Alexander Dumbass
Everyone is clammoring for more info on the Boalt 1L who posted a threat on autoadmit, leading to the shutdown of Hastings. I've been trying hard to find out how it is, but there's not much out there. There's a nice roundup of the pertinent details at this Hastings blog. What REALLY fascinates me is his post here from back in August. If the threat isn't enough to shed light into this guy's psyche, then that thread should remove all doubt. Basically, he's the prototypical DB who is here at Boalt because it's the highest "ranked" school he got into.
I never visit any of the law school discussion boards, and I get pissed off when people link to comments or posts here on those boards. This often happens when a Boalt student reads something on this blog and links on autoadmit to start a flamewar. The most egregious case of this was when I posted about DR's shooting. But anyway, that's a personal pet peeve of mine. If you have something to say, say it here. You don't need your "hommies" from bottom of the cyberbarrel to back you up.
More substantively, did ANYONE get DE's message prior to this morning? I'll chalk that up to a technical oversight or something, but it's a bit disheartening to find out what my Dean has to say about all this from an e-mail forward from colleagues at UCH. And of course, most importantly, always remember that just because you go to Boalt doesn't mean you're not a jerk. We should all think about that. My my how quickly we generalized when one Hastings 1L sent a benign e-mail. I wonder if this idiot was one of those posting flames against Hastings? Bottom line: I can speak for some Boalties in saying we're sorry that an idiot among us caused you so much trouble, inconvenience, and probably worry. And if you have a name, we can make sure he spends the rest of his law school life in social hell.
I never visit any of the law school discussion boards, and I get pissed off when people link to comments or posts here on those boards. This often happens when a Boalt student reads something on this blog and links on autoadmit to start a flamewar. The most egregious case of this was when I posted about DR's shooting. But anyway, that's a personal pet peeve of mine. If you have something to say, say it here. You don't need your "hommies" from bottom of the cyberbarrel to back you up.
More substantively, did ANYONE get DE's message prior to this morning? I'll chalk that up to a technical oversight or something, but it's a bit disheartening to find out what my Dean has to say about all this from an e-mail forward from colleagues at UCH. And of course, most importantly, always remember that just because you go to Boalt doesn't mean you're not a jerk. We should all think about that. My my how quickly we generalized when one Hastings 1L sent a benign e-mail. I wonder if this idiot was one of those posting flames against Hastings? Bottom line: I can speak for some Boalties in saying we're sorry that an idiot among us caused you so much trouble, inconvenience, and probably worry. And if you have a name, we can make sure he spends the rest of his law school life in social hell.
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 4:13 PM
393 Comments:
I'm going to delete the thread below for other reasons, so I'm copying/posting the comments from that thread below:
***
Anonymous said...
Is anyone going to post about the hastings hoax?
Does anyone know who the suspect is? 1L,2L,3L?
4/20/2007 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...
heard it's a 1L. i'd like to see a post about it. very troubling to hear.
4/20/2007 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...
This is what the Boalt person posted (copied from sfgate.com):
The message was headed, "Just decided not to do a murder-suicide copycat at Hastings Law" and was authored by a user called "Trustafarian," who went on to write, "I went to bed all set for 'Bloody Wednesday,' but when I woke -- to sun, to flowers in bloom -- I just couldn't bring myself to suit up. Maybe tomorrow; I hear rain's in the forecast."
That is incredibly scary. How stupid can you be to post that with a username? Thankfully, though, this person is that stupid, so that the FBI could figure out who it was.
4/20/2007 2:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Oh please. That wasn't a threat, it was clearly a joke, especially given the context. I've seen that ridiculous message board before (wasn't that the same website involved in the "hottest T14 girls" contest?) and NOTHING is taken seriously there.
4/20/2007 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...
Granted it was a joke, but who jokes about something like that two days after what happened in Virginia? That's the disturbing part for me.
4/20/2007 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...
Even when you assume this was a joke, a person with such an void of morality and concern for others should not be a student here.
Defending it because it was a "joke" does not address the simple fact that anyone who says such a thing in such a public forum should never be a member of the bar.
Anonymous internet posting at the very worst.
4/20/2007 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...
Let's start with something I'm sure we all agree on: this was a horrible joke, totally tasteless, and completely inappropriate under any circumstances, much less those surrounding the Va. Tech. shootings.
That said, I think expulsion, arrest, or whatever other steps might be taken here would be excessive. First, whoever the poster is - and I don't know who he or she might be - recognized really quickly how dumb his/her post was; it was removed within ten minutes of posting. In fact, the only record we even have of the post is that the second person copied it into his or her comments to preserve that person's stupidty for posterity's sake.
Second, as bad as this judgment may have been, and as bad as the consequences of that judgment may have been (Hastings being shut down, damage to Boalt's reputation), I certainly hope that this person's whole legal career is n't destroyed on the basis of ten minutes of bad judgment. Again, this is not to say that what the person did was acceptable, but that I think some of the punishments being bandied about here would effectively ruin this person's life, or, at the very least, ruin whatever legal career this person might have.
4/20/2007 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...
I want to know the estimated cost of the joke in terms of police time, administrative time, security costs, prorated student tuition for classes that were cancelled, etc. I vote for letting the student choose between expulsion or reimbursing UC and SF.
4/20/2007 3:57 PM
Anonymous said...
The cost of the joke should be borne by those who overreacted to it. Apparently now Hastings will have heightened security for the rest of the semester, despite the fact that the individual responsible for the "threat" CAME FORWARD and ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT WAS A JOKE. That's just ridiculous.
4/20/2007 4:16 PM
I think the student should not be outted here. He is clearly in more than enough trouble with the Feds and the school and may face criminal prosecution and expulsion. So his life totally sucks. What purpose is served by outting him here? Let's leave that to the internet bottom-feeders on the XO message board where he posted the threat.
Yeah, I don't think he should be outed here. Besides, I'm sure his classmates already identified him as an asshole before this, so what's it matter?
