Her, and the lovely Harvey Weinstein, who owns the distribution rights for this Moore-ian "documentary".
shiva irons (bbf54b) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:12 am
On behalf of cats and kitteh lovers everywhere, I say a pox on kitty-kat and her oh so clever posting "name".
elissa (2fe27e) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:12 am
I wonder what she thought she was going to achieve?
And what's with the gratuitous anti-Mormon bigotry?
That's hateful. That's how it reads to me anyway, like she wanted to spew a little hate.
happyfeet (6b707a) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:13 am
Thanks Kitty – now I know what shameless adulation sounds. You need to contact Roman and get yourself a pill. Maybe he'll call your mommy for you, too.
Shane (99fa4b) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:16 am
Thanks Kitty – now I know what shameless adulation sounds like . You need to contact Roman and get yourself a pill. Maybe he'll call your mommy for you, too.
Let's summarize the Polanski case:
1) He was charged with some serious child molestation crimes. Any and all sex with someone under 14 is child molestation, even if consented. The punishment is usually a long trip to state prison. The facts are particularly aggravating because of the drugs and alcohol he gave the child not to mention sodomy.
2) To save the child from having to testify in court, he got to plead to a lessor statutory rape crime that commonly gets probation (minimal, if any jail time) and can be reduced to a misdemeanor.
3) The judge sent him, in custody, for a diagnostic study in state prison (segregated from the prison population) where he spent a little over a month in custody. The purpose by law is to find out whether someone is suitable for probation but has been used by judges to "give a taste of state prison."
4) Here's where it is unsettled. Apparently retired Dep. DA David Wells who was not on the case showed the judge a news picture of Polanski partying in Europe. This would be an improper ex parte communication.
5) Somewhere the grumpy Judge Rittenband (grumpy was his normal demeanor) made comments (at his country club?) that he was going to hammer Polanski.
6) Polanski never returned for sentencing. Keep in mind that the sentencing range is 16 months, two years and three years which at half time turns out to be eight months, one year and a year and a half. So hammering is really not possible. He got a big break with the plea bargain.
The point I would like to make is that all the misconduct, if it occurred, happened after Polanski stood up in court and admitted wrongdoing.
The sentencing judge is dead. Polanski was offered that if he returned voluntarily, he would get no more jail time. But he gave the excuse that he would not want cameras in the courtroom.
His lawyers filed motions and argued that the case should be dismissed because the LA authorities have done nothing to get him back. In law school, this is called laches.
So LA took their idea and had him arrested. Be careful what you wish for.
If Kitty Michelle or Patterico can correct me, please do.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:17 am
Another disembowelment of an intellectually-dishonest Hollywood hanger-on.
I give it a "7"–only because it was hard to dance to.
Mondo (35dd1b) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:19 am
I love the internet. LOL So many people do not realize what kind of bread crumbs they leave on the web when they go strolling merrily along their way.
I was appalled when I saw the trailer for the documentary. I am equally appalled at the number of people who speak on the subject of Polanski without knowing the facts, but yet are very forceful in their opinions.
Beyond the actual crime that was committed in this case, it has brought to light the ridiculous amount of power the average American puts into another person's hands when they accept a pundit's word as factual knowledge and not exercising due diligence by examining the facts for themselves.
The uproar over Whoopi Goldberg's "rape rape" comments are a prime example of that. She was actually discussing and questioning what crime Polanski was originally charged with. From the clip shown, it was obvious that none of the 4 ladies on the show knew what he was charged with. They were totally absent of the complete facts of the case, but yet it didn't stop them from putting forth an opinion. An uneducated opinion. Which in turn allows their viewers to adopt those views they tend to agree with (equally absent of facts) and then spread that among their associates.
This is one of the problems in our society today that extends into our legal system due to 24/7 media coverage. To this day there are common misconceptions that are stated over and over and over so many times that people are certain events that never occurred actually did. (Or in this case, vice-versa)
This documentary and those supporting it (and Polanski) don't want to shed full light on the subject. They know full disclosure of the facts cannot support their ridiculous (and disgusting) argument that Polanski is a victim.
And as is so often the case when one can't fight the truth, they fight the messenger of that truth.
Mr. Frey, keep shining the light on the truth in this case!!
Bill (2cf932) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:21 am
I think this is better than going to a movie. Go get her guys!
jeaneeinabottle (b8798d) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:22 am
So this woman wants to sling allegations and mud without even thinking anyone who can find out who she is actually is. Sounds typical say a stupid illogical thing long enough and people might believe it
The way I understand the facts is he plead guilty to get the 6 charges reduced to one because he didn't want to go in front of a jury. He went for mental evaluation for 42 days which wasn't his sentence. Then he decided the Judge was going to lock him away for a long time so he fled the country adding an additional charge already to the first crime he plead guilty too.
Rob Stubbs (a654f6) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:24 am
After Anne Apllebaum and now this one you should check and see if dementedhoochie.com is available.
I smell franchise.
Lobster moms in Maine have that domain all wrapped up, in the terms of your own parlance, feets.
Dmac (5ddc52) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:33 am
This entire Polanski thing has been a great peek into who and what the people of Hollywood's film empire really are…
ManBearPig (7edec0) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:35 am
drats. They ruin everything.
This person's rantings are pretty incoherent. The judge's conduct is now completely irrelevant as he never actually entered a sentence. If Polanski had stayed and faced that judge, then he could have brought up the alleged misconduct, but Polanski is not facing that judge any longer. It is completely irrelevant.
SPQR (26be8b) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:38 am
kitty cant bitch and neither should anyone else here about her privacy being violated since she is okay with a 13 year old girl's privacy being violated by a 40 year old man.
John (695ebd) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:40 am
That site turns out to be a Blogspot-hosted blog with predictably liberal opinions such as this anti-Bush screed.
Surprise, surprise! Only odd thing is to hear a liberal being so concerned about corruption, since corruption tends to flourish when the left is in charge of things—eg, government akin to the ones running cities like Chicago, Detroit, states like California, nations like Mexico, etc.
However, I will concede this one point of hers may have a bit of some value or credibility:
Roman Polanski: Wanted & Desired interviews MAJOR participants from the case and witnesses to Rittenband's judicial misconduct who outline this heinous conduct in the film.
But I suspect when you get to the core of the matter, "heinous" will end up being a laughable exaggeration. Sort of like claims that George Bush, and not Sadaam Hussein, was the corrupt, money-hungry, ruthless figurehead in the Iraq war.
If so, it will follow a pattern quite typical of the left. A pattern where a liberal like Michelle Sullivan (or "kitty kat") is ass-backwards in judging the good and bad in people, the good and bad in situations. So Polanski in her warped mind will be the victim — the martyr — while the judge will be the big corrupt (or "corrupt") meanie. Meanwhile, no more that a speck of compassion will emanate from her for the true victim, the young girl raped by Polanski.
I just hope Michelle Sullivan doesn't believe her liberalism instills in her a wonderful, beautiful layer of compassion and generosity. It sure as hell doesn't.
Mark (411533) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:42 am
Wow. Talk about self-derving mendacity!
The documentary ( have a DVD and have viewed it several times) is quite interesting, but the facts haven't changed. He raped a girl and the L.A. Criminal Justice system bungled the case.
Excuse me if this has been brought up before, but I've always wondered why Polanski wasn't asked to surrender his passport. Had he this whole sordid affair would have been settled legal history 300 years ago. Now it serves mainly as an occasion for ostentatious "moral" posturing.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:43 am
Liberals ALWAYS trot out that old tried and true statement that whomever opposes them is "not quite intelligent enough." This time is sorta backfired……..
Anna (745f5b) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:46 am
Thank you for posting this. It's refreshing to see an adult confront childish behavior with truth and reality.
SjB (9a5cc7) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:47 am
Love the comments on this thread. Possibility that she's being set up by someone else, but hey, we're talking about a defender of a child rapist, so I wouldn't assume too much intelligence to start with.
Projection via allegations of dishonesty and other corruption? Check.
Defends moral turpitude and is indignantly self righteous about it? Check.
Blames everyone but the one man who could have prevented this entire scenario? Check.
Big personal self-image stake in being right about the virtue of Roman Polanski in standing up to us Philistines? Check.
I'd say you got your woman, Patterico.
