Fred Bauder, Well I never Options

[blissyu2]

Look at what Fred Bauder wrote on his own site:

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index...rev&oldid=83504

Entirely written by Fred Bauder, no links, and he now insists that there is a widespread belief that I am a holocaust denier.

I mean seriously Fred, do you know the definition of defamation? I would have thought as a lawyer that you would know better than to do that. With my real name, no references, no links so that people can put it in to context.

Put it in to context and it reads quite differently, doesn't it Fred?

Do you think we should sue Fred Bauder over this?

[blissyu2]

Let's list the number of things that Fred got wrong here:

1) Nobody has ever said that *my* holocaust denial is the one and only criticism of Wikipedia Review, aside from Fred Bauder's post there, which was hidden and I only stumbled upon through the Trendpedia link.

2) Nobody has ever accused me of being a holocaust denier, not anywhere, until Fred Bauder's post there.

3) I did not at any stage suggest that the holocaust had not happened. I know that it happened. I said quite clearly however that the fact is that we don't know for sure what the numbers are, and furthermore that the nazis did not just kill jews. This is clearly established fact that everyone agrees on. The nazis killed Jews, Communists, disabled people, gays, and many other groups. Jews were probably the majority figure, but to suggest that it was purely a holocaust against Jews is factually inaccurate, as the killing of disabled people at birth was also very disturbing and also had a major worldwide impact. They killed people of other races too. I have never, ever, suggested that murdering people on the basis of race, colour or creed was reasonable.

4) I have never, in my entire life, suggested or hinted that any of Adolf Hitler's theories on racial hatred had any credibility whatsoever. However, I do have a level of understanding of them. As I said, it is in fact accurate that Jews were at that time, and throughout history (with the exception of when they were the subject of severe discrimination) generally better with money than other races. This is true. It is similarly true that Chinese when they came to Australia did make more money than anyone else in the gold fields. I was saying that they were rich, which is a fact that is not disputed by anyone, to try to suggest why Hitler had made his ridiculous theories.

My fucking god Fred Bauder, I could kill you for daring to associate me with this kind of nonsense.

Do you know how hard and how harshly I have fought AGAINST this kind of thing? To suggest or dare to even hint that I am in any way linked with this is atrocious, it is appalling to the hilt.

Fred Bauder, you should go to jail for this outrage.

You have 7 days to remove this, or else I will encourage Wikipedia Review as a whole to go after you with all that we can.

[blissyu2]

He has his wikinfo set up now so that e-mail won't work, and you can't send him talk page messages. He also changed the password on my blissyu2 account so I had to create a new one. Oh and he changed the e-mail address on it too.

[Nathan]

Stupid nonsense (on his part obviously). :|

(I deleted my last comment because I answered my own question)

[blissyu2]

I should point out that this is very different to the nonsense that has been written about Somey, who isn't listed by real name, and quotes aren't being attributed to him.

[Nathan]

Go look now. Grace Note has added his 2cents, not once but twice.

[blissyu2]

Stupid nonsense (on his part obviously). :|

(I deleted my last comment because I answered my own question)

*sighs* You can delete comments? Oh well.

I am seriously pissed off about this. I mean I am part Jewish for heaven's sakes. I am relatively closely related to Anne Frank for heaven's sakes. How dare this bastard write such crap.

Go look now. Grace Note has added his 2cents, not once but twice.

And how did Grace Note find it? And so quickly? What was Grace Note spying on?

Oh and now that insane jerk Grace Note is restoring it:

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index...641&oldid=87635

I mean for god's sakes Grace Note, do you want to go to jail too?

And guess what Fred? You can go to jail in Australia for being a holocaust denier.

And guess what else, Fred? You can also go to jail for making up a defamatory story about someone being a holocaust denier.

Now, I don't know where you live, or what the laws are where you are, but there is every chance that this will land you in jail.

You have a reasonable amount of time to remove it, so I suggest you do.

And as for you, Grace Note, the same applies to you if you make it clear that you also wish to state the same lie.

[blissyu2]

Okay, I checked and by US law you do not go to jail for being a holocaust denier. Ergo Fred Bauder is not risking jail time for making a false accusation of holocaust denial either. Nonetheless, it is extremely troubling. I wonder if I can have him tried under Australian law, where he would face 6 months jail for making this kind of claim.

[Nathan]

I wonder if you can set the precedent that "since the website is accessible in Australia, Australian law applies"?

Or maybe that precedent has already been set already, for all I know.

[blissyu2]

I wrote a post on this in the blog, in addition to including the other 2 accusations of Holocaust denial against Wikipedia Review:

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20070806/w...locaust-denial/

I think that Grace Note will have to be sued too.

[Somey]

I'm pretty sure Fred didn't actually write that stuff on WikInfo originally, Grace Note did. Fred should have probably deleted the defamatory stuff, of course, but I guess WikInfo is "cool" with defamation.