While I think we shouldn't out him, I do think we should post some of his wonderful comments from XO. Here are a couple fun ones I found:
"there are a lot of fat girls in the 1L class, and very few that are not ugly or even plain." (Aug. 25, 2006)
"I got straight P's too. I goofed off all semester, but I figured I could eke out at least one H on account of the numbers of perceived retards in class.
So I've ratcheted it up a notch this semester. I figure two H's (in the core classes) and two HH's (in the electives) will set things right for Fall OCIP." (Feb. 15, 2007)
I love that second one. Because clearly this guy/gal is so smart that all s/he has to do is try a little harder to get all HH/H's. Yeah, right.
For the record, I'm not a reader of XO, and I've never posted there--but in reading the Hastings blog this stuff was pretty easy to find. I'm sure there's lots more good stuff out there.
Speak for yourself Armen. I am only responsible for my own actions, and cannot (and should not) apologize for someone else's actions.
Further, as other comments have noted, the "threat" was clearly a joke. I don't frequent xoxo, but I've heard enough about it to know not to take anything posted on it seriously.
Armen,
I was actually going to email you info about the situation last night when I checked that you didn't have any information up about it. Glad you got notice of it.
XO is a dumbass website with postings from idiots who have nothing better to do. So I don't feel all that bad that this guy's legal career might be over before it began.
For everyone who is saying its a joke: 1) how the hell do you joke about something like that RIGHT after 32 people got shot up and 2) can anyone be that stupid?
I heard that he turned himself in. Poor guy thinks a few H's will save him. No firm will ever touch him now. Oh, weren't you the one that threatened to commit mass killings?... yeah, no call back. And if drunk driving can fail you on the moral character part of the bar, I wonder how the CA bar is going to like death threats.
I'm just afraid Boalt will try and protect his identity and not let employers and the bar know that they are admitting the guy that threatened Hastings Law.
Hastings students deserve to know who thought it was funny that they could get shot up.
And, of course, I'm not going to discount the possibility it was a serious threat simply because he said it was.
"oh...yeah...that threat....yep, meant every word. Arrest me now."
I'm sure he would have said that if he was serious.
what's a DB?
yes, what is a DB?
This is pretty sad, all around. Sad because someone made a mockery of a tragedy; sad because that someone had a history of posting smug, tasteless comments on an equally smug and tasteless forum; and sad because that person is a Boaltie.
At least, though, this sort of behavior is atypical for a Boalt student. For our sake, let's just hope this goes away quickly.
But, like Armen, I'm just dying to find out who it was.
So crotchety, Armen!
Well, I gave my perspective on the other thread. It's fairly similar to 3:03's post.
I think there are two factors at play here. First, there's the act itself--the ambiguity of the posting, the poor judgment behind it, and the damages that were caused.
The second factor is the character issue. The Boaltie is an out-and-out asshole, or at least he was acting like one during the ten minutes his post was up. He comes off as an absolutely narcissistic, toolish, and immature jerk.
"Trustafarian" is rightly castigated for his act, and he deserves whatever reasonable disciplinary action he receives. But I'm a little unnerved by people who seem to be hoping for his expulsion from Boalt and from the legal profession because of his personality. I don't see the point of a public outing and beheading, no matter how salacious it is.
Quite frankly, I don't want to impose two years of social hell on any person at Boalt. Nor do I want someone's career to end, if the reason is primarily because they are an asshole. I hope he retains his anonymity.
Also, to Max: I don't see how listing this person's grades is conducive to keeping him from being outed.
I think we should out Trustafarian and then gather a mob and hunt him down like angry townsfolk, only once we have him in or clutches we should give him a giant hug.
Clearly this guy needs to be tightly held and told that "it" is not his fault over and over again until he breaks and is born anew.
Trustifarian, I don't condone what you did. I'm outraged by it. I'm also outraged by the many ugly things you have posted. I think what you have done is wrong in many, many ways.
That said, I'm willing to forgive you, and I think many others would be too, if you are willing to ask for it. I can't imagine what a painful and embarrassing time this must be for you. My thoughts are with you and your family.
I hope that we as a community emerge from this changed for the better.
hey!
wouldn't it be awesome if you were able to socially ostracize this kid and ruin his life/career over 10 minutes of thoughless joviality about an absolutely fucked situation (humor being a reasonably rational way to deal with trauma, probably millions of americans have made private jokes about vtech)?!
maybe then we'd have real psycho on our hands...
so a bunch of anonymous posters here are calling for a guy who made a mistake and owned immediately up to to be outed? what good would that do?
You Boalties sound like a vindictive lot of passive-agressive DBs.
- Hey guys, a Boalt student made a joke about the VTech killings
- OMG, he should never write the bar, he's tarnished Boalt's reputation for ever
- Will Duke pass us in next year's rankings?
- Let's destroy his life by not inviting him out to the bar, and if we see him around we can be polite to his face and then talk about him behind his back as soon as he leaves
- Can you believe the guy said he thought he would get a H? THE ARROGANCE!!
What exactly makes him a DB in that thread you linked to? All I see are a few references to girls here not being pretty and he's not the first one to make note of that.
Maybe we could punish this guy by forcing him to attend Hastings.
Cruel and unusual punishment...
I agree that the student should not be outed on this blog. It is more likely to blow over if people don't know who it is.
But I also don't have a problem judging him for his actions, even if that action was a 10 minute lapse in judgment. And I certainly don't feel sorry for him. If anything happens to this guy (be it dismissal from school or simply social ostracism) it's his own damn fault.
What in the hell is a 'DB,' dammit?
the guy got burned by a cocksucker who knew the thread was bogus but saw that he could burn trustafarian for kicks and did so. who would you rather go to school/work with?
have the last few commenters read the comments? Almost everyone has said not to out him, so who exactly are you complaining about (besides Armen, who isn't anonymous, and like 2 others)?
and 6:45, he didn't say he'd get an H, he said he'd get 2 HH and 2 H, which is pretty damned arrogant.
I'm cracking up at the constant "What the hell is a DB?" So, for those who know, let's keep the suspense going.
Mike, if you read Max's post carefully you'll see that he's quoting his previous posts on autoadmit. NOT outing his grades.