Meanwhile, there's also a thread going on over at Hot Air Headlines, with bonus several commenters bowing down to Patterico's pwnzrness. Entertaining stuff.
no one you know (1ebbb1) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:49 am
It seems the lady was spot-on about one thing: We are a nation of laws. Roman Polansky broke the law by fleeing justice. There is no statute-of-limitations on that crime, so his arrest and subsequent extradition are perfectly in keeping with the rule of law- his film work notwithstanding. Her sophomoric reference to those of us who actually live and die by the aforementioned principles falls flat. As far as an eye-for-an-eye goes, no one I've heard from is proposing that he be drugged and anally raped. We simply want him to answer for a sickening crime to which he'd already pled guilty. Just because we haven't "nuanced" reality and common-sense from our thought processes does not make us uneducated- quite the contrary.
Sam (f8568c) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:53 am
Where I come from, people in their right mind don't rape children.
I guess her standards are different.
Machinist (79b3ab) —	10/4/2009 @ 9:56 am
David Wells did not lie in the documentary. The interview was done years ago according to the director. He signed a release.
Her naivete ignorance is stunning. She *knows* he didn't lie because he signed a release? How old is kitty kat? This is the writing of a child who hasn't yet learned that people lie through their teeth all the time and for a myriad of reasons.
I listened to David Wells interview confessing that he did indeed lie. It was the interview of a person whose integrity and reputation had toppled: Humiliated, regretful, and kicking himself every step of the way for having lied in the first place. And he was a man who clearly realized that everything he has said and done since then, especially in his line of work, has become suspect.
30 years after the fact and Wells cleared his conscience. Too bad that has inconvenienced kitty kat and her necessary narrative.
Dana (863a65) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:09 am
"SeaQuest DSV" …. Crew Member (1 episode, 1993)
I wonder it "Crew member" is the equivalent of the 6th away team member on Star Trek (usually dead by the 1st commercial) especially since it is one episode.
Neo (7830e6) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:16 am
Dam# through and straight to the point.
Sullivan must feel real good about herself whining with her faux moral indignity about "corruption" when she is doing everything she can to defend a child rapist.
This woman has the credibility of Nancy Pelosi…none.
Epic fail.
Baxter Greene (af5030) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:18 am
I don't understand the David Wells business at all. The judge is long dead, and with him any resolution regarding the inappropriateness of his actions in the case. Declaring in the documentary that he spoke with the judge about the case, then taking it back a few days ago is neither here not there, IMO.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:18 am
Brian in post #50 questions whether it really was Ms Sullivan who sent the e-mail.
I would say that if her PP user name really was validated from someone at her email account, she looks pretty guilty and the only defense she'll have left is the Glenn Greenwald version of 'someone snuck onto my computer and sent it….numerous times'.
If any old email addy is sufficient to gain a PP user name without validation, then I would also say I have to give Ms Sullivan the benefit of the doubt until I hear more.
I don't remember if I had to validate my user name.
A little help?
harkin (f92f52) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:20 am
I would suggest that not only is a defence of Roman Polanski an indication of a broken moral compass, but spamming a website with inane ramblings and accusations are, additionally, signs of an imbalanced mind.
Pilgrimsarbour (94b5b9) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:20 am
Brian #50
Barbra Streisand managed to direct and/or produce a few decent films, and yet her writing is at times incomprehensible. *shrug*
AuH2Ogirl (5f9403) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:23 am
It never ceases to amaze me that so many of our self-proclaimed cognitive elite simply cannot grasp the concept that they are not invisible on the internet. That IP's can be easily traced. That you leave TRACKS.
As Ron White sez, you can't fix stupid.
Tully (c2f070) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:29 am
I really think that you could have written this differently, to not disclose Miss Sullivan's e-mail address. That said, she's totally busted!
Miss Sullivan wrote:
Yeah, I guess that if I was in Mr Polanski's position, and I was facing prison for raping a 13 year old girl, and I could get away, I would, too! Then again, I find it a lot simpler not to rape 13-year-old girls.
The Dana who doesn't molest 13 year old girls (474dfc) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:29 am
Harkin wrote:
I use WordPress software, the same as our esteemed host does. One of my frequent commenters uses a clearly bogus e-mail address; all WordPress looks for is at least one character in front of the @ symbol, and a . to indicate an extension like .com or .net or .nz after the @. im@an.idiot would be recognized as a valid e-mail address by the software — and I just plugged that in to this comment to make sure it would workl!
The blogger Dana (474dfc) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:35 am
AuH2Ogirl,
I said there's a non-trivial chance – but didn't say it's likely – that Sullivan didn't write the smear. But you're right, someone can have a technical and/or artistic skill and still write like an idiot (especially when under the power of a strong emotion.)
If by Monday or Tuesday Sullivan doesn't contact Patterico and show that she didn't write the smear, then "non-trivial chance" starts turning into "virtually no chance"…
Brian (952f3a) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:37 am
It is possible that KittyKat is folding up her tent and skulking away.
Earlier I noted her rant in the comments section of Marcia Clark's post re: Polanski's change of plea hearing.
I see it is now gone.
Just like a cockroach when the light comes on…
Calfed (c9fe79) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:37 am
Sure. It could be that someone in Los Angeles (it's an L.A. IP address) who knows her e-mail address decided to frame her by logging in under an anonymous name and using her e-mail. That person then posted a rather bizarre-sounding screed supporting Polanski, including some slanderous material against me — making many of the same points that someone like Ms. Sullivan would make. That person assumed that I would investigate, determine that the person was Ms. Sullivan, and post about it.
As I say in the post:
"If the commenter isn't Ms. Sullivan, then it's a very clever person who knows Ms. Sullivan and is trying to frame her as having left the comment."
I suppose that's theoretically possible — but it strikes me as very unlikely. What would the person's motivation be?
Is the person a Polanski opponent? Then why make these same points on easily a dozen threads here — and why make the same points on the Daily Beast??
And if the person is a Polanski supporter, why frame Ms. Sullivan?
And why frame her so obliquely? There is no reference to her in the comment at all. If you're trying to frame someone and get a blogger on their tail, you'd have her say something even more personal and inflammatory and then leave a better hint about her identity.
As I say in the post, common sense leads to the conclusion that "kitty kat" is Sullivan.
Patterico (64318f) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:37 am
Clark's post concerning Polanski's change of plea hearing was posted at The Daily Beast
Yep, Patterico. For that matter, the kind of logic that focuses on some alleged 33 year old communications with a judge who no longer can influence the case is the kind of logic we get from 911 Truthers.
SPQR (26be8b) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:39 am
Oh ho, very good screed, sir. People without a sense of decency (like "kittykat") need to learn that if they post lunatic spam defending immoral acts, then a blog owner has every right to expose their lunacy and immorality to the world, if only to protect other people from them.
RebeccaH (23af65) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:40 am
Calfed,
And yet the evidence that kitty kat left that comment at the Daily Beast remains on Google.
I don't suppose anyone who saw it still has it up on their screen? If so, DON'T REFRESH! Take a screenshot and send it to me.
The IP address is from Los Angeles, as would be expected.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:45 am
What I can't understand is why anyone would want to go on record defending Roman Polanski. Yeah, it's understandable that some of the glitterati think that they and their compatriots ought to be above the law, but there just isn't a lot of tolerance for screwing 13 year old girls in the US; you might as well walk around wearing an "I'm a pervert" sign.
Even if I did have some sympathy for Mr Polanski — and no, I don't — sort of justifying it by thinking that her mother had pushed her into a casting couch situation, and she knew what she somehow knew what she was doing, I'd like to think that I had enough sense to keep it to myself.
Would Miss Sullivan have had the same sympathy for plain old Joe Sixpack who drugged a 13 year old girl and raped her?
The Dana who has children of his own (474dfc) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:46 am
[…] development over at Patterico's. A not disinterested party tries to impugn Patterico anonymously, with predicatable […]
Gazzer's Gabfest » How to win friends and influence people…Polanski-style. (b98ad6) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:49 am
I truly believe that the internet would be a saner (and certainly more polite) place for discussion if everyone used their right names.
Ms. Sullivan's choice of screen name is insulating to all cats everywhere.
A better choice would have been Ms. Mesmerized.
A better question to ask is when will Justice be served to the crimes done to that long ago child?
Physical healing from rape and sodomy do come with time, but the healing of mind, spirit and soul take longer…sometimes a lifetime and sometimes never.
So, when will Justice be served to Polanski for his crimes?
nynalynn (909be0) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:52 am
Once a douche bag, always a douche bag.
robert c (ff0e1a) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:53 am
Kenny (former commenter Kohole),
I didn't reveal any private information about The Angry Optimist that I recall. I don't recall anything about The Angry Optimist other than that he was a dishonest Balko supporter who repeatedly called me "Richard" as a juvenile way of calling me a "dick."
You'll have to be more specific, with links, or I'll just assume you're another Balko follower who tries to gain advantage with lies.