Meanwhile, Grace Note is probably feeling terribly thwarted these days, isn't he? First WikiAbuse, then the OhMyNews story, and now this... Poor thing! I had to delete a blog comment from him earlier today because it was filled with all sorts of insane, obscene ranting. Who the hell does he think he is, anyway? (I mean, other than an insane, obscene ranter.)

Mr. Note, I assume you're reading this: When you go too far, is it near enough? Tell me what it's like when you go too far...

[blissyu2]

I wonder if you can set the precedent that "since the website is accessible in Australia, Australian law applies"?

Or maybe that precedent has already been set already, for all I know.

In theory, that is the law in Australia. However, the problem is that other countries disagree.

In theory, Fred Bauder could be sent to an Australian prison over this, as could Grace Note. However, we'd need to convince US authorities of that too.

The law in Australia is that if it is done over the internet and involves an Australian, it is deemed to be in Australia, and Australian law applies.

There have been a number of well-publicised defamation cases that have paved the way for this.

[blissyu2]

Actually, amusingly, Fred Bauder *REALLY* should know this. The law is stated on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel#Australian_law

A recent judgment of the High Court of Australia has significant consequences on interpretation of the law. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down its judgment in the Internet defamation dispute in the case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The judgment, which established that Internet-published foreign publications that defamed an Australian in his or hers Australian reputation could be held accountable under Australian libel law

See the case file: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/56.html (just in case Wikipedia wipe it)

Based on this, Grace Note could be prosecuted under Australian law over this. He could also go to jail, since holocaust denial in Australia is an imprisonable offence, and furthermore that falsely stating that someone of holocaust denial in Australia is also an imprisonable offence (note that accusing someone of holocaust denial is NOT an imprisonable offence - only stating as fact something that is fiction. in other words if Grace Note said "I think that Blissyu2 is a holocaust denier" then he wouldn't be doing anything illegal - its an opinion. But if he said "Blissyu2 IS a holocaust denier" then he is doing something illegal. Unless of course its true, but then again its not, and I've proved its not. And since this is a case that could lead me to going to prison, there is no requirement to prove financial loss).

Anyway, that's the law. But what actually happens is another matter entirely. Other than Gutnick vs Dow Jones, there are no other examples of people being successfully sued like this, and many examples of people trying. And it is a further stretch to apply Australia's laws on holocaust denial to such a case.

In theory, however, Grace Note could go to jail for this.

[LamontStormstar]

Fred Bauder may be in a bad mood after ebaum's world raided his water wiki, which he rarely checks but once a week.

http://water.wikia.com/index.php?title=Spe...ys=90&limit=500

This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

[blissyu2]

Actually I think most likely it was Grace Note that wrote it, and Fred Bauder was just naively passing it on. However, I'm not certain, as it was certainly his username that moved the offensive material over. Either way, he runs the site, and can delete it.

Perhaps extend the time he has to delete it until he's definitely read it. He's a bit hard to contact.

[dtobias]

That's rather bad law, in general... it's not very good for freedom of speech if you can get dragged into court (civil or criminal) in any country in the world for whatever you do on the Internet. Imagine trying to make a site conform to the lowest common denominator of every country's laws, from Iran to China. Sometimes laws are explicitly mutually-exclusive, like where two countries in a border dispute both insist that all maps and references show the borders the way they like it.

[Unrepentant Vandal]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...sc0125a&invol=1

Juicy or what?

[guy]

Can I just clarify what Holocaust denial means in Australia? Is it to deny that the Nazis murdered millions of people whom they didn't like, including homosexuals and trade unionists? Is it to deny that the majority of these millions were Jewish?

[Infoboy]

Grace Note, being a complete raving maniac, defamer, and troll, needs to be completely outed so that individuals can file suit against this person if they desire.

[GlassBeadGame]

Fred Bauder may be in a bad mood after ebaum's world raided his water wiki, which he rarely checks but once a week.

http://water.wikia.com/index.php?title=Spe...ys=90&limit=500

Fred was not disbarred, although the incident as described is pretty much as the way the Colorado attorney discipline folks saw it. Fred could have paid some minor costs and returned to the practice of law after a short suspension a long time ago. So much time has passed now he would probably have to retake the bar exam. Given the mental habits he has fallen into in recent years this might present a serious problem.

[LamontStormstar]

Fred Bauder may be in a bad mood after ebaum's world raided his water wiki, which he rarely checks but once a week.

http://water.wikia.com/index.php?title=Spe...ys=90&limit=500

Fred was not disbarred, although the incident as described is pretty much as the way the Colorado attorney discipline folks saw it. Fred could have paid some minor costs and returned to the practice of law after a short suspension a long time ago. So much time has passed now he would probably have to retake the bar exam. Given the mental habits he has fallen into in recent years this might present a serious problem.

Can you explain more about how he wasn't disbarred?

Also what do you mean by "Given the mental habits he has fallen into in recent years this might present a serious problem"? I don't even know what mental habits you mean.


Also, I think it's a shame that they were so hard on him for trying to pay a hooker. A man has needs. Police posing as hookers is just wasting police officers so real crimes happen and there's no cops around.