Lastly, there are exactly two arguments forwarded for not outing him:
(1) You SHOULDN'T do it. (winner)
(2) It was CLEARLY a joke. (runner up).
Pardon my smugness, I'm not convinced.
Armen, if you found out the guy's name would you really post it? I'm just curious - it would be a reason for me to check back often.
I'd think about it.
....just figured out what a DB is.
I have decided to punish myself for being a moron by writing 'DB' on my forehead with a sharpie and approaching attractive women in the bar.
Sorry I asked.
I realize that Max is quoting quotes of quotes. But if maintaining this DB's anonymity is considered the charitable thing to do, I don't think it helps to list his every identifying statement. Particularly in a blog read by the only people who would be able to deduce his identity--other Boalt 1Ls.
only on a law school blog can people not know what a DB is. this is funny.
Anon 6:47, what makes this guy a DB is not just his insult to the 1L girls' looks, but also the fact that he called his classmates retards AFTER he got all Ps (not that getting all Ps means anything about your intelligence, but it shows a lot of arrogance in that context). Also a DB for assuming he can get so much better grades this semester.
As for outing him, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I almost feel sorry for him because I know that he must be terrified enough. But on the other hand, he has brought shame to our school and that really pisses me off. Some people will actually think that he is a reflection of what Boalt must be like, and even though that is dumb to think that, some people will. And I'm annoyed.
"Trustafarian" owes the Hastings and Boalt communities a sincere apology, to the Hastings community for disrupting their lives during finals, and to the Boalt community for tarnishing the reputation of our students in the media. Punishment and humiliation aside, the identity of "Trustafarian" will and should be revealed, along with the apology that will come forth.
I share your concerns, 8:50. A couple of months ago people on this blog blasted Hastings for an email that one guy sent to his professor. I can only hope those at Hastings have more class than we did in not generalizing that all of us Boalties are that obnoxious.
Thankfully, almost everyone on this thread has condemned the student's actions, except those few who seem unconcerned because it was a "joke". Yeah, except it was quite possibly one of the most insensitive and outrageous "jokes" imaginable after what happened at Virginia Tech on Monday.
Common, you can try to say that he doesn't deserve expulsion (no comment) but why should it be OK to make a joke like this simply because a website is already offensive?
I really have no sympathy here.
Does anyone really doubt that the person almost certainly feels horrible about what has happened?
For the record, as a female reader, I find the constant DB references misogynostic. Can we stop them?
The guys action's sound like a cry for help, honestly. The boards and their nastiness seem to be some people's only outlet for their law school angst. Sad.
Whether or not he feels bad, or we feel bad for him, I would love for someone to explain why a student with judgment this poor deserves a Boalt Hall education, or even "deserves" to be a lawyer who has to make decisions for clients on a daily basis. Then again, this may be a case of mental illness, depression, or drugs in which case the person perhaps should be given a chance. Without knowing exact details it is impossible to come to a conclusion regarding justified punishment.
A quick search of what people claimed they were "going to" do reveals that many empty threats are made on this board:
"going to kill my fucking neighbor" (http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=539742&mc=1&forum_id=2), "im going to kill myself today" (http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=528745&mc=28&forum_id=2), "i am going to commit a serious crime tonight" (http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=516411&mc=7&forum_id=2), "I'm going to firebomb a mosque-NYC area" (http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=414436&mc=3&forum_id=2)
Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at that messageboard can see that the line between reality and fantasy is quite blurred. And, the guy who posted the thread deleted it within a few minutes and acknowledged it was a joke! Granted, it wasn't great judgment for the Boalt student to post the vague threat, but it certainly wasn't anything new for that board. A bit more common sense and research into the matter could have saved a lot of time and money. And, as someone else pointed out, why is Hastings now going to have beefed up security for the rest of the semester?
Also, as a female reader, I think 9:41 should lighten up.
this thread provides some context: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=617330&mc=133&forum_id=2
So is "DB" douchebag or dumb blonde? As the former, I want to know whether I'm being insulted.
But seriously, this is what's going on. The guy was probably on his laptop in class like we all are, surfing the net or IM'ing, and while on some discussion board thoughtlessly fired off an idiot thread and hit the return button, after which it was out of his hands. I mean, the speed of IM's and discussion boards doesn't lend itself to sober reflection of what he had said. If he were writing it out on long-hand before sealing it a letter and going to the post office, he would almost certainly have had time to reconsider and not send. As it was, he probably made an impulse decision from which he couldn't extricate himself
Hint: most people don't refer to guys as "dumb blondes"
I want to know who "Trustafarian" is, but I don't think he should be outed on this blog. Not because I have a good heart or anything, I just don't want the XOXO community to benefit from our knowledge. I am so sick of whoever keeps linking them to this blog.
Thanks 11:13.
I tried to figure out DB myself but there are way too many options out there.
Ok, so people keep mentioning that the poster "removed the post quickly" as some sort of sign that the threat was less serious. This is ridiculous. Someone making a real threat might just as easily decide to take down the post after realizing that there is a higher chance of success without warning.
As for outing, I'm ambivalent. If people are able to figure it out from his public postings, then I see no problem in making his identity known. But I think it's different from someone in power (like the Dean) to reveal his identity. Either way, it's likely the name WILL get out eventually. Too many busybodies already know too much to keep it a secret.
Well, trentblase, not only was the post quickly removed, but the text was replaced with "wgwag." Although this literally translates to "white girls with asian guys," (see, e.g. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=WGWAG), wgwag appears to be used on that website to indicate that the thread was intended as a spoof or prank.
Honestly, it can't be that hard to figure out who it is. First, we know trustafarian is a 1L, and a male. So that eliminates over half the 1L class. In one of his XO posts that got bumped up recently, he says he is a white male. Again, this eliminates a lot. I think he also admitted he went to a UC undergrad, but someone may want to check that. This seriously has to eliminate a bunch of people, right? Don't get me wrong...I realize he could have been lying in his posts, but I don't have a reason to believe he's lying about being a white male. Undergrad? maybe.
