http://abovethelaw.com/2010/10/pro-se-litigant-of-the-day-deborah-frisch-ph-d/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27756742)

Also the documents followed a pattern that seemed to be CAPITAL bold underline italics CAPITAL bold underline italics. Over and over.

I literally got one written by a pro se college prof.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27771858)

He was born in 1932 and is still on the bench. This really shouldn't be allowed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27755285)

9th Circuit, Alex Kozinski, Bad Ideas, Federal Judges, Lunacy, Pro Se Litigants, Rudeness

Pro Se Litigant of the Day: Deborah Frisch, Ph.D.

Practice pointer: don’t refer to judges as ‘frocked cowf**kers.’

By David Lat

77 Comments / 367 Shares

/ Oct 20, 2010 at 11:22 AM

For a long time, Jonathan Lee Riches reigned as Craziest Pro Se Litigant in America. But at a certain point, JLR jumped the proverbial shark. His handwritten complaints, making bizarre allegations against everyone from Michael Vick to Martha Stewart to the late Benazir Bhutto, were just too clever by half. And once he passed the 1,500 mark in lawsuits, his shtick got… old.

Fortunately we have a new favorite pro se party for you. Meet Deborah Frisch (or Deborah E. Frisch, Ph.D., as she identifies herself in court filings). Frisch appears to be something of a loon, despite her doctorate and past teaching positions at such schools as the University of Oregon and the University of Arizona. Ironically enough, or maybe not so ironically, the nutty professor teaches… psychology.

Here’s the charming opening paragraph from a document that Frisch filed last week in federal district court in Oregon:

Plaintiff shall henceforth refer to self as litigant since she is defendant, appellant or plaintiff, depending on which shyster-vermin she is dealing with. Litigant files this response to the order filed by Docket Clerk Brinn and signed by USDC-OR Magistrate Coffin deeming all pending motions… moot since the frocked cowfucker in San Francisco denied the plaintiff’s appeal.

The “frocked cowfucker” appears to be the Honorable Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, who served on a panel that rejected a Frisch appeal. For the record, his chambers are in Pasadena, not San Francisco.

Let’s look at the rest of Frisch’s filing, shall we?

Like a surprising number of pro se litigants, Frisch appears to have acquired some understanding, even if botched, of jurisdictional concepts like the final judgment rule and Article III courts:

The cowfucker and its wretched frocked colleagues denied litigant’s allegation that since the final judgment in the case was signed by Mary Moran, it is not a valid final judgment. Indeed, the final judgment needs to be signed by an honest to god article three judge like Chief Judge/Zucchini Patch Slavemaster Ann L. Aiken or Senior Judge Michael Hogan and not by a mere magistrate like Coffin and certainly not by court staff like Forgerer (USDC-OR SO 2009-14, 11(12?).09) Moran.

Chief Judges Kozinski and Aiken might be “cowfuckers” and “Zucchini Patch Slavematers,” respectively — but they are Article III cowfuckers and Zucchini Patch Slavemasters, dammit.

(Professor Frisch, you sound like an Article III Groupie. I like the cut of your jib.)

UPDATE: In case you don’t know where the “frocked cowfucker” reference comes from, see, e.g., here or here.

In the next paragraph, Dr. Frisch takes the gloves off:

Since litigant cannot believe that it is in the court’s interest continue to nonconsensually use Sterling, Christopher and the shyster-gook in Salem who is a whore for Isaiah Kroger’s sick fuck daddy-o to continue to escalate the aggression against the litigant’s rights that began on November 30, 2009 without the consent of Ms. Pew and Ms. Nogelmeier and escalated on May 10 and 17, 2010 to non-consensually include Mr. Pew, Ms. Reeves and Mr. Henry, litigant assumes that the mootness of all pending motions implies the rescinding of the disgusting, unjustified, revolting aggression against the litigant by Mr. Coffin on behalf of as-yet-unindicted-misdemeanors Fonberg-Weller and Weller-Fonberg on May 17, 2010.