[Infoboy]

Fred Bauder may be in a bad mood after ebaum's world raided his water wiki, which he rarely checks but once a week.

http://water.wikia.com/index.php?title=Spe...ys=90&limit=500

Fred was not disbarred, although the incident as described is pretty much as the way the Colorado attorney discipline folks saw it. Fred could have paid some minor costs and returned to the practice of law after a short suspension a long time ago. So much time has passed now he would probably have to retake the bar exam. Given the mental habits he has fallen into in recent years this might present a serious problem.

Can you explain more about how he wasn't disbarred?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...sc0125a&invol=1

Seems he was, unless I am misreading that.

N THE MATTER OF FRED BAUDER

EN BANC ATTORNEY SUSPENDED

Linda Donnelly, Attorney Regulation Counsel

James C. Coyle, Assistant Attorney Regulation Counsel

Denver, Colorado

Fred Bauder, Pro Se

Crestone, Colorado

PER CURIAM

In this lawyer discipline case, a hearing panel of the supreme court grievance committee approved the findings and recommendation of the hearing board. The board and the panel recommended that the respondent, Fred Bauder, be suspended for thirty days, be required to petition for reinstatement, and pay certain costs before again being allowed to practice law. We accept the recommendation.

I.

Fred Bauder was licensed to practice law in Colorado in 1976. He failed to answer the formal complaint filed in this case and the hearing board entered a default against him. The allegations of fact contained in the complaint were therefore deemed admitted. See C.R.C.P. 241.13((IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif); People v. Paulson , 930 P.2d 582, 582 (Colo. 1997). Based on the default and the evidence presented, the hearing board found that the following had been established by clear and convincing evidence.

On July 14, 1997, we publicly censured Bauder for soliciting for prostitution during a phone call with the wife of a dissolution of marriage client. See People v. Bauder , 941 P.2d 282, 283 (Colo. 1997). Bauder was ordered to pay the costs of that proceeding in the amount of $2,058.97 within thirty days of the date on the opinion. See id. at 283-84. He did not pay the costs as ordered, however, or file a motion for an extension of time to comply with our order. Moreover, Bauder failed to respond to a letter from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and has not explained or justified his noncompliance with the order. As a result, a request for investigation was filed against him. Bauder did not respond to the request for investigation.

The hearing board concluded that Bauder knowingly disobeyed an order of this court in violation of Colo. RPC 3.4©; and that his conduct also violated Colo. RPC 8.4(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) and C.R.C.P. 241.6(7) (failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation).

II.

The hearing panel approved the board's recommendation that Bauder be suspended for thirty days, be required to petition for reinstatement, and as a further condition of reinstatement, demonstrate that he has paid the costs incurred in the 1997 proceeding.

Under the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Supp. 1992) (ABA Standards ), "[s]uspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly violates a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding." ABA Standards 6.22. However, disbarment is warranted when a lawyer "(a) intentionally or knowingly violates the terms of a prior disciplinary order and such violation causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, the legal system, or the profession." Id. at 8.1(a).

The 1997 public censure is an aggravating factor for analyzing the proper level of discipline. See id. at 9.22(a). Other aggravating factors include Bauder's refusal to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct, see id. at 9.22(g); his substantial experience in the practice of law, see id. at 9.22(i); and his indifference to making restitution, see id. at 9.22(j). Because Bauder did not appear at the hearing or offer any evidence, no mitigating factors were found.

The lawyer respondent has defaulted and apparently ignored the disciplinary proceedings. We elect to accept the board's recommendation. See People v. Rishel , 956 P.2d 542, 544 (Colo. 1998). We are satisfied that the requirement that the respondent undergo reinstatement proceedings and demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he is again fit to practice law will adequately protect the public. Accordingly, we accept the recommendations of the hearing board and panel. One member of the court, however, would impose more severe discipline.

III.

It is hereby ordered that Fred Bauder is suspended from the practice of law for thirty days, effective thirty days after the issuance of this opinion. It is further ordered that, prior to seeking reinstatement and as a condition thereof, Bauder shall pay the costs of his 1997 disciplinary proceeding in the amount of $2,058.97 plus statutory interest from August 14, 1997, to the Attorney Regulation Committee. Bauder is further ordered to pay the costs of this proceeding in the amount of $124.11 within thirty days after this opinion is announced to the Attorney Regulation Committee, 600 Seventeenth Street, Suite 200 South, Denver, Colorado 80202-5432. Bauder shall not be reinstated until after he has complied with C.R.C.P. 251.29.

[GlassBeadGame]

Fred Bauder may be in a bad mood after ebaum's world raided his water wiki, which he rarely checks but once a week.

http://water.wikia.com/index.php?title=Spe...ys=90&limit=500

Fred was not disbarred, although the incident as described is pretty much as the way the Colorado attorney discipline folks saw it. Fred could have paid some minor costs and returned to the practice of law after a short suspension a long time ago. So much time has passed now he would probably have to retake the bar exam. Given the mental habits he has fallen into in recent years this might present a serious problem.

Can you explain more about how he wasn't disbarred?