However, I also really don't want every white male 1L to become a "suspect," because that is unfair. But nothing I've stated isn't already up on XO for all the world to see.
to whomever said this:
"I think we should out Trustafarian and then gather a mob and hunt him down like angry townsfolk, only once we have him in or clutches we should give him a giant hug.
Clearly this guy needs to be tightly held and told that "it" is not his fault over and over again until he breaks and is born anew."
if you're a guy will you marry me and if you're a girl will you be my new best friend??!! you're hillarious!
The continued security is because of the possibility that somebody will read the press on this and think it's a good idea. It's obviously not because of the original poster.
How dumb do you have to be to post a "joke" like that. Fucking idiot.
We have our suspicions but seriously, lay off the guy. I'm sure he's in a world of hurt originally.
Trustafarian if you're reading this, email Jared and ask him to delete all your older posts. Also, there is at least 1 other law school related profile you need to take down. I hope Edley is merciful. You made a stupid mistake but not one that should be career-ending. Good luck.
What 12:16 said...just reverse the sexes. Or fuck it, don't reverse it.
12:19: That's just plain silly. There's absolutely no reason to believe that because someone made an admittedly false threat that someone else will think to carry it out. By unnecessarily beefing up security, Hastings is simply wasting money and adding to the reactive mass hysteria.
Silly, perhaps, but coming from law enforcement. The Hastings dean is taking her direction from the FBI and SF police on this, as she has all along.
the problem, 12:45, is that if someone actually did carry through with the fake threat (whether trustafarian or someone else), and hastings didn't have their security beefed up, the reaction would be something like this:
Wow, I can't believe Hastings didn't increase security after that. How could they possibly be so stupid? It's all the administration's fault for not wanting to spend some extra money to potentially save lives.
In other words, massive hindsight criticism.
I agree with 12:55 - it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for Hastings. For the past week all we've heard from the talking heads on cable news is "Why didn't Va Tech administrators pick this guy out?". Do you really think that Hastings would take that chance? I don't blame them for any measures they take now. Who I do blame is this guy from Boalt who has managed to embarass his entire law school.
I think people are losing sight of what happened here: two days after the most horrific massacre on a college campus in US history, a member of OUR student body posted publicly that he planned to shoot up a nearby school. Think about that. This person is clearly fucked up. People will opine all they want, but I for one don't believe this person derserves the opportunity to have a degree from Boalt Hall.
Not to mention the lawsuit to end all lawsuits...
Kick him out
I'm surprised to see so many Boalties coming to this guy's defense. What he did was incredibly malicious and shows more than a lack of judgment. This is a person I don't want to give the privilege of graduating from a top law school. He has shown a character that misuses power. In the current climate of school shootings outrage he must have known the consequences of his actions. He cost the city and federal government a lot of money. He disrupted the lives of nearby law students for the rest of the semester. He further alienated Hastings in what has already been a tenuous Boalt-Hastings relationship, as evidenced by the replies here when that letter from a Hastings 1L was posted.
Further, he has not publicly come forward and apologized. I understand if I were in his position I may want to hide out. The posts who attribute regret to him are unfounded since we have no idea who he is. Maybe he is enjoying all the hysteria. The problem is we really don't know.
I find it interesting that when the Hastings 1L letter was published, Boalties jumped all over Hastings, slamming it and its students in derogatory and insulting terms.
Now that a Boalt student has done something much worse, if you visit the Hastings blogs you don't see any slams of Boalt and certainly nothing like what was published here when the Hastings 1L letter was published.
I find it an interesting reflection on the two schools.
from: (http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2007/04/autoadmit_aka_t.html)
Dear Nell:
I write to express my deep regret and sympathy to you and the Hastings community for the anxiety and upset created by the web posting allegedly authored by a student here at Boalt Hall. Coming on the heels of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, the posting was in my judgment at the very best an astounding instance of immaturity, terrible judgment, and reckless disregard for the welfare of others.
I understand that federal and local law enforcement officials have completed their "threat assessment", concluding that the posting was a hoax and that the alleged author, whom they have identified, does not pose a risk to others. They continue to investigate whether criminal charges are appropriate. Quickly on the heels of their investigation, and regardless of its outcome, we at Boalt will consider what disciplinary proceedings might be appropriate. Of course, we are also consulting with mental health professionals.
Once again, on behalf of the Boalt community, please accept our sympathy and best wishes as you work through this quickly and heal any wounds the incident has created.
Warm regards,
Christopher Edley, Jr.
Dean and Professor of Law
UC, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law
Nice note DE.
I wonder why DE hasn't yet considered releasing the person's name to Armen so that he can be "outed" on Nuts & Boalts thereby allowing the Boalt student community to appropriately discipline him by making him into a social outcast. Hmmmm, maybe such an approach would violate all principles of equity and procedure which are a fundamental part of any system of justice?
Armen: For what it's worth, I would be sincerely disappointed in you if you post his name prior to any formal disciplinary proceeding. You have not made it your place to make N&B a clearinghouse of bad behavior by Boalt students. In fact, your own rules state that you will not post other students' names without permission. To change the policy when it suits you makes it no policy at all. You might as well reveal the names of the disguised bloggers.
SS
Actually, 2:16AM, the individual posted that he decided NOT to shoot up a school.
And to argue the flip side of some assertions made above:
"What he did was incredibly malicious..." - I sincerely doubt that the individual intended to harm anyone or do anything other than make a tasteless joke. It might have been reckless (and certainly negligent) but a far cry from malicious.
"...he must have known the consequences of his actions." - again, highly doubtful. As someone else pointed out, that messageboard is rife with jokes and hoaxes, and he probably got carried away. If he knew the consequences of his actions, do you really think he'd have done it (and then turned himself in)?
Dear Hastings Students,
Please keep in mind that this blog only represents a slice of the Boalt student body. It was likely only a very small number of Boalt students who were making fun of the Hastings student XO-style earlier this semester. Most Boalties didn't even know about it and would have been outraged had they read it. Just look at the thread where a similar group of vicious anonymous commenters started bashing our commencement speaker and 3L class president. Dozens of Boalties came to this blog once they heard about it to point out how unrepresentative the commenters on this blog are. That said, I'm sure many Boalties would be glad to know that Hastings blogs are more civil than this one. And we are all outraged and saddened by what this "Trustafarian" person did. Rest assured this person is a very atypical Boalt student.
