Comments on: ‘Unbiased Bystander’ Unmasked

By: Greg L

Greg L — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 23:56:16 +0000

The individual involved has asked me to redact his name from all comments on this thread in order to prevent him from being unfairly associated with this in web search engines.

The information this individual has provided may be of great value in locating “Unbiased Bystander”, and since this article has been posted there has been a substantial amount of new evidence obtained. There are now additional leads to follow in this investigation, and I intend to follow them up.

I am closing comments on this thread.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:27:27 +0000

“[redacted] visited this site using his real name in late January of this year from an IP address associated with Cavalier Telephone DSL service.”

How do you know this was [redacted] — and not someone else pretending to be [redacted]? There are plenty of people out there sliming FG’s campaign that certainly have a motive to make his supporters look bad.

By: jb

jb — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:24:27 +0000

i just emailed you.

By: jb

jb — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 21:06:37 +0000

greg drop me a line.

By: James Young

James Young — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 20:44:18 +0000

You’d better be right, or [redacted] might well have a cause of action against you, i.e., might be on the other side of the “v.”

Aside from that, truth — as you know — is an absolute defense, and if there is any part of his allegations which are true (and I don’t know that ANY of them are), I suspect that the poster, whomever it is, will have a pretty good defense. Whether true or not, I doubt that I would advise any client to bring an action which necessitates testimony regarding an already-litigated domestic relations matter, since it requires the airing of dirty laundry, and I suspect that the gentlemen at issue has already gotten precisely that advice.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:39:59 +0000

Of course they’re false. John Light, who was named as the “married person” Julie was supposedly cavorting with, has not only been divorced for years, but has flatly denied this baseless smear. Even if they were dating, Mr. Light is not married, and there’s no rational basis for raising a stink about it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:37:08 +0000

“I gave the person responsible for anonymous and maliciously false attacks against Julie Lucas”

I agree that the accusations against Julie Lucas were malicious.

But I didn’t know they were false.
Greg, has she addressed these accusations (in private to you or in public)?

I had thought that she wasn’t going to dignify the accusations with a response… But I may have missed something. Please let me know.

By: Julie Supporter

Julie Supporter — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:34:39 +0000

Actually, this would probably be handled like a traffic summons when the car was unable to be stopped. When a ticket is issued to an observed license plate (speeder got away from the cops but the officer was able to call in the plate), they will issue the ticket to the owner of the vehicle, then, it is up to the defendant to prove that he/she was not driving at the time.

When it comes down to catching people on the Internet, IPs are used all the time and the authorities have an excellent record of catching the perp.

The two people in question here really don’t have much of a chance. Because of our close proximity to DC, there are a NUMBER of computer forensic experts, both DOD and Civilian, who will EASILY be able to track down the owners.

And, you better hope that Mr. Light does not have any friends or former co-workers at any of those companies you mentioned (I am sure he is greatful to you for providing him and his lawyer that evidence) as they, too, would be interested in helping him out.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 18:21:07 +0000

Greg,

How do know that [redacted] is the culprit here and not his wife, son, daughter, etc… or anyone else in his home who may have used the same computer as he did from his original post?

This seems like a huge leap of faith on your part.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:37:30 +0000

Yes, I did. Thanks for catching that. The post has been updated.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 17:33:15 +0000

Greg,

“endorsed by a pro-life activist organization”

This would be good. Don’t you mean pro-choice? If so, you can go ahead and delete this message.