Also what do you mean by "Given the mental habits he has fallen into in recent years this might present a serious problem"? I don't even know what mental habits you mean.


Also, I think it's a shame that they were so hard on him for trying to pay a hooker. A man has needs. Police posing as hookers is just wasting police officers so real crimes happen and there's no cops around.

Disbarment is the complete and permanent loss of the privilege to practice law. The discipline board did not see the matter as that bad. They might have let it pass with even less but the woman who he sought sex for compensation from was not plying her trade on Colfax Avenue. She appears to have been the wife of a client. A divorce client.

Below is an except from the disciplinary decision

On July 14, 1997, we publicly censured Bauder for soliciting for prostitution during a phone call with the wife of a dissolution of marriage client. See People v. Bauder , 941 P.2d 282, 283 (Colo. 1997).

Here is Fred's explanation and confirmation on CZ

By "mental habits of recent years" I mean the phony processes and reasoning of ArbCom. He has been told how clever is by a bunch of sycophantic Wikipedians without the capacity to engage in legal analysis for some time now. Also pumping your mind full of information to be regurgitated on a bar exam is a lot easier to do while you are in your 20's than in your 60's.

[blissyu2]

Actually, Fred Bauder hasn't removed the link from his CZ profile: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Fred_Bauder

So you didn't need to put in an old version number to it.

Fred Bauder was debarred for trying to have sex with the wife of a client he was representing in a divorce proceedings. I mean, come on! Who hasn't done that? She was probably really hot. Sure, its unprofessional, and sure its probably illegal, but come on now he was a lawyer, what kind of ethics do lawyers have? Seriously.

He also got a slap on the wrist over it, but for reasons best known to himself decided not to fight it, hence meaning that he was effectively debarred for life.

And so now he goes on to Wikipedia, as a pseudo-lawyer, because he isn't a real lawyer anymore.

I don't really think that overall this greatly hurts his reputation, or makes him ineligible to be an ArbCom member. I mean how many of them have ever studied law at all?

[LamontStormstar]

Fred Bauder was debarred for trying to have sex with the wife of a client he was representing in a divorce proceedings. I mean, come on! Who hasn't done that? She was probably really hot. Sure, its unprofessional, and sure its probably illegal, but come on now he was a lawyer, what kind of ethics do lawyers have? Seriously.

He also got a slap on the wrist over it, but for reasons best known to himself decided not to fight it, hence meaning that he was effectively debarred for life.

And so now he goes on to Wikipedia, as a pseudo-lawyer, because he isn't a real lawyer anymore.

I don't really think that overall this greatly hurts his reputation, or makes him ineligible to be an ArbCom member. I mean how many of them have ever studied law at all?

Well with lawyers so expensive, it's preferable to have sex with an ugly lawyer than to have to pay $10,000. However, for a lawyer to offer it does say that the lawyer is unethical (beyond the normal Jonny Cochraine level), and thus Fred Bauder is an unethical person and would be bad as a judge (e.g. ArbCom).

If he only got a slap on the wrist, I don't know why he didn't fight it. Lawyers make a lot of money.


Hmmm he says on here http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Fred_Bauder that " practiced law some, but due to an ethics problem, (The details can be easily found by googling me; the underlying charge is untrue) I no longer practice". Odd.



This post has been edited by LamontStormstar:

[GlassBeadGame]

Fred Bauder was debarred for trying to have sex with the wife of a client he was representing in a divorce proceedings. I mean, come on! Who hasn't done that? She was probably really hot. Sure, its unprofessional, and sure its probably illegal, but come on now he was a lawyer, what kind of ethics do lawyers have? Seriously.

He also got a slap on the wrist over it, but for reasons best known to himself decided not to fight it, hence meaning that he was effectively debarred for life.

And so now he goes on to Wikipedia, as a pseudo-lawyer, because he isn't a real lawyer anymore.

I don't really think that overall this greatly hurts his reputation, or makes him ineligible to be an ArbCom member. I mean how many of them have ever studied law at all?

Well with lawyers so expensive, it's preferable to have sex with an ugly lawyer than to have to pay $10,000. However, for a lawyer to offer it does say that the lawyer is unethical (beyond the normal Jonny Cochraine level), and thus Fred Bauder is an unethical person and would be bad as a judge (e.g. ArbCom).

If he only got a slap on the wrist, I don't know why he didn't fight it. Lawyers make a lot of money.


Hmmm he says on here http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Fred_Bauder that " practiced law some, but due to an ethics problem, (The details can be easily found by googling me; the underlying charge is untrue) I no longer practice". Odd.

The woman was not his client. She was the wife of a client. In a divorce matter. I assume she would have been on the other side in the case, although I can imagine a couple of scenario where she might have been adverse to his clients interests. I'm not sure what is worse.

[blissyu2]

Yeah, you're probably right that he is highly unethical. One of my sisters is a lawyer, and I went to law school ever so briefly before quitting it due to ethics. My biggest problem with it is that you are forced to represent people who you know are guilty, especially early on. If you could be a lawyer and only ever represent people that you know, or at least think, are innocent, and never use underhanded tactics, then it's fine. But that's the problem that especially early on they are forced to represent lots of guilty bastards, and at any stage most lawyers are forced to represent guilty pricks, and they make money depending on their ability to get these pricks from going to prison.