Wow. Just… wow.

Deb Frisch rambles on incoherently for a few more lines, then dishes out this gem:

LITIGANT NO LONGER CHOSES TO COMPLY with the illegal first and fourteenth amendment harassment on May 14, 2010 by Gary Gleaves, who engaged in so much pathetic, inappropriate sexual banter disgusted as duck talk with Docket Clerk Brinn that made the litigant want to puke on many occasions. Get a room Gary and Laura you pathetic duck fans. While you’re at it, get a life.

We’re not sure what sexual banter disguised as duck talk talk sounds like — “I’d like to quack you in the quack, spread your webbed feet, and quack your quack,” perhaps? — and we’re not sure we want to find out.

UPDATE: As noted in the comments, “Duck Talk” probably refers to discussion of the University of Oregon Ducks. This completely eluded me, even though I lived in Oregon for a year (while clerking for a Ninth Circuit judge in Portland). As I’ve mentioned before, I am a total sports ignoramus.

After another paragraph of nuttiness, Frisch announces that she’s taking the case to a higher court:

Litigant will file notice of appeal to the supreme court of the fraudulent judgment by cowfucker kozinski’s whores next week.

(Referring to a judgment of the frequently reversed Ninth Circuit as “the fraudulent judgment by cowfucker kozinski’s whores” might actually help Frisch in getting the Roberts Court to grant cert.)

Frisch’s conclusion:

Litigant might wait until Monday to act on allegations above. But litigant might not. You never know what this litigant’s gonna do.

Finally — a line in Frisch’s filing that is undoubtedly true.

You can read the complete filing by clicking on the link below. Deborah Frisch has a long history of insanity on the internets. It would take forever to chronicle it; to get a taste of it, just enter Deborah Frisch into Google, and surf through the many links that are generated. Enjoy.

Frisch v. City of Springfield: Plaintiff’s Response to Docket Clerk Brinn’s Ostensible Official Misconduct [U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27756736)

He also threatened the judge and her clerk with obstructing justice. He filed an ethics complaint against me and left voicemail messages telling me he "literally fell on the floor laughing at my brief" and "had seen better writing from a 1st year law student."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27756753)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27765389)

*Jumps on sovereign citizen lien bbc*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27765595)

If they're collectable, they can file all the shitliens they want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27765633)

*Attached are a drawing of Thomas Jefferson and a pipe bomb*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27765661)

I've been advised to protect myself from Brittan Heller, Heide Iravani, and their cadre of elite lawyers by using the Internet. Thus, I am currently in the process of creating a website that I will use to track the litigation, step by step, until its resolution. The website wil detail all the allegations and allegedly harmful comments in the case, and will feature the actual names of Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani as well as information pertaining to why they are suing me, and so on. Since none of the allegations, accusations, or allegedly harmful comments have been tested yet in court or otherwise proven false, I will ask for comments on whether such allegedly harmful comments are true or have any merit. The website will be publicly viewable, obviously, and in order to reach a maximally large audience, I will send a link to Yale students as well as other university students. A link to the site will also be posted on Autoadmit.com, the site that stared this whole mess. A mirror site will be created, too, as is customary when a site achieves too much traffic.

(Autoadmit's mirror site is Xoxohth.com.) A blog will also be established for the site. As any person familiar with the operation and creation of web sites will attest, blogs are very easy to create and maintain, and there are hundreds of free blog providers and free website providers for persons interested in airing their views to the public. Two obvious provides are Google, which provides GooglePages (which, incidentally, is where certain posters attacked Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani on the "T14 contest" site, which led Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani to fie this suit - note that the website I intend to create will not intentionally disparage Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani in any way, but wil rather ask the public for comment into whether any of the comments posted by the anonymous defendants are true or have any merit, as well as accept general comments and opinions of the girls from classmates, friends, and other observers in an effort to build any possible defense to Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani, and

blogger.com, which provides a free blog-creation service. Again, I was not involved in any way with the websites or emails created or sent by the anonymous defendants.