Boalt trolls to the left of me, autoadmit trolls to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.
What people are most upset about is that trustafarian has brought into the open the fact that Boalt students have such low opinions of their colleagues at Hastings. We like to portray ourselves as a bunch of nice uncompetitive hippies when in reality we're just as elitist as the kids at Columbia who couldn't get into Harvard.
12:14 would make a perfect failed and frustrated politician, possibly at the water or sanitation board level. You've got the requisite gesture of shock and sympathy, the obsequious and grandiloquent address to the whole Hastings community (nay, the whole world!), the approved-by-my-communications-director of overwrought words like "outrage" and "sadness" (really, you woke up sad today? what a deep and impactful life you must lead), and, of course, the tired attempt to *defend* his vision of the community from the 300 or so comments in the last week that came from...most people in this community.
Really, dude, just get it over with: run on the Green Ticket with Zelda Bronstein for the Peace Commission next year, and let everyone vote against you and be done with it. Your plaintive declarations are embarrassing only yourself and others.
I am a puny 0l, and will remain so until I start school at Boalt in August. I have been reading this tread with interest because it looks like (1) I will be going to school with this trustafarian moron and (2) with all of you who think this issue is anything other than fairly clear-cut.
Maybe it is because I am under-educated compared to other posters, but aren't most of you are ignoring the issue that what he did was almost certainly VERY ILLEGAL? I found it cozy and cute that some of you think this person needs a hug. And charmingly naive that some of you think justice would be served by socially ostracizing him for the rest of his time at Boalt--as though the law school were the center of the universe, or something. And I found it downright elitist that some of you think this person does not 'deserve' an education at Boalt (who the hell do you think YOU are, anyway?)
This guy did something stupid, he did something insensitive, and he did something that was wrong. But it was also against the law. We can all agree that he deserves to face those consequences. Right?
I don't mean to sound confrontational or condescending, though I realize I probably do. I just do not see how discussion of hugging/ostracizing/access to a Boalt education are all that relevant.
I am sorry if I pissed you off.
I seriously doubt that it regularly crosses the minds of Boalt students to think "well at least we're ranked higher than Hastings." Does anyone actually sit around and think about rankings and other schools that much? I sure don't.
It's great that Boalt has started admitting students who are already so well versed in the law prior to matriculating that they know when something is "clear-cut" and when such "clearly" illegal actions should call for consequences.
Also, bravo 12:40, bravo.
The "bravo" was to the first 12:40, not the 0L.
12:40,
What is, or is not technically illegal is not relevant as to how I or any other person on this blog feels about Trustafarian's actions. As you may soon learn, or likely won't what is immoral is not always illegal, and what is legal is not always moral.
I heart 12:50 pm.
Also, to 12:40, you've never done anything illegal before? Everyone has done something illegal. Even if minor.
Granted, 99.9% of us haven't done something as idiotic and illegal as trustafarian, but to me this goes beyond a "what he did was illegal" problem. Because if I thought he should be punished for the legality of it, then I am guessing I would want to punish just about everyone I know for drinking alcohol before they were 21, etc.
Fair enough. I do know my place.
So tell me, since you 'clearly' know, why is a written threat to commit mass homicide this not 'clearly' illegal?
'Clearly' I need to be edcucated.
Okay, you are right. I have done illegal things, and you are right, I have always thought I learned my lesson and therefore didn't deserve such stiff consequence, or whatever.
But isn't this issue a little different than, say, underage drinking?
Our precious admits should learn that, in law school, you're not really allowed to say something is "against the law" without, uh, citing the relevant law. Helpful hint.
Also, can someone really say with a straight face that they could read the original *threat* and not conclude it was a stupid & sick joke. Do serial killers announce their intentions on national message boards of which they're prominent participants with flowery language and references to flowers blooming? Isn't it just the opposite behavior that made Kleebold & Cho & the Amish guy so frightening -- they didn't TALK to anyone, they didn't TELL anyone, they didn't HINT about it to anyone? Announcing your mass murderer plans in advance seems to be mainly the province of Islamic terrorists, not deranged domestic killers.
Yes, the police are going to investigate, that's what they do. I remember about 10 years ago or so, some Daily Cal columnist made a violent reference to Chelsea Clinton at Stanford, and the Secret Service showed up at his door. Their job? Yes. A little overkill on their part? Yes. A stupid thing to do by the Daily Columnist? Obviously. But as far as I know, he's still allowed to live in civilized society.
(Of course, I see one solid point on the other side: The XOXO nuts are known for their seething rage, hatred of minorities and women, anger at being passed over, etc., etc., which starts to look a lot in common with Cho's motivations. So maybe that it was on that particular board says people should take it more seriously. Those people seem to have a lot of anger they're working through.)
That's my law-school-exam answer on how it cuts both ways...
Yes, of course it's different than underage drinking. The point was that we're not mad at him for doing something illegal, we're mad at him for embarrassing our school, making a ridiculous law school "rivalry" with Hastings even worse, making Hastings students worry about their safety or miss class right before finals, for being such an arrogant ass on XO, etc.
Well, 0L, first of all: What statute will you charge him under, and what are the elements of the crime? Second, was it really a threat? It sounds like the threat actually said he decided NOT to do a copycat killing. Furthermore, could it really have been taken seriously given the context which it was posted in? Was it specific enough? Are there any First Amendment issues involved?
Moreover, it's not always prudent to charge people with every technical violation of a law (as 12:53PM points out). There may be political or strategic reasons not to press charges.
12:50: thank you, that was necessary.
12:40: welcome to Boalt. You will find out soon enough when to and not to use "clearly", but from what I can tell this is not a slam dunk issue.
I don't think he has the requisite intent, judging by the context of the threat (a forum where people are joking more than half of the time). He also came forward and was assessed not to be a threat by qualified evaluators.