If we could somehow change the system so that lawyers were rewarded for ethics, not for unethical behaviour, then things would be different.

[LamontStormstar]

So Fred was representing a client. Then the client's wife comes and she's all "I'll have sex with you if you sabotague your client's case and help mine." ??? Or does Fred himself offer it?

[GlassBeadGame]

So Fred was representing a client. Then the client's wife comes and she's all "I'll have sex with you if you sabotague your client's case and help mine." ??? Or does Fred himself offer it?

Whatever was offered was offered by Fred, thus the "solicitation" part of the offense. It does not appear that any linkage was made between the request for sex and sabotaging his client's case. I think the Colorado bar would have "Perma-Banned" him if they did make the connection.

[LamontStormstar]

Well it's good to know they didn't try to disbar him for merely trying to get laid with a normal hooker.

But that is odd. Why did he try to bribe money for sex with the opponent of his client? I doubt she was a supermodel, and so I see no motive.

[MrM]

Reading between the lines, I always figured he was relaying a request from his client. Something like, 'spend one last night with your husband to say goodbye and we'll let you take the house'.

I believe the charges would have been quite different if he'd been seeking sex for himself.

[GlassBeadGame]

Reading between the lines, I always figured he was relaying a request from his client. Something like, 'spend one last night with your husband to say goodbye and we'll let you take the house'.

I believe the charges would have been quite different if he'd been seeking sex for himself.

That is a unique and plausible take. I think that might fit the facts and results better than any other explanation. The sex might not have been for himself. I understand that in England they also have Solicitors but that is seen as a good thing there.

[blissyu2]

Yes I agree that while we are guessing somewhat, it does sound quite plausible. Fred Bauder was trying to help out his client, by agreeing to pay his client's ex-wife to have sex with him one last time. The ex-wife refused, and used that to advantage her divorce case, and get Fred Bauder debarred for it.

If that is the case, then I think that we can all side with Fred Bauder somewhat.

[BobbyBombastic]

Also, I think it's a shame that they were so hard on him for trying to pay a hooker. A man has needs. Police posing as hookers is just wasting police officers so real crimes happen and there's no cops around.

Let's point it out clearly that she was not a hooker. NOT A HOOKER.

This person was the wife of a dissolution of marriage client. Not a hooker.

And any imaginitve spin someone wants to put on it doesn't change the fact, that in under these circumstances, it was fucking shameful.

[GlassBeadGame]

Also, I think it's a shame that they were so hard on him for trying to pay a hooker. A man has needs. Police posing as hookers is just wasting police officers so real crimes happen and there's no cops around.

Let's point it out clearly that she was not a hooker. NOT A HOOKER.

This person was the wife of a dissolution of marriage client. Not a hooker.

And any imaginitve spin someone wants to put on it doesn't change the fact, that in under these circumstances, it was fucking shameful.

I think the Colorado attorney discipline board pretty much agreed with Bobby, although with more font discipline.

[blissyu2]

It'd be interesting to hear Fred Bauder's take on things. The problem is that Bauder refuses to discuss it openly...

[FNORD23]

Damn - he only PROPOSED sex and he got disbarred. At least Clinton GOT some! ;-)

[Infoboy]

It'd be interesting to hear Fred Bauder's take on things.

You can ask him here.

[blissyu2]

Now some insane jerk on Wikinfo has blocked me because I was trying to revert Grace Note (no no Grace Note isn't blocked):

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index...ge=User:Zordrac

They've also blocked others who were trying to stop Grace Note's insanity:

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index...r:69.21.252.114

who made 1 edit:

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index...s/69.21.252.114

[GlassBeadGame]

Now some insane jerk on Wikinfo has blocked me because I was trying to revert Grace Note (no no Grace Note isn't blocked):

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index...ge=User:Zordrac

They might lack the capacity to identify and block Tor users.

[blissyu2]

It'd be interesting to hear Fred Bauder's take on things.

You can ask him here.

It looks like someone has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fre...view_on_wikinfo

Actually it looks like the material was initially added by Hatewatch:

http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index...rev&oldid=83497

I would suggest that Hatewatch is Grace Note's alias.

[GlassBeadGame]

It'd be interesting to hear Fred Bauder's take on things.

You can ask him here.

I don't care if Fred replies or not. This thread is getting about 500 page views in 24 hours which is pretty good. If he wants to reply fine. I am certain that he knows about this discussion.

[blissyu2]

503 views in 17 hours to be precise. But how many of them were Fred Bauder, or people who knew Fred Bauder?

Ultimately, it seems as if it was Grace Note that posted it, but for whatever naive reason Fred Bauder felt the need to repost it himself, splitting from the main topic, back in April.

However, this makes it all the more important for Fred Bauder to do something, since he is in charge of that site, and it looks like he has done it himself, and hence he probably doesn't want to be tarred and feathered with the same brush.