Creating and managing the site is well within my First Amendment rights. Any action to silence, harass or coerce me into taking the site down will be met by an appropriate anti-SLAPP motion which, as I'm sure you know, protects speakers from "strategic" suits designed to silence criticism and/or public speech. The protections provided by the anti-SLAPP laws are especially strong where the speech pertains to a matter currently under review in a judicial proceeding, and thus applies to speech pertaining to suit brought by Heide Iravani and Brittan Heller. Such a motion also entitles me to attorney's fees incured in the process. An anti-SLAPP suit may also be pursued to recover attorney's

fees already incurred as a result of this suit. As you know, Connecticut doesn't currently have Anti-SLAPP legislation, but Californa - i.e., where the Subpoena was executed does, as do many other states. To date, this horrible case has cost me several thousand dollars in legal fees and related costs.

My intent is not to further harm Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani. As I stated above, I recognize that these women have experienced some emotional difficulty as a result of their lives being publicly scrutinized and criticized on Autoadmit.com and other websites. However, if I am going to be sued by these young women for making a frivolous, non-threatening, nonactionable, innocuous and constitutionally protected comment on a website -- i.e.,

"Women named Jill and Heide should be raped," then I think it fair to create a site that details all the claims put fort against me and my co-defendants. I have no way of

knowing whether the anonymous defendants' comments concerning Heide's criminality and sexual deviancy are accurate, and a site that details all the allegations and

accepts comments from persons that know Brittan Heller or Heide Iravani would be a good place to examine those comments.

There is also another reason for the site. Since Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani's suit puts forth all sorts of extraordinary claims, and since I have no idea whether Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani are as sexually loose or bigoted as the anonymous Defendants' claimed on the site, I wil need evidence to support a "truth" defense to Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani's allegations. And since, apparently, it is extraordinarily easy to obtain a subpoena, I will be pursuing the following subpoenas (note that one or more of the following items can easily be obtained through an alternative discovery tool):

1) A subpoena for information pertaining to the size of Heide Iravani's breasts and whether such breasts, as alleged by one Defendant, are "fake"

2) Information pertaining to whether Brittan Heller or Heide Iravani are indeed "universally hated" by their peers

3) Information pertaining to whether Brittan Heller or Heide Iravani have any sexually transmitted diseases, including Herpes

4) Information pertaining to the law firms that interviewed Brittan Heller or Heide Iravani, and why such firms decided not to hire Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani

5) Information pertaining to whether Brittan Heller did indeed achieve a score of 159 on the LSAT

6) Information pertaining to Heide Iravani's religion - i.e., Islam - and information from any Muslim peers that may be able to shed any light on this case (this information may be a bit difficult to get, but local mosques would be a good place to send information requests or, if necessary, subpoenas)

The above information requests and subpoenas wil be sent to YLS students, faculty, friends and family of Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani to the extent they are able to be located, as well as anyone else who knows Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani and would be able to provide such information. Whenever I make an information request, I will state exactly what the request is for, whom it concerns, and why I am seeking it. I will use Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani's true names, for without their true names, the information requests will be completely useless. As I

stated above, my purpose here is not to hurt Brittan Heller or Heide Iravani; my purpose is to defend myself. However, I think it safe to say some of the information would be harmful to Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani. This brings to mind the unfortunate situation that Robert Steinbuch

found himself in - i.e., having to deal with numerous embarrassing revelations - when he brought a defamation lawsuit against one Jessica Cutler not too long ago.

The critical question, I think, for Brittan Heller and Heide Iravani to consider is whether having to deal with such a site and blog is wort "uncovering" the identity of a person who merely said that he thinks "Women named Jill and Heide should be raped." It is especially unfortunate that these words were the only negative words I ever wrote concerning either Heide Iravani or Brittan Heller . Again, I am not a lawyer, and due to my lack of legal expertise, these subpoenas and other discovery tools are the only things I believe I can do to defend myself against this lawsuit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2863001&forum_id=2#27765281)