If the standard is reckless rather than malicious, then you can still argue both ways. Law is rarely clear cut as you will see.
What he also might subject to is some type of civil liability if anybody (i.e. the city, students or professors at Hastings) decide to sue him. There are several different causes of action that I won't bother to get into.
I hope that helps Mr. 0L.
Okay, okay, okay. I didn't apply to law school because I know everything. I applied for the opposite reason.
I now understand there is history and tension between the two schools (I honestly had no knowledge of any rivalry). But shouldn't that make people interested in defusing the situation MORE eager to see trustafarian prosecuted?
I mean, hugs? Come on.
....and what makes you so sure it is Mr. 0L?
Actually, what I think most Boalties found so weird was -- come on -- Hastings? Who gives a second thought to Hastings in the course of your day? (Same with them to us.) I've got a number of friends over there, and the idea of any kind of *tension* or *rivalry* strikes me as a little ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous that a disaffected Boaltie with a lot of rage, insecurity, and Ps would wake up and, instead of directing his anger at Boalt, direct it across the bay. Why? I mean, why not Stanford or Santa Clara or USF or Golden Gate or US Davis? That's what makes it a little perpelexing for most Boalties.
Also, incidentally, I and a significant (though < 1/2) number of commenters were defending the Hastings 1L on the prof-email-episode from a few months back. I don't recall it as being uniform derision that was expressed.
We love you Hastings... Just wanted to make that clear.
Apologies to the 0L, you might be Mr. or Ms. 0L.
"just because you go to Boalt doesn't mean you're not a jerk."
um, yeah, obviously. even getting into a real school like HYSCCN doesn't indicate that. instead, it indicates that you're smart and all but guaranteed to make a lot of money if you choose to do so.
Would the XO losers stop posting on here? Seriously. If you hate us so much and think we're not a "real school," then why even bother posting on this blog? Why even give us the time of day?
We're all really sorry that you can't get girlfriends and so you have to make fun of people at a school one or two slots lower than yours in the rankings to make yourselves feel better about that.
Also sorry Boalt rejected you. Tear.
Oh I'm sorry 0L, what was I thinking considering myself superior to someone who would threaten students as a joke after the tragedy on Monday? How could I possibly think that? God, I'm so elitist.
Ugh, 0L are you the same person who raised his hand to make a comment in Crim Pro while sitting in on the class? Dear god, keep your opinions to yourself about what is "clearly" legal or illegal. Actually strike that, opine away. In fact, we LOVE people who speak up in class too, especially when you're not on call. Really, everyone in your class is dying to know what you think. Get a few dry runs in on this blog. Second, rent "Good Will Hunting" ASAP, then you might understand satire when it bitch slaps you in the face. Third, if you take yourself this seriously already, you're going to have a miserable time at Boalt.
And big ups to the first 12:40.
Points to Armen for the "bitch slaps you in the face" comment.
Have you ever noticed that, for insecure law students across the country, the line drawn for a "real school" seems suspiciously just below one's own school. E.g, the 1:54 asshole obviously went to Columbia or NYU, because no authentic self-respecting Harvard or Stanford asshole would conclude anything below them was a "real school." They'd draw the line at 'HSY,' if I have that right, not 'YHSCCN.' Meanwhile, the Yale asshole thinks EVERY other school is lacking, the Penn asshole draws the line at the Top 10, the Cornell asshole at the Top 14, te USC asshole at the Top 20.
The punchline: good lawyers come in all shapes, sizes, and schools, but an asshole is an asshole is an asshole.
I really, really love 2:17 pm. My thoughts exactly.
To copy what someone said earlier, if you're a guy will you marry me, and if you're a girl will you be my new best friend?
odds are it's a generally decent guy who fucked up
You know, despite the fact that Trustafarian pissed me off by embarrassing our school, some of you anonymous commenters remind me of why I am happy I chose this place. Thanks guys.
The comment at 12:14 re the unrepresentativeness of this blog is spot-on. Just wanted to point that out in case you couldn't figure it out from the comments that follow it.
I hate to get legal on everyone, but seeing as how this is a blog used primarily by law students, how is it that only one person has mentioned First Amendment issues? The purpose of the protecting speech wasn't to ensure everyone patted each other on the back and agreed with each other all the time. If it protects anything at all, it protects speech that is offensive to others. I'm sure that each of you that demonized Trustefarian have said something that was offensive to groups of people at one time or another. Who are you to judge him based on his offensive joke?
I feel like this is Imus all over again. People say stuff that upsets others all the time. That's the price you pay to have the right to express yourself as you please.
My 1A knowledge is a bit rusty, but what 1A issue? Even if he's charged with a crime, disciplined by the school, or whatever, his conduct meets the Brandenburg test. Doesn't it?
Many commenters have made some sort of claim that trustafarian somehow "represents" Boalt or his actions in some way reflect on the Boalt student body and that he should be expelled because he is unworthy. I have two comments.
First, no, he doesn't. He doesn't represent Boalt anymore than the guy who shot up VT represents the attitudes of people at VT, or the people of South Korea, or immigrants from S.K., or immigrants loners from S.K., etc. We would all think it ridiculous (if not out-right racist in the latter examples) for someone to suggest it. He represents himself, his own crazy messed-up self. No one thinks that anyone at UCB is "tainted" by the guy who killed Tarasoff or any of the other horrific crimes performed by UCB students. (Or God forbid we have (former) Dean accused of raping one of his students! How does that reflect on the Boalt community???) All that talk just reveals that these people are more worried about how their own lives will be affected by this than they are worried about anyone else. *That's* what truly reflects badly on Boalt, that we have so many students with that attitude--from the comments above, it's not an isolated person's thought.