[GlassBeadGame]

It'd be interesting to hear Fred Bauder's take on things.

You can ask him here.

I don't care if Fred replies or not. This thread is getting about 500 page views in 24 hours which is pretty good. If he wants to reply fine. I am certain that he knows about this discussion.

I figure Fred is responsible for the outrageous claims that you are a holocaust-denier or that WR is anti-Semitic. We drove out the neo-Nazi that tried to use the site. WR is free and liberal in the best sense of the words. Anyways by discussing truthfully and with concern for accuracy Fred's legal ethical problems we got the better of the fight. Who reads his crappy little wiki anyways? We know a lot of WP and Wikien-l participants, including those Fred has to deal with read WR.
Sue him if you want. You already bested him.

[blissyu2]

All evidence points to it being Grace Note, not Fred Bauder. Fred Bauder has never said that he has a problem with Wikipedia Review. He is quite happy with it existing. He is rather neutral towards us, and we are rather neutral towards him. Given that Grace Note has called everyone under the sun a holocaust denier, given that Grace Note edited it, given that all that Fred Bauder did was to move Grace Note's text over, its fair to say that Fred Bauder was merely naive, not the cause. But of course, it is yet to be confirmed what Fred's involvement in it was.

[GlassBeadGame]

All evidence points to it being Grace Note, not Fred Bauder. Fred Bauder has never said that he has a problem with Wikipedia Review. He is quite happy with it existing. He is rather neutral towards us, and we are rather neutral towards him. Given that Grace Note has called everyone under the sun a holocaust denier, given that Grace Note edited it, given that all that Fred Bauder did was to move Grace Note's text over, its fair to say that Fred Bauder was merely naive, not the cause. But of course, it is yet to be confirmed what Fred's involvement in it was.

That is very kind of you, Bliss. Of course it has no bearing on his attorney ethics violations.

[blissyu2]

Well, we will just wait to see what happens. There is no point adding more now until we hear from Fred Bauder. Hopefully he is not away long term. I'll wait until he has had a decent amount of time to respond, and see what he says, before we do anything more. I guess 14 working days is a usual amount of time to respond. Sadly, I can't seem to find any reliable way to contact him, so unless someone knows his magic number, then we'll just have to wait. He removes the offensive material, all is forgiven. If it stays in history but isn't removed, but there's some kind of a guarantee that it won't be restored, then all is fine.

And I guess another option is to use is SPOV, and to point out that it is a point of view. Grace Note words it as a point of view, and all is fine. As long as I get to reference things and say something alternative. Then we are all fine. There's lots of options. Right now what is happening is not an option.

[GlassBeadGame]

Well, we will just wait to see what happens. There is no point adding more now until we hear from Fred Bauder. Hopefully he is not away long term. I'll wait until he has had a decent amount of time to respond, and see what he says, before we do anything more. I guess 14 working days is a usual amount of time to respond. Sadly, I can't seem to find any reliable way to contact him, so unless someone knows his magic number, then we'll just have to wait. He removes the offensive material, all is forgiven. If it stays in history but isn't removed, but there's some kind of a guarantee that it won't be restored, then all is fine.

And I guess another option is to use is SPOV, and to point out that it is a point of view. Grace Note words it as a point of view, and all is fine. As long as I get to reference things and say something alternative. Then we are all fine. There's lots of options. Right now what is happening is not an option.

I would consider being called a Holocaust-denier for 14 days pretty upsetting. You are very patient.

[blissyu2]

Well, we will just wait to see what happens. There is no point adding more now until we hear from Fred Bauder. Hopefully he is not away long term. I'll wait until he has had a decent amount of time to respond, and see what he says, before we do anything more. I guess 14 working days is a usual amount of time to respond. Sadly, I can't seem to find any reliable way to contact him, so unless someone knows his magic number, then we'll just have to wait. He removes the offensive material, all is forgiven. If it stays in history but isn't removed, but there's some kind of a guarantee that it won't be restored, then all is fine.

And I guess another option is to use is SPOV, and to point out that it is a point of view. Grace Note words it as a point of view, and all is fine. As long as I get to reference things and say something alternative. Then we are all fine. There's lots of options. Right now what is happening is not an option.

I would consider being called a Holocaust-denier for 14 days pretty upsetting. You are very patient.

Its actually been there since April, I only just noticed it. And apparently Grace Note called me a holocaust denier a year or so ago, I just didn't notice it or take much care of it. But I guess the thing is that then he wasn't using my real name.

And as you know, there's a big difference between saying "Blissyu2 is a holocaust denier" and "John Smith is a holocaust denier". Blissyu2 could be anyone. John Smith is a certain individual that can be identified.

[LamontStormstar]

Yes I agree that while we are guessing somewhat, it does sound quite plausible. Fred Bauder was trying to help out his client, by agreeing to pay his client's ex-wife to have sex with him one last time. The ex-wife refused, and used that to advantage her divorce case, and get Fred Bauder debarred for it.

If that is the case, then I think that we can all side with Fred Bauder somewhat.