Oh, and the rules of this site require you to maintain a consistent identity, so call yourself "Kohole" as you have in the past on threads where you have supported Balko. kthxbai
Have you met any film producers? Intelligence is well down the list of the required attributes. The ones I've known got more mileage from unmitigated audacity and shouting than cleverness.
epobirs (ba7f33) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:56 am
Our esteemed host wrote:
Oh, and the rules of this site require you to maintain a consistent identity,
The adjective-laden Dana (474dfc) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:59 am
Comment by The Dana who has children of his own — 10/4/2009 @ 10:46 am
Perhaps we are just too simple to understand the complexities of being um, French. From today's NYT:
"Being an artist or intellectual is considered a privilege in France," is how Christian Viviani, a French professor of film, put it the other day. Translation: prominent French artists and intellectuals, or many of them anyway, believe that their work, by virtue of its excellence, allows them moral leeway.
This goes beyond simply differentiating their work from their private lives. France is a nation that worships aesthetes and philosophers, and some moral tension arises from this. Art and philosophy test boundaries. Artists demand their own social compass. Taken to its extreme, the argument implies that simply being an exceptional artist or intellectual can mitigate even criminal behavior.
Intelligence is well down the list of the required attributes. The ones I've known got more mileage from unmitigated audacity and shouting than cleverness.
Given that one of the more unhinged screeching ranters on the web is Jame "Hamster" at Man/Bear/Pig, you may have a point.
Dmac (5ddc52) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:12 am
Yet another reason for using a made up email address when posting on Patterico.com. 😉 "Mail (will not be published) (required).
I'm a supporter of Patterico.com and have in the past contributed to support the blog (back when there was the problem with reregistering the blog's name). But, seriously, I don't think Patterico should be posting the email address per the comment "(will not be published)." I 'm personally willing to accept his statement that he traced the spammer/nit wit but not display the actual email address.
Here's hoping I don't get banned from this blog. It's definitely one of my dozen or so favorites. Curiously I linked to this report from Hot Air.com, another favorite blog. I would have read it sooner or later as I visit patterico.com on almost a daily basis. How does a sysop ban a visitor? Done on the basis of IP number? What about the fact that IP numbers are continually changing? Have rambled on too much. Sorry. Just think it was wrong to publish that email address.
Personally I prefer noway@jose.com for this and an assortment of other blogs which do not verify email addresses. Would that they all discontinued such nonsense. I suspect "Kitty Kat" is one of the few visitors that uses a valid address.
JerryT (e06cd6) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:13 am
Ever notice how the left gets all giggly and obsessed with anything sex related. It's kinda like 13 years olds who have never had sex. And it's always a glorification and anything goes mentality, just like 13 year olds imagine it before ever having it. Teen sex, abortions to justify sex, discussing politicians caught in sex scandals, open displays of sex at LGBT festivals in SF, sex with teens like with Mary K. Letourneau, Polanski, etc.
Normal people have sex privately with willing and age appropriate partners, and keep it in perspective with the rest of their lives, and don't need to make a big show of it all.
Grow up and keep it in your pants Hollywood.
PS-Nice slapdown Patterico. Well deserved.
JeffB. (ee0a8d) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:13 am
One might think after the highly publicized exposes of lefty trolls and sock puppets such as Michael Hiltzik that they would have learned not to ply their trade here. But still they come, convinced of their vast intellectual superiority over Neanderthal conservatives.
They never learn.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b99ad2) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:15 am
That was a fantastic smack-down!
Thanks for the great Sunday entertainment.
Keep hitting those home-runs!
thebronze (7f139c) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:16 am
The much better-looking Dana quoted The New York Times:
And apparently geographical leeway, since Monsieur Polanski attempted his "moral leeway" in the United States. this land of simple folk who don't know to grant such deference to the artiste.
Still, M. Polanski was at least somewhat concerned about practical matters, having expressed concern that the young lady in question might become pregnant, and then took contraceptive precautions by taking an alternate route to his pleasure. One would have thought that he'd also understand that, hey, there could be another consequence to the wrong port, as it were.
The American Dana (474dfc) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:19 am
Jerry T.
Patterico has explained several times that if you abuse the rules here, you don't get the benefit of anonymity. It's a two-way street.
FYI, IP number is certainly one of the tools used to ban a commenter, although to be sure some use more than one address. It's also helpful in identifying sock puppets.
And I, along with many others here, use my real email address, along with my real name.
Brother Fikes wrote:
FYI, IP number is certainly one of the tools used to ban a commenter, although to be sure some use more than one address.
Users who go through AOL will wind up showing an AOL IP address, rather than a unique one. There could be literally hundreds of users here who show the same IP address.
On the other hand, with three computers in the house plus one at work, I could show four different IP addresses.
The digital Dana (474dfc) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:26 am
Nothing beats reality, Bradley.
ADJ Dana, you needn't worry about your sock-puppetry. You're dumb enough to keep your linkage to your blog with every sock-puppet you make. It's very easy for us simpletons to see through your sock-puppetry.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:27 am
JerryT,
Let say I said to another person: "I won't hit you." Then the recipient of my assurance takes a swing at me, and I swing back, and I make contact.
Can the initiator of force justifiably say: "Hey no fair, you said you wouldn't hit me!"
The analogy makes some sense, because defamation is a kind of personal assault, and it's interesting (to me, at least) that in some court case classification systems (including Pacer, I think) defamation is placed in the same class as physical assault and physical battery. It's a personal attack that does actual damage. And Patterico's identification of the attacker is part of his self-defense.
The analogy maybe breaks down a little because it's arguable that Kitty Kat/Likely Sullivan didn't land a punch, as Patterico deleted Kitty Kat's posts. But they were up there for some time, thus the defamation was likely captured by Google and other archival services.
ADJ Dana,
With 3 PCs at home and one at work, you would show TWO IP addresses.
Presuming those 3 at home are networked through one internet connection. AOL is not your ISP. Your local carrier is (e.g., Verizon).
Demonstrate some knowledge, please.
Daniel McAndrew (178ac0) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:39 am
I am still bewildered as to why anybody would spend one second defending Polanski.
Metroulas (cc726a) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:43 am
I published 8 of her posts, for posterity.
Cokie Roberts says "Just take him out and shoot him."
It's worth noting that if you attack someone they might release your email address. I think it's a little different when you accuse someone of being a criminal.
If it's not really this producer, and after all the comment title ends with a question mark, then she ought to know someone is attacking her this way. If it is, then it's important we know what kind of people are behind this kind of documentary.
Dustin (bb61e3) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:48 am
Daniel McAndrew,
Demonstrate some courtesy and stop being a know-it-all, when in fact you don't.
Many-adjectived Dana could indeed have four different IP addresses as he said. I've got nearly such a setup in my own home, with three possible ISPs — two wireless and one cable — plus one at work. At home, I usually use my cable modem on my desktop, but an hour ago switched to a wireless IPS.
Your "presuming" is just that, and doesn't limit what others can do.
And AOL can indeed be used as its own ISP.
Daniel McAndrew, having 3 PCs at home can indeed give 3 different IP addresses. Cable internet connection can do that. Heck, having 1 PC at home can give 3 different IP addresses. A floating, rather than constant, IP connection can do that.
Before you attempt a top-of-the-buckle body-slam, do make sure your target is stationary. (stationery in this case?)
Er, ISP, not IPS.
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 10/4/2009 @ 10:51 am
Am sure you're right. But since it frequently isn't a sane nor polite place, some of us, however civil we strive to be ourselves, much prefer anonymity.
I freely admit to using a bogus email address wherever I post, no matter what blog. After several years of posting here, I once sent an email to Patterico and so he has my email address. Not everyone is so trustworthy. For example, I once posted a single polite but disagreeing comment on the blog of someone whom I didn't know at the time was a stalking nutcase and she published my email address, repeatedly, not to mention sending me a very unpleasant email at my address. Never again. Now bloggers get my trust the old fashioned way.
So, I'd modify your comment just a bit:
It would be a different Web if people weren't allowed anonymity. But since some less stable people don't care how rude or aggressive they are even under their own names, and other stable ones lose their tempers even when using their own names, a case could be made that that other Internet would simply be without the less-aggressive voices of those of us who otherwise just wouldn't post at all.
Needless to say I like the Internet the way it is, warts and all. And the liars, trolls and temper-losers tend to get the shunning, comeuppance and/or exposure they deserve. Case in point: today. Thanks Patterico.
no one you know (1ebbb1) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:54 am
Kitty Kat Kataklysm.
In other news today, a Hollywood polanskyite pussy was discovered suffering from self induced Pattericide.