Second, what the hell does it mean that he doesn't "deserve" a Boalt degree? Certainly no one thinks that this threat, even if a true threat, should mean this guy should be locked up for life, right? So that means he has to do something with his life. If he doesn't deserve Boalt, what does he deserve? Is it okay if he gets a law degree from some other "less worthy" law school? Or maybe you mean that he shouldn't be a lawyer at all. So what should he be? What is he worthy of? What is your list of less noble professions that you will allow this unworthy person to enter? Will you allow him to be a school teacher? a dental hygienist? a building contractor? a garbage collector? a minister? a BART driver? what? I'm not saying this guy shouldn't be expelled (no comment), I'm just asking people to quit making off-the-cuff remarks about someone "deserving" a Boalt education. It's just a frickin' law degree, paid for like any other service. It's not a Medal of Honor or a Nobel Peace prize. Get over yourselves.
Right...for there to be a 1A issue, you have to identify how a state actor is curtailing speech. That is relevant here in what way???
Police = state actor
FBI = state actor
Boalt Hall = state actor
2:57, while I disagree with him, makes some refreshing and insightful comments.
I still think people are known, rightly or wrongly, by whom they associate with. Look at the grief any Boaltie would (properly) endure for admitting to being even a non-racist regular poster on XO, period. Granted, that association should diminish the less control you have over who you deal with and, last I checked, no Boalties are running admissions, but its still there.
2:57, way to use self-righteousness to accuse everyone else of being self-righteous.
I don't know exactly what the poster meant by Trustafarian not deserving a Boalt education, but I understood it to mean that it's unfair that someone like that will be able to enter the same profession we will, a profession that is known to (allegedly) hold you up to a higher ethical standard than many careers. Do i think lawyers are better than BART drivers? Absolutely not. But i don't think they have c&f requirements nearly to the extent the Bar does. It's crazy to try to argue that lawyers don't have special ethical requirements.
I say, we punish Trustafarian by sending him to Iraq! If he can call in bomb threats, he can call in artillery.
Armen, from the way I understand the Brandenburg test, it's meant to apply to speech that incites lawless behavior by others, so I don't think it would apply in this case. One of the three necessary elements is encouraging or urging lawlessness. However, as a lowly pre-con law 1L, I may not be aware of some other test limiting 1A rights.
I can't think of the case off the top of my head, but I think there's some Kennedy opinion or concurrence that says when speech is an element of a crime it's not protected. Like lying on your tax forms isn't protected 1A speech. So if he is charged under 18 USC 875(c) (internet is considered interstate commerce if I remember the wire fraud trial from 1L summer), then the "communication" is an element of the crime, and thus not protected.
Fortas' language from Brandenburg is: "These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." 395 U.S. at 447. Maybe I'm misreading it, but I think if YOU threaten to shoot up someone, then it meets the language, no? At least the first part is satisfied. I don't know if it's likely to bring about such a result.
Food for thought. If anyone took Con Law II, I'm really curious what you think.
Maybe there is some way to reconcile it, but I don't see how one's words could be used to incite or produce imminent lawless action in themself. The way I read it, it necessarily only applies to speech encouraging others.
I wonder if even after this was declared a hoax, Trustafarian will be on no-fly lists for awhile or permanently. Does the FBI put hoaxers on no-fly lists?
That's tough, no matter what else happens to him.
California Penal Code § 422
California Penal Code § 422 (2001) - Punishment for (Terrorist) Threats
Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means any spouse, whether by marriage or not, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
"Electronic communication device" includes, but is not limited to, telephones, cellular telephones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, or pagers. "Electronic communication" has the same meaning as the term defined in Subsection 12 of Section 2510 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
Kudos for leg research.
with the specific intent that the statement...is to be taken as a threat
I don't see any evidence the guy wanted the post to be INTERPRETED as a threat. If he did, why remove it 4 minutes later? A statement can't be "taken as a threat" by the threatened people if no one can read it b/c it disappears so quickly.
Even aside from the timing issue, the nature of the post, the forum, and the language used suggest it was to be taken as a JOKE, not as a threat. A sick, stupid, costly, should-cost-him-something-dear joke, but a joke nonetheless. Come on, Rule of Lenity people!
On the other, maybe he did want to at least scare a few people.
§422 will be hard to prove because one of the elements is that the defendant must have the specific intent that his action be taken as a threat. Good chance Trustie only meant it as a joke and did not have a specific intent.
There's another terrorist threat crime on the books in California, §71 maybe, that makes it a crime to threaten government actors. Hastings = UC. UC = state. State = government. Maybe a §71.
Also note the incredibly extreme, "unconditional" language of the statute:
so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat...
I'm guessing that language is used expressly to comply with the 1A. Anything less might border on free speech.
what is boalt going to do when armen leaves and there's no n&b? I'll be fucked and damned before I go to xoxo for my dose of daily legal banter and self importance.
armen - who's taking over n&b?
2:57 - "If he doesn't deserve Boalt, what does he deserve?"
He deserves to be outed and finish up at Hastings! =D
Sorry... couldn't resist.
2:57 here, and (along with 60% of Boalties), I'm a she.
3:22--Yes, but I accused people of not only being self-righteous, but self-righteous and wrong. ;D
Joking aside, the professional ethics for laywers argument is a non-starter. If we're really talking about a potentionally violent person, would you have that person in charge of due diligence on some M&A deal, or would you have that person in control of large machinery (like a BART train) with many people's lives in their hands? But if we're only talking about a bonehead with predictably bad judgment, this person will never make it out of the gate in a law firm. In fact, such people are *known* to not get offers from their 2L summer job!
An observation and two questions.
Observation regarding the discussion: Many (or all) of the commenters defending "Trustafarian" may be none other than the Trustafarian himself or his friends. Dean O. will probably report to Interim Dean E. on the online chatter about the situation so perhaps Alexander Dumbass and his friends think they will be able to generate a more lenient response from Edley by posting lots of excuses or mitgating comments here.
Questions regarding whether a false outing on this blog is actionable:
1. Could a poster who fingers the wrong person be in legal trouble? An anonymous commenter could easily pull out the facebook and offer up the name of one of the handful of white males in the 1L class who went to a less prestigious UC for undergrad. If they finger the wrong person, it would really suck for that person.
2. Could Armen be subject to liability if he allows an incorrect ID to stay after someone posts it? He has the ability to delete posts, he has clearly been watching this discussion closely and he is pretty much the only moderator who has been posting on this thread.
