Warning: There are words in screenshots in this post that some might find offensive.
It was brought to my attention that there is a discussion on the internet forum Topix for Valdosta, and that my name was mentioned. Some posted links to this blog to support their position, then the following comment was made;
Well, Rich Kotite, I’ve been blogging since August 2012. Apparently, what I blog is based on reliable sources because White Supremacists came at me in September 2012 threatening to ruin me unless I stopped blogging. They progressed in those threats, wanting me to delete my blog, then wanting me to blog solely on “black on black crime.” In late 2013, they attacked other bloggers who associate with me and threatened their careers and reputations. It’s all here on the menu under Chronological Posts Documenting History.
In May 2014, David Piercy, apparently feeling his paralegal Cheerios, decided that since he and his cohorts’ intimidation, defamation, and threats against myself and others failed, that he would file copyright infringement claims against my blog, blackbutterfly7.wordpress.com to have it “legally” taken down.
I’ve not redacted the IP address because it evidences that Piercy uses the computer network of the California State University at Fresno Community College, where he attended, to send abusive comments.
Piercy was not filing the copyright claims against my blog because I violated copyright. He filed them hoping that Word Press would suspend my blog. Note what he wrote: “this will keep coming until this slander site is shut down.”
So Rich defended a person on Topix who has a history of harassing and taking malicious actions against me.
Well, as a paralegal, Piercy should have known that he should not file DMCA take down notices as a proper cause of action against “slander.” Word Press denied all but one of his copyright claims. The attorney for the blog filed a challenge to the remaining DMCA. Piercy did not file a suit for violating his copyright and Word Press restored the photo.
When I write about people, such as the internet extortionists, I use their own words to support what I report. They are the source. So, here goes ….
As reported on this blog, David Piercy protected his Twitter account in or about July 2014 after the California Superior Court entered a restraining order against him. He had other Twitter accounts under other handles, but it was on or about October 23, 2015 when he opened his main Twitter account to be read by the public. On that day, he sent tweets to individuals telling them that their Twitter account information had been subpoenaed in the Johnson v. Bell case. On October 30, 2015, twenty-two of the individuals whose handles are in the subpoena received notice from Twitter that their account information was subpoenaed.
Recently on Topix, the discussion came up about Piercy communicating with the attorney that represents the Bells, and knowing about the subpoena, and the handles in the subpoena, before the people were notified by Twitter. A person posted that Piercy admitted to having contact with the Bell’s attorney and giving him Twitter account information. The person posted a link to the following screenshot;
On Topix, Piercy posts under the handles oNeSmArTDuDe and OneSmartDude. David Piercy posted the following, self-authenticating comment defending himself;
The subject CNN article was published on October 23, 2015. That was the same day that Piercy unlocked his main Twitter account and tweeted to individuals that their Twitter account information was subpoenaed by the Bells.
Please read the following carefully so you can pick up on Piercy’s deception. The CNN article states in pertinent part;
“On October 16, Lowndes County Court issued a subpoena on behalf of the Bell family’s attorney to the Atlanta offices of Twitter for information that would reveal names and locations of account holders connected to 23 Twitter handles. The subpoena also requested all tweets dating back to January 11, 2013 — the day Johnson’s body was found. “
Deceptively, Piercy is using the date that the subpoena was issued to claim that CNN did a story on the subpoena 7 days before he “said anything”. Even if Piercy gained knowledge of the subpoena on October 23, 2015, that still doesn’t explain how he gained knowledge of the handles in the subpoena, nor his reason for opening his Twitter account to public to let the people know that their account information was subpoenaed before they were notified by Twitter.
Clearly before our eyes, the CNN article was published 7 days AFTER the subpoena was issued.
To be fair, protect my credibility and attacks of not being a reliable source, I noticed on the article that it was updated on October 23, 2015 and so, checked the meta data. First, it would not be logical to state a date that the subpoena was issued if it was the same day that the article was published. The journalist, Victor Blackwell, could have said. “Today, Lowndes County Court issued a subpoena on behalf of the Bell …“ I checked the meta data to see when the article was originally published.
The meta data shows:
Anyone can check the meta data by right clicking on the CNN article then clicking “View Page Source” then scrolling to the right to see the data. Or, they can right-click and click on “View Page Info” and look at the meta information section, which in this case shows;
Without getting into calculating Zulu time, it is clear that the article WAS NOT originally published 7 days or at any other time before October 23, 2015.
Along with this, Piercy’s most recent defense does not address what he tweeted on November 21, 2015 where he said that he gave Twitter handles to the Bell’s attorney.
His tweet, and his most recent defense on Topix are Piercy’s own words. I am not the source.
Thanks for reading.