Terry Gain (4045b4) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:59 am
P.S. to comment above: am of course aware of the ability to trace IPs. But in my experience if you keep your temper and stay within the bounds of decency, no one (well, no one intelligent enough to do anything about it anyway —attn: extreme liberals 😉 ) seems to be interested in your IP. Fine w/ me.
Hmmmmm. On checking the Web link for "Daniel McAndrew", I see he's a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Maryland, who wants to run against Mikulski.
Was that really McAndrew who posted, or was it some left-wing impostor trying to make him look bad? I think it probably was. Why would a candidate for the U.S. Senate go here to make such an uncalled-for attack?
I think this is worth our esteemed host's renowned investigative prowess.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b99ad2) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:09 pm
Polanski's appearance on "To Catch a Predator."
Joe Allen (1f09ee) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:11 pm
I'm really surprised at the overwhelming show of support for Mr. Frey. I don't share the enthusiasm for his 'triumph' here. Why are the abundance of comments about the Polanski case, rather than the exposure of the commenter by Mr. Frey? What was the purpose? Why do all that work? Collecting "moderated comments" for blockbuster release? You need a shrink. You're brittle.
J2 (e517be) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:11 pm
And you are…exactly, who to make this kind of comment?
Dmac (5ddc52) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:12 pm
You need a shrink. You're brittle.
So sayeth the sock puppet. You're busted, Einstein.
My understanding from your initial post is that you deleted Kitty Kat's posts and banned her, and then re-published some of them once your defense/identification of Kitty Kat was published.
My point was that you are on firmest ground in identifying Kitty Kat in fighting back against defamation, which was likely already completed before you initially deleted. If, counter-factually, you had a defamation-filter that prevented publication (and subsequent Google-caching, etc.) in the first place, then you would be on somewhat weaker ground. But I know there is the additional argument that Kitty Kat violated her end of the bargain or the Term of Service for this site.
Brian (952f3a) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:16 pm
To provide a piece of anecdotal evidence to totally demolish the idiot Daniel McAndrew's spleen-burst:
I played an internet D&D type game, where multiplay was legal. There was a "where" command that allowed the player to see the first two series of IP numbers, such as 220.113. If I saw those numbers tied to 4 different characters, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt those 4 characters were the same player. It was entirely possible that it was 4 different players, but the likelihood was weak.
Anyway, my own IPNUM varied among 2 different "first 2 series". When I gained admin position in the game, I saw all 4 series of numbers, such as 220.113.70.140. And my own IPNUM varied even further.
Like I said, Danial, McAndrew, shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:17 pm
John H.,
This "Daniel McAndrew" is probably a lefty sock puppet trying to discredit a Republican politician. (or perhaps working for a competitor in the primary). See my earlier comment.
BTW, McAndrew was praised recently by Don Surber, and perhaps the lefties are getting worried.
Daniel McAndrew for U.S. Senate
I am intrigued by ordinary people who are willing to take the powers that be. He is a long-shot candidate, but he has a fascinating story.
No, you have it wrong.
Kitty kat wrote a dozen or more comments onto various threads, probably as she was into her fifth glass of wine on a Saturday night. Several of these appears on the site; John Hitchcock even replied to a couple of them. They were not filtered.
In the middle of her binge(s), I was notified. I put her IP and e-mail into moderation and deleted all but one of the comments; that one, I put in moderation. (I wanted to hold onto one for a while to save the content in case I needed it.)
As I was performing this task, kitty kat was still busy spamming the comment in various threads, but now — because I had just banned her — they were starting to show up in moderation instead of being published, as the initial handful had been published. She spammed it to seven more threads while I completed the banning process.
I then did some research and figured out who she was, and decided to take the comments in moderation (8 of them by now) and publish them, so that the evidence of what she said would be on the record, and you wouldn't have to take my word for it. (I know most here would, but it is the prosecutor's habit to prove everything.)
She had already defamed me in public before I ever figured out who she was.
Patterico (64318f) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:30 pm
I've always wanted to ask any female Polanski supporters like KittyKat, are you personally okay with being raped as long as it isn't really "rape-rape"?
Enquiring minds want to know.
doggydog (ddef4c) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:36 pm
Yes, I saw the Kitty Kat explosion as it was happening. I made 2 responses. And then I saw the bovine byproduct being expunged and made a 3rd comment noting that fact and asking for my 2 responses and that 3rd comment to be expunged as well. Only my comment asking for my comments to be expunged was, the other 2 were left intact.
Oh, don't be so dramatic for chrissakes.
Does your blog have a breathalyzer. Awesome! You can diagnose beverage of choice and # of glasses of each commenter. That's awesome!
Sullivan is a "JALL"….Just Another Limousin Liberal.
Mike H. (0d0fb1) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:39 pm
The bottom line is that if you post anonymously slandering or defaming a third party, Mr. Frey will protect your right to anonymity; but if you say something that displeases him, the cloak of anonymity is "chickenshit" and will be lifted.
It's Patterico's site, so he can run it any way he wants, but his practice in this area is every bit as self-serving and mendacious as the practices he criticizes in the MSM.
Anonymous items attacking anyone are chickenshit, always.
Cyrus Sanai (3b1f29) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:40 pm
Clean-up on aisle J2! Code brown! This is not a drill!
Comment by doggydog — 10/4/2009 @ 12:36 pm
One of the best replies to Whoopi Goldberg came from Mark Steyn (actually one of the best columns on the Polanski case period); he said:
Roman Polanski knew she was 13 years old and, when she declined his entreaties, drugged her with champagne and a Quaalude and then sodomized her. Twice. Which, even on the Whoopi scale, sounds less like rape, or even rape-rape, and more like rape-rape-rape-rape.
no one you know (1ebbb1) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:48 pm
[…] . . teaches Michelle Sullivan a lesson about commenting anonymously while slinging […]
Patterico | Little Miss Attila (62389c) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:50 pm
Comment by J2 — 10/4/2009 @ 12:39 pm
Well, it's true that we should all agree that defending child rapists is something we should all be cool and sophisticated about. Getting dramatic certainly won't help. Thanks for the reminder.
Re: the beverage of choice you mention: you mean, just for example, half a Quaalude and a little champagne? Since you, you know, seem to be admitting that alcohol and other substances impair judgement a little bit…
KittyKat's probable true identity is the story now. She made her identity relevant, when she attempted to spam not just this site, but others, without revealing her connection to the story, so that we might judge her biases and motivation to make unfounded charges against our host and others who support Polanski's extradition.
Calfed (c9fe79) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:55 pm
I think this is more evidence that the amoral Hollywood ratbags who are supporting Polanski are losing badly in the court of public opinion. Kitty kat's comments reek of desperation.
rsrobinson (60b0e7) —	10/4/2009 @ 12:57 pm
Brother Bradley, if you are using a wireless router, externally it will appear to all be one ISP. The only way it would be different is if you are using a service like Clearwire, or if you are stealing wi-fi from your neighbor.
John Hitchcock, it is possible for your IP address to change if you are using a cable modem, but generally you will keep the same IP address for a couple years or more. When your DHCP lease expires after 12 hours or whatever you have it set to expire at, the chances of getting the same IP address is extremely high. This is different from what you might have at work, where there is a limited number of IP addresses and the chance of getting the same one with successive tries is a lot lower.
Vatar (a823c4) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:13 pm
Do to the fact Polanski bailed before being sentenced, thus becoming a fugitive from justice, is he now considered a 2 striker under California law?
Would that get him 10 years "just" for the "fugitive from justice" charge?
Because the original judge never gave Polanski a sentence for the original rape charge, what could Polanski be sentenced to, and would that be based on current laws or the law at the time of the rape?
WTF is rape rape as opposed to rape?
Dschoen (d44d8c) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:13 pm
[…] Pontifications posts the info here PermaLink | Rebel Yells (0) | Trackback/Pingback […]
Southern Appeal » Michelle Sullivan: Child Rapist Apologist, and Troll (2a87c0) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:15 pm
externally it will appear to all be one IP
When I'm "on the road", I usually suffer some sleep-deprivation (and I just came back from two road trips), so perhaps I dozed through the secession of Los Angeles from California and/or the United States.
If so, then I can understand "kitty's" use of the acronym LAJD.
If the above scenario is in fact "not operative", just WTF is she talking about?
Her disconnect from how the justice system actually operates is a(nother) tragic indictment (kitty: that means an accusation backed by provable facts) of those in media impaired by liberalism.
But then, it could be just another sympton of abuse of recreational phamocology.