Can we find some evidence of this in the long, unreadable casefile? Before this thread, everyone thought he tried to pick up a hooker who was secretly a cop.

[blissyu2]

List of people blocked trying to oppose Grace Note's slander:

Linda Brandt for 2 weeks this

Ip 69.... for 1 month for this

Poopooball for 1 week for this and this

IP 66.... for 1 month for this and this

IP 24... for 1 month for this

Zordrac for 3 days for this

Now, not a single one of these was actually vandalism. But Mr Mancala seems intent on abusing his power. His "response" to a simple question was abusive, and then he responded by making the above blocks, including blocking the person who made the question.

An administrator Terryeo went so far as to commend Grace Note on his behaviour, then protected the slanderous article in its defamatory condition, then responded with nastiness to Zordrac, who he knew could not respond [1] [2]

Now, is there any chance whatsoever that Fred Bauder and his cronies are opposing what Grace Note is doing? Or are they actively encouraging slanderous statements?

[blissyu2]

As it seems that I was originally mistaken in terms of Fred Bauder's role in this issue, I have edited the blog post that comments about this here:

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20070806/w...locaust-denial/

You can see the Wikipedia Review posts that Grace Note has used for quotes, which are listed below, which clearly demonstrate that neither Lir or myself have ever engaged in any act that could be described as holocaust denial.

Grace Note may have misinterpreted what was said, which was trying to explain what holocaust denial was, as suggesting that we support holocaust denial. Explaining what something is is not the same thing as agreeing with it! Grace Note also made some statements that are the exact opposite of the truth. I mention Lir also, but since the quotes are attributed to me, and it is only my name that is mentioned in full, then really Lir has no case for a defamation case.

The issue then is firstly whether to include Fred Bauder in a law suit, and secondly whether to go through with prosecution. This is where legal threats are very handy and useful, because they usually lead to sensible people making an agreement without the need to go to court.

Fred Bauder, who I am prepared to forgive entirely for his transgression, could very simply and easily remove the offending material, or alternatively to insist that it is listed as an opinion, or alternatively to allow a second, alternative version of events, that I am able to write. Any of these options is reasonable. At present he is allowing something to be printed as fact which is not fact, which offers no proof of the allegations, and I am not permitted to present the proof that the allegations are entirely false. This is quite unreasonable and irresponsible. So if Fred Bauder perhaps didn't realise what has happened, then he can be forgiven for his role in this.

Secondly, the issue is whether what Grace Note said is believable. First of all, this is on Wikinfo, which nobody ever bothers to look at, and secondly Grace Note is not a believable person. The fact that 2 days before Grace Note had accused Igor Alexander of being a neo nazi, Ambi wrote on Wikipedia Review quite clearly stating that she was going to ban Grace Note permanently if there was a single slip up, and secondly that we had a poll as to the next critic to be banned, and Grace Note was voted number 1 most likely to be the next critic to be banned suggests STRONGLY that there was an ulterior motivation. The fact that the claims were initially made by SlimVirgin, not by Grace Note, and that Grace Note had vehemently opposed SlimVirgin (and we all know how powerful SlimVirgin is) suggests that Grace Note had zero interest in finding out whether someone was a holocaust denier, but realistically was just trying not to get banned from Wikipedia.

That Grace Note has subsequently accused Lir, Qwerty, Selina, Blu Aardvark, myself, Lir and apparently also Somey of holocaust denial makes a mockery of the entire rationale, especially given Selina's stance about neo nazism. Selina perhaps took Grace Note's issues far too seriously.

The reality is that in the end court cases are expensive and difficult, and it really needs to be seriously worth it to do it. And the issue is this - am I likely to be harmed by this? If it was published in the New Yorker, then by oath yes, I would be likely to be harmed. But if it is published in a hardly noticed web forum, Wikinfo, then that is another matter entirely.

So perhaps for the moment we will just put a pause on this.

The reality is that Grace Note is just a bipolar person with zero integrity, who seems to delight in causing trouble. I am not even sure if he ever was a genuine critic of Wikipedia.

And seriously, look at his contribs on Wikipedia, even after he got SlimVirgin's protection. Everyone hated him. Why on earth didn't Wikipedia ban him? They've banned a lot of people far less deserving.

[blissyu2]

OMG this is the post which Grace Note is quoting from:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...findpost&p=1105

So let me get this straight. In a single post, in which 90% of what I am saying is saying that the holocaust was evil, and trying to explain how Hitler lied about it, Grace Note has cut and pasted the bits where I say WHAT WAS HITLER'S VIEWS and suggested that that is what I said????

That reminds me of a time when I was on a wiccan mailing list, and I said to someone:

"I am not saying that all witches are fake, but this one certainly is"

It was quoted as:

"I am... saying that all witches are fake..."

All words that I said, but taken out of context. And what was (not amusing) was that the next 30 posts all failed to notice what else I'd said surrounding it.

So technically it seems that Grace Note is correctly quoting me, but so far out of context that its not funny.