AD - RtR/OS! (4702ac) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:16 pm
no one i know:
Why So Hostile?
Truly I don't understand your RSVP but Patterico is not getting dramatic over the Polanski crime, he is getting dramatic over being challenged on his version of timeline of events leading up to his dramatic exposure of the commenter, and his justification for doing so. He's getting defensive, very defensive.
J2 (e517be) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:17 pm
J2, defensive or dramatic? Can't make up your mind?
Patterico has every right to be offended by someone spamming an incoherent diatribe across his blog that attacks his professional integrity.
SPQR (26be8b) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:20 pm
Truly I don't understand your RSVP but Patterico is not getting dramatic over the Polanski crime
You don't read this blog much, do you?
I haven't been "dramatic" about it, but I have discussed the facts at length. I wouldn't call those facts "dramatic" but I would call them graphic and disturbing.
He's getting defensive, very defensive.
Hahahahahahaha.
The real question is, why is J2 so defensive?!?!
Patterico (64318f) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:21 pm
Another IP data point since I haven't seen anyone mention DSL yet: it appears DSL services rotate IP addresses more frequently than cable modems. My DSL service (through AT&T) seems to rotate its IP every couple of weeks or so. I've had similar experiences with other DSL services in the past.
Thus, multiple postings from a DSL IP address within a short space of time are almost certainly coming from the same person, but if the gap is several days, there's a statistically significant chance that two postings with the same IP came from two different computers (on two different DSL subscriptions). And there's a much higher chance that two posts from the same computer will end up with two different IP addresses.
I'm sure most people here knew this, but as I said, I hadn't seen DSL explicitly mentioned yet in this discussion, only cable modems.
Robin Munn (9178df) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:22 pm
It all matters where the "pee pee" goes apparently! Experts like Whoopi Goldberg may be able to shed light on this discrepancy.
dfbaskwill (2c7f7f) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:28 pm
Comment by Robin Munn — 10/4/2009 @ 1:22 pm
I asked a tech at AT&T about roaming IP's on their DSL set-up, and he responded that there is a chance that your IP will change each time you log-off of the DSL network.
Like I said, aisle J2 is a "code brown" situation. And my experience with the MUD (D&D style text game) were with dial-up. My IP addy changed day-to-day. There was no real stability, except it used a couple "stable" primary ipnums while having fully floating secondary ipnums.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:42 pm
Re #155:
May I call you Pat?
Anyways; I do read the blog regularly as it turns out. I am familiar enough to know of your transparent need for approval, (not that that's a bad thing).
I don't understand your RSVP either! Is it me? It must be me.
But, let me just ask, are dramatic and defensive mutually exclusive? I didn't know, but now I do.
You continue to try to link to and capitalize on the revolting circumstances of the crime to justify your action. Your action was to do an expose of a commenter while holding numerous comments unpublished and "in moderation", pending your exhaustive investigation to establish their identity; then, you publish all the comments which were withheld. Foul.
J2:
I just don't see why you're being so defensive.
Truly I don't understand your RSVP….
Comment by J2 — 10/4/2009 @ 1:17 pm
Sorry, not certain what you mean by RSVP…but you must admit that implying that a lot of people commenting here have alcohol-impaired judgement (see your breathalyzer comment) just might qualify as "hostile." And, as you see from others' replies, including Patterico's, to your post(s), others are responding to hostility (yours), they are not the source of it.
no one you know (1ebbb1) —	10/4/2009 @ 1:49 pm
It is an interesting phenomonon: Defending the indefensible.
Your just going to have to spell it out for me. Since your otherwise not engaged. In what sense am I being defensive? I use the term as a layman/layperson, so please be specific.
I am familiar enough to know of your transparent need for approval, (not that that's a bad thing).
Just FYI, here is another example. Imagine this comment directed at you. The first clause is definitely hostile, the parentheses render it merely "passive aggressive."
IOW, just in case it's not clear, typing "not that that's a bad thing" after a transparent insult does not make it non-insulting.
You asked if it was you. All due respect, it was. Please try again, with more respect for people here, including Patterico, and I guarantee you you will immediately be treated better.
J2, so you can dish it out but not take it?
Wow, I'm so surprised.
In what sense am I being defensive?
You even sound defensive about being defensive!
No One You Know :
See Patterico's post #136 where he imputes Fifth glass of Wine status to the commenter. He said she was "binge-ing'. (Please refer to post # 136. )
Considering how many people, entities, and organizations he's pissed off, I really don't see this. And this is precisely why a number of us bookmark this site: who doesn't relish one willing to take down those who consider themselves above accountability and whose dishonesty and corruption either directly or indirectly damage the public?
Dana (863a65) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:02 pm
I don't fault you from being uninformed; since most people don't run websites they don't have a clue just how much info they give up when they visit one. For just a small sample, try this (totally safe) link at privacy.net to begin your education: Privacy.Net
Rick S (323473) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:03 pm
Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. — 10/4/2009 @ 12:09 pm
My apologies. I had a visitor that ingratiated himself by using my computer without my knowledge.
Needless to say, that will not happen again.
Passwords have been changed, security has been raised – and the offender has been banned from my domicile.
Daniel McAndrew (178ac0) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:05 pm
þhe trollish-types are out everywhere this afternoon. J2 is no different than the rest.
JD (ec4c12) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:08 pm
Vatar,
I don't use a wireless router with my cable modem, I use ethernet to connect my PCs. I also have a wireless ISP, Verizon, with the MiFi modem/WiFi. That's my form of geek conspicuous consumption. So that's 2 IP addresses I can have at home. Add work for a third. And earlier this year I tested a modem from another wireless ISP, Cricket Wireless. It offers 5GB/month for $40/month.
I am considering whether to cancel my cable modem and substitute Cricket. I want a backup, and the cost would be less than cable. I almost never watch TV, so the loss of that would not matter.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (b99ad2) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:08 pm
The trolls really aren't getting any better.
Oh, I am very interested NOW.
Do tell, Mr. McAndrew, who used your computer without permission, and how that came to happen.
We'll wait right here.
Re: Daniel McAndrew, or whoever you are.
Flying a kite in a hurricane in the North Atlantic while on "the world's largest cruise liner" is a good idea for you.
Oh, and quit stealing someone else's name.
"It offers 5GB/month for $40/month.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R."
5 G of bandwidth? I go through that in one week, easy.
It is like an epidemic os sock-puppets and asshats here.
Rick S,
Power downloaders like you would not want to use a wireless ISP as your primary connection. But it's great as a back-up.
The MiFi is remarkable because it acts as a cellular modem when plugged in via USB, but when not plugged into a PC, it emits WiFi in a 30-foot radius. You can be your own hot spot!
Brother Bradley – I lurvs my MiFi.
So Michelle Sullivan posted anonymously here. Big deal. Sock puppets are nothing new. Patterico gives "Jack Dunphy", an LAPD cop, an opportunity to post anonymously.
It's interesting that Patterico and "Dunphy" are both public employees, you know, the kind that are bankrupting California.
Fred Suggs (6e42d2) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:27 pm
Patterico's Pontifications — Now Breathalyzer-ready!
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:28 pm
See Patterico's post #136 where he imputes Fifth glass of Wine status to the commenter. He said she was "binge-ing'.
I said she was "probably" on her fifth glass of wine. And she was on a binge — a comment binge.
Patterico gives "Jack Dunphy", an LAPD cop, an opportunity to post anonymously.
I'm sorry; does he hide his personal stake in what he writes about?
No, he does not.
No, Suggs, it is not interesting at all. But your utter lack of a coherent point is really fascinating.
If CA had more "public employees" such as PP and Jack, the environment in government would be so much better.
The problem in CA are the complete dolts that enhabit the legislative offices at all levels of government here, and their slavish obediance to their public-employee union masters – that is where the cause of the BK of government in CA resides.
#175, Comment by Patterico — 10/4/2009 @ 2:10 pm
My grandson.
I read blogs, I don't participate in many.
I have read yours in the past.
I only noticed this when I was checking my website stats a little while ago.
Nice chatting with you.
I see, in my Sunday afternoon daze, I missed the wireless part. Yeah, I would know next to nuthin 'bout that – due privacy-ID theft concerns I don't use wireless, not even on my notebook. Have both a card and USB stick for wireless, but never used it.
Not so much a power downloader, Bro Bradlry, as much as getting most my news/info/entertainment from the interwebs. Prob 1-2 gigs a day transfer. My ISP (Qwest) might start crackin' heads if subscribers make a habit of 200-300 G per month, but I've only rarely hit 200+ in a month. Anyhoo, as you know, streaming video eats up a lot of bandwitdh.