[GlassBeadGame]

But if you do believe that the holocaust didn't happen, it doesn't make you a racist, or an anti-semite. It might make you illogical, it might make you a bit stupid, but that in itself is not a racist sentiment.

---Blissy (from the thread Grace Notes used to call him a "holocaust denier.")

Blissy, anyone who calls you a "holocaust denier" is a liar.


I fail to see how anyone embracing Ann Frank as a relative, without any comment indicating her diary was anything but completely accurate, can possibly be seen as a holocaust denier. You also make frequent comments opposing racism in all of its forms.

You do have an annoying tendency to try do give any subject a completely fair shake from the ground up. Even when this is inappropriate. I think you do this because you have a good heart and sincerely want to be fair. This means while you are anti-racist you would try to look at Hitler's record point by point, rather than just dismiss him as evil. Same with holocaust deniers, while you don't agree with them you bend over backward to be fair. You also produce absolute reams of material in this process allowing disingenuous people to pick apart and mis-characterize you. Also some times, I believe out of innocence and naiveté, you say incredibly stupid things like "Jews controlled the worlds economy." You don't always seem to understand the social consequences of such statements. I hate to see malicious people take advantage and mis-characterize you.

[BobbyBombastic]

Yes I agree that while we are guessing somewhat, it does sound quite plausible. Fred Bauder was trying to help out his client, by agreeing to pay his client's ex-wife to have sex with him one last time. The ex-wife refused, and used that to advantage her divorce case, and get Fred Bauder debarred for it.

If that is the case, then I think that we can all side with Fred Bauder somewhat.

Can we find some evidence of this in the long, unreadable casefile? Before this thread, everyone thought he tried to pick up a hooker who was secretly a cop.

No you can't find evidence of that, that is people guessing as to what fred did. What it does say is that he solicited prostitution from the wife of a dissolution of marriage client. And no, I can't side with Fred somewhat, and as I said no matter what spin is placed on it, it is a huge violation of personal and professional ethics. Whether you like it or not, certain professions bring with them projected authority and to abuse that to any ends is disgraceful.

I hate to sound like the moral police, but pretend the woman approached for prostitution was your mother or sister. You may not think it's all that excusable.

Staying on topic, in the case of defaming blissy, Fred is guilty of not reading and/or paying attention, something he does routinely. It is completely in character with him and I doubt this will change things.

[blissyu2]

I don't even know what to say here.

I don't think that I ever said that Jews controlled all of the money. Did I? But the generalisation, that has existed for over 1,000 years, that Jews, in general, tend to be richer than non-Jews (also Japanese and Chinese and a few other groups also tend to be good with money) is from all facts and figures that I've ever seen quite accurate.

If those facts and figures are wrong, I apologise. I have never seen any statistics that suggest that that belief is based on anything other than reality, or indeed that there was any serious opposition to it.

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't see how that's offensive.

I know. This is the problem, but it does not make you a "Holocaust denier."

[jorge]

I don't even know what to say here.

I don't think that I ever said that Jews controlled all of the money. Did I? But the generalisation, that has existed for over 1,000 years, that Jews, in general, tend to be richer than non-Jews (also Japanese and Chinese and a few other groups also tend to be good with money) is from all facts and figures that I've ever seen quite accurate.

If those facts and figures are wrong, I apologise. I have never seen any statistics that suggest that that belief is based on anything other than reality, or indeed that there was any serious opposition to it.

It was partly because being a diaspora was useful for trading purposes (also being able to speak multiple languages and being familiar with many different customs would also help). The poor majority would obviously resent wealthy people in general, but more so wealthy "foreigners" who were also of a different religion.

[JohnA]

So technically it seems that Grace Note is correct... that its not funny.

Yes, I can see how that happens (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

Ok, back to the counter-punch topic of the thread.

Some more information on the details of Fred's Bad might be available. The ethics decision cites what appears to be criminal case, People v. Bauder., 941 P.2d 282 (Colo. 1997). This appears to have been heavily defended, going all the way to the Colo. Supreme Court. Odd that Fred would so rigorously defend this then not even respond to ethics matter. I don't have access on-line to anything but Federal case law and cases from my own state. There does not appear to be a free service for Colorado cases on line unless you are a member of the Colorado Bar (so don't ask Fred). I live in a rural area, about an hour away from a library that would have cases from other jurisdictions. It's too far to go for just this purpose. I probably won't go there myself for about two weeks.

If anyone is interested and have Westlaw for Colorado cases they could post it. Or if anyone is in a urban or university area they could go to any larger law library. The case is found in Pacific Reporter 2nd Edition, a bound set of books that has cases from appellate courts from the western states in USA. It is found in volume 941 at page 282. It is also found in another set of volumes, Colorado Reporter, that only has Colorado Supreme Court decisions, but you need to use a table to convert the cite from P 2d. The case might have some more details about the matter. It also will discuss the history of the case, indicating the county that the offense occurred permitting a search of the trial court's records.

If you post the case make sure you remove the comments and any "West-Key" information. West Publishing is into defending their copyrights. But they just own the formating, comments and cross references, not the cases themselves which are public domain.