The difference is, Suggs, that we know who they are. They have identified themselves so that we know their biases and can judge any ulterior motives they may have.
That is very different from "KittyKat", who COULD have identified herself as having been associated with the production of "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired", but didn't. By trying to fly under the radar as a garden variety apologist for child rape, she made herself the story.
Calfed (c9fe79) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:35 pm
And you figured wine-consumption based on [your] snarkiness, presumption, or what demonstrative indicator? Please be specific, counselor.
Actually there once was a time when (mostly) users of UseNet used their actual names, school (.edu) email address, etc. etc.
But those exchanges were anything but civil, often involving arguments of the most inane and insulting manner. (I'm thinking of circa the early 1990's).
Human beans can be beans whether identified properly or not. Personally I stand by my comment that, when possible, I make up an email address before making a post. There are too many ways a blogger (*not* someone with the integrity of Patterico) can screw you if you properly identify yourself. I very carefully pick and choose those bloggers which give me no other choice.
I'm thinking of the Ann Althouse blog, for example. I'm forced to provide a valid email address but I trust her (like Patterico) *not* to provide my real email address. But given the opportunity I won't provide my email address. I've been screwed too many times since I first logged onto the net circa 1993.
I also failed to appreciate, in my earlier post, the depth to which Kitty Kat had stooped to slander Patterico's personal and professional integrity. This addendum to my first post should be amended, i.e., should Patterico have published the email and IP address, etc. Reading a blog entry before posting a reply may not be a bad idea.
JerryT (e06cd6) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:39 pm
For those who have any doubts about what a scumbag Polanski was and is, I recommend reading one of the many summaries of the original Grand Jury testimony. The circumstances were more like rape – rape than statutory – rape.
Daniel McAndrew, or whoever the person is, claimed "My grandson ate my homework!" I would say "nice try" but that would be a lie. You were udderly pantsed here for your lack of knowledge and you were udderly pantsed for your false claim to a name. And, try as you mite, you can't milk it for any more because ewe have already been cut off.
And, J2, why don't you hang out over on KOS? I'm sure your dead-from-the-neck-up status would be much more in line with them.
Clearly, Ms. Sullivan knows little of anonymous trolling. Employing an email address tying her directly to her identity is just this shy of ridiculous. More importantly, what I fail to understand is why Roman Polanski of all people is championed by the Left. I was a liberal once, many years ago, and I loathed pedophiles then as much as I do now. Repugnance of child molesters does not strike me as a Right/Left issue. This controversy makes no sense to me. Bring that moral cripple back to the States, let him do his time or die in prison, and have done with it–and him.
Troy Riser (9c9552) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:45 pm
and let me say, for clarity sake, anyone who calls Patterico "counselor" here does so for dysphemism purposes, and in violation to TOS of this blog, while wholly disregarding the disclaimer on this blog.
J2, you are moving quickly into EfP and Max Vomitron status. Not a good place to be.
When will Polanski stand and have Justice delivered for his predatory sexual crimes against a child?
When will he publicly atone for the crime?
Does Hollywood believe it is acceptable for a grown man three times the age of his underage victim to rape and sodomize her, then walk away?
Would they think it okay if it had been their daughter(s)?
nynalynn (909be0) —	10/4/2009 @ 2:45 pm
nynalynn, I posed that to "kitty kat" and she quickly went straight to the Judge and DA prosecuting the child-sodo-rapist were corrupt and the child-sodo-rapist was A-OK.
J2 – Do you know Michael Hiltzik?
daleyrocks (718861) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:03 pm
Yeah, I would know next to nuthin 'bout that – due privacy-ID theft concerns I don't use wireless, not even on my notebook.
Bruce Schneier, a top security expert, says those concerns are overstated. There are much easier ways to steal your identity. He leaves his WiFi network open.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:03 pm
"Clearly, Ms. Sullivan knows little of anonymous trolling. – Troy Riser"
As I mentioned in a comment above most people don't know much about the internets and thus erroneously believe they are completely anonymous, free to say anything. I'd classify that as "average stupid". But she went above and beyond the call of stupid here with the ranting, thinking no one would ask questions.
Why does J2 support and condone drugging and then assraping children?
JD (855966) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:05 pm
Silly us – and here we really thought that your dog was using your Wifi instead. Fool.
Please be specific, counselor.
I would like to ask our host if we can address this commenter as asshole in future exchanges?
Dmac (5ddc52) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:05 pm
To add on the IP address topic, certain ISPs will offer a range of IP addresses as part of their package. Time Warner Cable fiberoptic service gives you 12 consecutive IPs; Paetec T1 lines offer you around 6 consecutive IPs. So, technically, someone employing such a service at their home or business could report a wide variety of IP addresses depending on the circumstances.
That said, it would be readily apparent that they are all interconnected addresses and could be blocked fairly easily as a result.
h2u (147639) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:08 pm
Excuse me if this has been brought up before, but I've always wondered why Polanski wasn't asked to surrender his passport.
Just wanted to opine on this:
As a french citizen, I'm not certain a US court could demand such a thing be turned over, and even if they could, because he is a French Citizen, he could simply visit a French Embassy and get a new one on the spot, and depart for more tolerant climes.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:08 pm
…or perhaps we can call it "Rick Ellers."
"Bruce Schneier, a top security expert, says those concerns are overstated. There are much easier ways to steal your identity. He leaves his WiFi network open. – Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R."
I'd say the guy's either more brave or more dumb than I, Bro Bradley.
From your link –
"I'm told that uninvited strangers may sit in their cars in front of my house, and use my network to send spam, eavesdrop on my passwords, and upload and download everything from pirated movies to child pornography. While this is technically true, I don't think it's much of a risk."
I'm not as much of a fan of taking such risks.
Also, the guys says:
"I really don't mind if neighbors use my wireless"
Alrighty, then. But I'll take a pass on that. Call me stingy.
Left the apartment, came back, and saw that you said I got it wrong. No biggie, but if you re-read the 2 paragraphs of mine which you italicized in #136, and then your response in that post, you'll see that we said essentially the same thing, you in greater detail.
1) I said the strongest argument for revealing Kitty Kat's identity is that she defamed you.
2) I said that the defamation was "already likely completed" when you stated deleting. (That was caution. With your details, we can eliminate the "likely.")
3) To illustrate, I contrasted with the counter-factual (i.e., what didn't happen) of a fictional defamation-filter.
I'm continuing a infinite regress when there's no underlying substantive disagreement, which is a bit dumb. But if I'm wrong then you're wrong too.
Brian (952f3a) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:18 pm
[…] Clubbing Baby Seals The "kitty kat" spin-off. […]
Clubbing Baby Seals « Neptunus Lex (f106bd) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:22 pm
As a french citizen, I'm not certain a US court could demand such a thing be turned over, and even if they could, because he is a French Citizen, he could simply visit a French Embassy and get a new one on the spot, and depart for more tolerant climes. – Scott Jacobs"
I don't know if the US has yet asked for Polanski to be extradited, but if both the US and France does, there is some precedence that he could be turned over to French "justice" – Yevgeny Adamov.
Salutations John Hitchcock
I believe Ms. Sullivan would be sounding off for Polanski's privates to be removed and nailed to the wall if he were an ordinary person who had raped her oh-so-fine enlightened self.
Virgin Sacrifice to an old man's perverted lust
can not and should not be tolerated.
Michael Hiltzik? It sounds familiar – a sock puppet. I can't remember whose. Rick Ellers – Glen Greenwald?
Dysphemism _ I had to look it up. Humorously deprecating. Correct.
Comment #201 – JD: When did I do that? Unfounded charge.
I think that whoever asks first gets him, and I would argue that since the french had him for 30+ years and did nothing to punish him in any way, they have relinquished any claim to "be the ones to punish him"…
Make that comment 202
let me say, for clarity sake, anyone who calls Patterico "counselor" here does so for dysphemism purposes,
This sort of thing is a dead giveaway for passive-aggressive behavior. Anyone saying "the good doctor" immediately gets put on my alert list. Bradley probably notices when someone says "I don't trust reporters but you …"
MIke K (2cf494) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:42 pm
I've not read all the comments preceding mine, so I apologize if I'm repeating something some one else has said.
Kitty Kat is obviously a true believer in the sanctity of art and that everything that an artist does is a good thing because art is all.
But she's also a bad writer. One would think (or hope) that a producer or associate producer would have the writing skills of a high school senior. Instead, her handling of the language, in both punctuation and expression, is akin to that of a seventh grader.
It's no wonder that so many movies and television programs are so wretched. The people who produce them don't even know the language.
Dave P. (4181af) —	10/4/2009 @ 3:47 pm
J2 – Were you planning on attempting to make a point or asking a question on this thread? What is your purpose for being here?
"I think that whoever asks first gets him – Scott Jacobs"
Ideally it whould work that way, but check the link I gave above, Scott. In that case, the US had "first dibs" but the defendant was turned over to Russian authorities by the Swiss. AFAIK, the US hasn't done/served the paperwork yet. I think the US has till about the end of Nov. to do so, the Swiss can't hold him if nobody wants him to face justice.
"and I would argue that since the french had him for 30+ years and did nothing to punish him in any way, they have relinquished any claim to "be the ones to punish him"…
If France requests that he be extradited to France and be "tried" there, the Swiss would decide between the two requests. They could also decline to turn him over for any criminal prosecution to either country. Should Polanski end up in a pretend trial in France he would likely get a suspended sentence for whatever the French euphemism is for child rape. At worst, in France, he would be sentenced to drink only 2nd rate champagne for a week.
J2 is a textbook example of trollish behavior.
[…] commenter "pesto" saw the exact same comment at The Daily Beast and quoted it in full here. Commenter Calfed saw it […]
Patterico's Pontifications » More Evidence That an Associate Producer of the Polanski Documentary Spammed Anonymous Comments Attacking Me (e4ab32) —	10/4/2009 @ 4:09 pm
Re comment #219 by JD: "J2 is a textbook example of trollish behavior.'
Not really. An effective troll aims for an emotive response in the target. I doubt J2's (or Ms. Sullivan's) intention was universal contempt at their lack of skilz. That J2 cried foul at Patterico exposes J2 as just another white-knighting lolcow trying to impress Ms. Sullivan in exchange for e-romance. Or something. Who knows what his/her motives are? Who cares?
In my view, Patterico has been entirely too much the gentleman here. There is no 'foul' when it comes to exposing and ruining a particularly vicious or self-serving fail-troll.
[…] when you thought you'd seen it all. Check out Patterico's blog (here and here) for mountains of evidence that the associate producer of a sympathetic Polanksi […]
The Ridiculous Lengths Some Polanksi Supporters Will Go Through To Defend "Their Guy" | Right Wing News (c8efe7) —	10/4/2009 @ 4:42 pm
I do not believe that Polanski could be tried in France on charges arising out of his actions in Los Angeles in 1977.
[…] YOU DON'T tug on Superman's cape. […]
Instapundit » Blog Archive » YOU DON'T tug on Superman's cape…. (fe8e62) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:00 pm
Well, it wasn't "spam-spam"….
tekisetsu (2c1af6) —	10/4/2009 @ 7:26 pm
Indeed, you were right — and I was wrong to say you were wrong. I think I saw these two sentences
and processed only the first. Sorry about that.
I apologize for not understanding…at all…the "it's just about sex" argument from the Hollywood Hedonist society.
I refer to the current font of true wisdom and sanity in our culture at the moment, South Park. In an episode about NAMBLA, the adult who has sex with children says that he is simply misunderstood, that this is about love, sharing a loving experience with someone…and the response is "Dude, you have sex…with CHILDREN!"
In this instance, it was after the resistance to participate by the little girl, she was allowed to share in the experience of being drugged, then allowed to share in the experience of being sodomized.
Since she is unable to legally give consent to the use of illegal drugs to "get her in the mood" to be sodomized…once again, I would ask for a South Park Solomon to exclaim…"Dude, you drugged AND THEN had sex with a CHILD!"
If the Hollywood moral compass is so shattered that they would like to line up their children to be drugged and sodomized at a tender age beneath the age of consent, I'm sure that outings can be arranged by the "it's just about sex" crowd and they can have field trips to Joliet, Wabash Valley or Pelican Bay.
Make sure they bring their Dr. Denton's.
For the rest of us, who have a modicum of decency left in us…at least this way, you can debreed yourselves out of existence.
cfbleachers (5ca2a7) —	10/4/2009 @ 8:04 pm
Suggs pointed out that Dunphy and Patterico are public employees in order to accuse them of bankrupting the state of CA. Why do big government crazies always point to police functions when the budget is in crisis?
I think we all know by now that it's all the extra stuff California doesn't need that is bankrupting it… not the cops and DAs and firemen and streetsweepers. Good lord.
Dustin (bb61e3) —	10/4/2009 @ 8:07 pm
If the poster were actually the educated person she obviously thinks she is, she would know that the "eye for an eye" business is about justice rather than vengeance. It substituted measured punishment for blood feud and disproportionate punishment.
Put her in the ignorant group.
punditius (210824) —	10/4/2009 @ 8:14 pm
Between Andrew, Michelle and the infamous New York gun law, I think we've found a new rule with no exceptions:
If its name is "Sullivan," it's scum.
Xrlq (ff3a6a) —	10/4/2009 @ 8:57 pm
Stray Cat Blues…
Is "Kitty Kat", the handle used by an anonymous commenter who flamed multiple posts at Patterico's Pontifications covering the Roman Polanski re-arrest and subsequent Hollywood meltdown actually the producer of the recent pro-Polanski…
Ed Driscoll (a3d746) —	10/4/2009 @ 8:58 pm
Xrlq – At least nobody's had the bad taste, until now, to bring up the subject of Milky Loads in connection with this post.
I AM SPARTAKITTY!
mojo (74ba73) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:23 pm
(Custom memes, made to order. Sophistry extra.)
mojo the meme monger (74ba73) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:26 pm
Another dumb broad defending rape. lol.
There really are some loons out there.
JB (81c5cc) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:33 pm
J2 – As for the implication that Ms. Sullivan was drunk when she spammed her disgusting apology for Polanski, I thought that Patterico was being kind. By implying that he believed she suffered from diminished capacity due to strong drink he defered the notion that her diminished capacity is due to the fact she is an ignorant, immoral b%tch.
Of course that she worked on the documentary excusing Polanski's rape already proves that her disgusting moral posture is a permanent feature not any kind of temporary bug.
Polanski is guilty of sex and sodomy with a child under the age of fourteen. (IIRC a special circumstance of the statory rape law.) He is guilty of rape and sodomy through the use of drugs and/or intoxicants. He is guilty of rape and sodomy through violence when he overcame her verbal and/or physical attempts to resist him. His actions that day would have been a crime even if she had been forty-three herself, let alone thirteen.
Have Blue (854a6e) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:42 pm
This is wrong.
See, Brian, I was wrong to say you were right, and thus wrong to say I was wrong to say you were wrong.
Because in one place you were right, but here you were wrong.
I didn't delete and then republish anything. I took some posts out of moderation that were automatically put there when I banned her.
Regarding your Update, I disagree with Ms. Sullivan's opinions on Patterico and Polanski but I admire her for admitting she wrote the comments and for apologizing.
DRJ (b008f8) —	10/4/2009 @ 10:55 pm
"Sure. It could be that someone in Los Angeles (it's an L.A. IP address) who knows her e-mail address decided to frame her by logging in under an anonymous name and using her e-mail. That person then posted a rather bizarre-sounding screed supporting Polanski, including some slanderous material against me — making many of the same points that someone like Ms. Sullivan would make. That person assumed that I would investigate, determine that the person was Ms. Sullivan, and post about it"
This comment sort of reminds me of the Jammie Thomas-Rasset jokes that started when she denied having committed copyright infringement. eg her cat cracked the password and logged into her computer.
Ockham's Razor – what is the most plausible explanation?
adele pace (e3a50e) —	10/4/2009 @ 11:11 pm
DRJ – Am I missing something? I do not see any where here that any admission ro apology has been made or accepeted. Has she done so at another blog?
[…] Film mogul Harvey Weinstein has had enough of all the criticism of Roman Polanski and those who defend him so passionately. […]
PoliGazette » Film mogul Harvey Weinstein: Hollywood is "moral" (9bf351) —	10/5/2009 @ 2:04 am
[…] I have added the following update to the top of my post about the anonymous attacks on me from an associate producer of the Polanski documentary: […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Sullivan Apologizes (e4ab32) —	10/5/2009 @ 6:21 am
Brother Bradley, I would consider Verizon mifi to be "like Clearwire." I can understand needing that for mobile computing, but why would use that at home? It is a fraction of the speed of wifi, and has a monthly download cap.
Vatar (a823c4) —	10/5/2009 @ 6:46 am
Comment by Patterico — 10/4/2009 @ 2:30 pm
Sure he does. By posting anonymously we have no idea what his position in the LAPD is and what his agendas may be.
Dunphy wants us to support the LAPD at the same time that Dunphy and Patterico claim the LAPD brass cannot be trusted regarding recriminations against department critics.
So Patterico, you planning on giving up your overly generous California state employee pension plan?
Fred Suggs (6e42d2) —	10/5/2009 @ 10:23 am
Fred is doubling down on his asshattery. Nice.
JD (c48c79) —	10/5/2009 @ 10:33 am
Jack hides his real identity because there is a real chance (as in, it would certainly happen) that he would experience blow-back in his job, because he is critical of his bosses, a set of people not known for taking criticism (even constructive criticism) well.
Ms Sullivan, however, had no such reasonable fear. Her words toed the party line, supporting the work of the "documentary" she was associated with.
Also, Jack's pseudonym is consistent and long-standing – he wrote for the LAT for a while, and has used the one name for years. Kittykat was, on the other hand, a fly-by-night spammer of a single comment.
To equate the two people is to prove yourself to be a complete idiot.
Scott Jacobs (445f98) —	10/5/2009 @ 10:39 am
Lefties are all in favor of "whistle blowers" and using sources such as "Deep Throat" until one of their own gets caught.
Seriously, I'll bet the architect of 9/11 could admit responsibility for the terrorist attacks, and there would still be left wing film documentaries accusing the Bush Administration of being behind the attacks.
90210 Conservative (9d1bb3) —	10/5/2009 @ 10:46 am
I'm hardly a fan of big government. Why do so-called conservatives give big government a pass when big government is wearing a badge and carrying a gun?
Police are arguably the worst abusers of California's pension plan. There are retired cops making over $200,000/yr on their pension. They routinely get promoted just before retirement so they can bump up their pensions, and they are perhaps the most egregious abusers of "disability" pensions.
Oh, before you holster sniffers and badge bunnies get your panties twisted about how dangerous cops' jobs are, statistically it's more dangerous to be a garbageman than a cop.
And you want us to trust the LAPD? If the brass can't be trusted to treat a whistleblower fairly, how can we trust them to enforce the law fairly?
Because the police who enforce the law are not their superiors.
You really are an ignorant little troll, aren't you?
Fred sounds like just another Big-L libertarian true believer who constantly demonstrate why the average voter so mistrusts the Libertarian Party and why they are politically irrelevant.
AD - RtR/OS! (03146a) —	10/5/2009 @ 11:14 am
Fred is arguing with the voices in his head, you bootlicking authoritarians.
JD (c754d7) —	10/5/2009 @ 12:01 pm
Yeah, well the voices are winning!
AD - RtR/OS! (03146a) —	10/5/2009 @ 12:06 pm
Epobirs–she's work for hire, no profit participation (not that docs. usually make any profit.)
And Have Blue–plenty of people work on films and TV shows without believing every work recorded on film for the program. Her morals aren't in question because she worked on the film, any more than Frey's are when he defends someone who turns out not to be innocent.
I work in docs. and trust me, my credits are frequently at war with each other.
I think comments about her using a fake name are on target, but the rest of this conjecture is just as far-fetched as her spam was.
Kate (1d4ed6) —	10/5/2009 @ 1:04 pm
David E–he had a French and possibly a Polish passport, and the US can't ask people to hand over any but US ones, right?
Kate: Mr. Frey is a prosecutor and does not defend criminals, he attempts to have them incarcerated – for cause.
AD - RtR/OS! (03146a) —	10/5/2009 @ 2:04 pm
Typical Obamabot…
sarainitaly (5eedee) —	10/5/2009 @ 4:59 pm
Ad–that's but same diff. There are defense attorneys who defend people they know are guilty, and they're not all sleazebags.
Nice apology from Ms. Sullivan. She moves up a big notch in my book.
[…] Big Hollywood: When You've Lost 'SNL': Whoopi Gets Slammed Patterico's Pontifications: Associate Producer of Polanski Documentary Spams This Blog With Multiple Anonymous Comments Attackin… Michelle Malkin: "Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone […]
Roman Polanski & Hollywood's Warped Support of Another Criminal « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) —	10/5/2009 @ 6:53 pm
I will keep my insults and other rudeness to myself. Just use your imagination, kitty kat.
Jim Treacher (796deb) —	10/5/2009 @ 10:27 pm
Tibet Right.org : Film mogul Harvey Weinstein: Hollywood is "moral" (21f4d3) —	10/6/2009 @ 12:06 am
[…] and Whoopie Goldberg: What Polanski did was not "rape-rape" Patterico's Pontifications: Associate Producer of Polanski Documentary Spams This Blog With Multiple Anonymous Comments Attackin… Frugal Café Blog Zone: Roman Polanski & Hollywood's Warped Support of Another […]
"You've Moved to the Sewer… You're a Child Molester" — Dragnet's Joe Friday vs. Roman Polanski (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) —	10/8/2009 @ 11:08 am
Beldar on President Trump Supporters Chant "Send Her Back" At NC Rally
Davethulhu on President Trump Supporters Chant "Send Her Back" At NC Rally
Narciso on President Trump Supporters Chant "Send Her Back" At NC Rally
DCSCA on President Trump Supporters Chant "Send Her Back" At NC Rally
nk on President Trump Supporters Chant "Send Her Back" At NC Rally
Kevin M on USS Boxer Destroys Iranian Drone In The Strait of Hormuz
SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Make the comments of annoying commenters disappear, with a simple comment script! Instructions here: https://is.gd/CommentScript
Join the Constitutional Vanguard! We're a group devoted to promoting the principles of the Constitution, liberty, and the free market. Sign up here!
The archive of the Constitutional Vanguard can be accessed here.
The Constitutional Vanguard private forum is here. You must be a member of the Constitutional Vanguard, by signing up at the link above, to post in this private forum.
Check out Liberty Classroom, a site that teaches economics and history from a liberty perspective. I am a lifetime member. You should be a member too.
Help keep the site alive!
PayPal only (no credit cards):
Credit Card donations (PayPal takes a bite):
Subscribe for $9 per month:
About Patterico
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQs)
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
Highlights from the first ten years of Patterico
"Like" Patterico on Facebook:
Patterico on Twitter:
@Patterico
Accepted Wisdom
ACORN/O'Keefe
Air Security
Bach Cantatas
Bear Flag League
Blogging Matters
Bogus Statistics
Brad Friedman
Buffoons
California Recall Election
Constitutional Vanguard
Deport the Criminals First
Fact-Checking the Fact-Checkers™
Fiskings
Gunrunner
Hiltzik
Homespun Bloggers
Human Action and Choice
Kozinski
Lunatics
Morons
Music by Patterico
Nadia Naffe
Neal Rauhauser
No on 36
Patterico at PJ Media
Principled Pragmatism
Ron Brynaert
Schiavo
Snarkage
Stark Choice
Velvet Revolution
Watcher's Council
A Million Monkeys Typing
Acute Politics
Alarming News
Anwyn's Notes in the Margin
Badgers Forward
Beldar Blog
Big Lizards
BizzyBlog
Commonwealth Conservative
Confirm Them
Constitutional Conservative
Cop the Truth
Countercolumn
Dan Weintraub
DANEgerus
Dead Parrot Society
Dean's World
Doc Rampage
Double Toothpicks
Dowingba
Dustbury
EagleSpeak
Error Theory
Everything I Know Is Wrong
FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog
Galley Slaves
HipperCritical
Hoodathunk?
Hoystory.com
Internet Radio Network
Junkyard Blog
KelliPundit
Laura's Miscellaneous Musings
Les Jones
Let's Try Freedom
Likelihood of Confusion
Lileks: The Bleat
Local Liberty Blog
Margi Lowry
My Pet Jawa
Neo Warmonger
New England Republican
Oh, That Liberal Media
Okie on the Lam
Old Patriot's Pen
Oraculations
Pajama Pundits
Patrick Ruffini
Pejmanesque
Piece of Work in Progress
Pigilito
Politburo Diktat
PressThink
Pundit Review
Radley Balko
Ramblings' Journal
RantingProfs
Real Clear Politics Blog
Rightwing Nuthouse
Speed of Thought
Spyware Warrior
Stop the Bleating!
Strong As An Ox and Nearly As Smart
Stubborn Facts
Such Little Things
The Astute Blogger
The Dialectizer
The Hotline
The Iconic Midwesterner
The Movie Court
The National Debate
The Shape of Days
The Spoons Experience
The Unalienable Right
The View from the Nest
ThoughtsOnline
ThreeSheets
TigerHawk
Villainous Company
Patterico Sells Out
Conservative Blog Advertising MiniNetwork
L.A. Blogads Network
My Food Diary
Page loaded in: 0.7415 secs.