"2. Could Armen be subject to liability if he allows an incorrect ID to stay after someone posts it? He has the ability to delete posts, he has clearly been watching this discussion closely and he is pretty much the only moderator who has been posting on this thread."
No, unless Armen was the one to actually make the ID. The same Sec. 230 that applies to xo applies to Armen.
If you read Trustafarian's posts, he's clearly a white male. He's also straight, he got all P's his first semester (but he felt if he applied himself a li'l more he'd get HH HH H H his second semester--for OCIP), he's done some work for the "Tech Journal," he's attended Bar Review, he lives or lived in Elmwood / Rockridge area, and with a name like Trustafarian he may also partake once in awhile. He does not indicate that he went to a UC, as a previous poster suspected. Remember, this is all from Trustafarian's posts... so believe what you will...
Come on 1Ls, take 8:32's information and run with it!
8:32, I am the previous poster who also pointed out some of his characteristics. I was just curious...did he actually say he was on the tech journal? I thought he said he might do some work on the tech journal. I could have misread though. It was all in one big long xo thread.
But again, i don't want anyone to just throw up a list of suspects or anything. I am making the same point 8:32 was making--Trustafarian did post some stuff about himself that is available for anyone to see. Granted it could be lies, but at the time he posted that stuff i don't think he had a reason to be lying about that stuff.
If Trustafarian ever took a deposition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyOdpFFY5GA&mode=related&search=
Oh, 8:32, I think he does say he went to a UC. Not in that thread where you're getting that info, but in the one he started when he got admitted. I thought he said that he went to a UC, but not one of the "name" schools.
Trying to out this guy is very unseemly.
http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=361288&mc=74&forum_id=2&PHPSESSID=a92458e94045ee89b8e79ea24d2d61f2
More of his posts with the UC stuff. But yeah, if you're able to figure it out with the info and the Boalt facebook, I wouldn't out him on this blog. I'd just be satisfied and tell a few friends.
I made the original "deserves a Boalt education" statement, and what I should have said was "deserves a legal eduation." I apologize for my mistatement. I did not mean to be elitist...I thank my lucky stars every day that I am at this school and would feel equally lucky to be studying law at most any school in this country. My point was was that a legal professional's job is to make prudent decisions for a client, and clearly this person is not qualified to make prudent decisions.
Regarding the Imus comment above: that was a 100% political issue, while this is a mixture of a political/legal issue (though Sharpton was clever in trying to make a legal FCC issue out of the Imus comments, as far as I know, neither he nor any other group made any formal legal complaint to the FCC - correct me if I'm wrong). Not a good comparison to the current situation.
My opinion: Unless Trustafarian has one hell of a good excuse, expell him. Is it right to unleash this guy upon the world as legal counsel?
I think this guy should be expelled or suspended but not because he has an offensive personality or doesn't deserve to be here.
The action of one person damaged Boalt's reputation and caused harm to Hastings and its students. Boalt needs to make a forceful and public statement that says students need to consider the ramifications of their actions before they make them. Not making a forceful statement sends the message that Boalt doesn't care about the damage its students do to the school and other people in the legal community. Not a great message to send.
Hey 8:50... I missed that! Trustadumian said: "My personality is not compelling; my numbers are unremarkable. I went to one of the UC's, but not at one of the "name" campuses." That narrows it down to an uncomfortable number...
Not a name UC means not Berkeley or UCLA?
Are people actually looking through facebooks? Oh boy, it's just a matter of time now.
I know, right?
I just don't want some of my fellow innocent classmates being the subject of suspicion. But, the info was out there...
And he graduated in "December" of 2005... narrowing... oh my...
Actually, it gets even better. In that XO thread, written on 2/15/06, he also says he graduated "last December," which would make for a graduation year of 2005 (but possibly 2006, if the school didn't confer degrees until January, which my undergrad does for Dec graduations, incidentally). So a non-UCLA, non-Cal, UC '05 or '06 white male grad.
Check me if I'm wrong here Sandy, but in my pathetic attempt to procrastinate from outlining, I count exactly FIVE people in the Facebook meeting that profile for the 1L class.
9:32, you beat me to that insight fair & square. Didn't see it.
This is getting even more interesting as a sociological study in communities, the Internet, publicity, and privacy. There seems to be a general consensus that throwing out *ACTUAL NAMES* is an unfair, spectacularly bad idea. I agree. The whole world can read this blog (moreover, can SEARCH on this blog) for a long time. But noting Facebook pages is something that only matters if you have physical access to a Facebook. What say you Armen?
5 people, bingo... Dare we stop now? I almost feel bad for the guy.
UCLA and UCB are "name" schools... If December 2005 is considered a 2005 grad (not 2006), there's only one name that fits... Can anyone vouch for this guy?
For the record--I don't support this online witch hunt. I think that several comments on this thread reflect very poorly on Boalt--they are shrill, sanctimonious, and vindictive. A few seem more malicious than the XOXO post in question.
I find it ironic that a number of anonymous posters are trying so hard to uncover someone else's online anonymity. If you really believe that people should take responsibility for what they say on the internet, then you should practice what you preach.
Finally, let me point out that the denizens of XOXO would like nothing more than Boalt students "outing" Trustafarian. In fact, I suspect that a good number of the anonymous posts are by XOXO people trying to whip up a frenzy here. I don't see why Nuts and Boalts should be helping them.
A December 2005 grad date would go in as 2005, not 2006. At least that seems to be the case for people I know who graduated in Dec - it makes it look like they are a year older.
Only one person? I'm scared to look.
This string of comments is so not cool to this poor guy.
Please delete some of this stuff and let it never come back!
Please stop! having only one person fit the profile is horrible if it's not right.
We have no idea what this person means by "name" UC, or whatever, or whether they were lying when posting, so we have no idea if the suggestions are accurate. What if we're all wrong?
Armen please delete this!
I am proud to have posted the link above that lead to this.
I'm not going to let anyone post any names, but short of that, it's fair game. Frankly, I wouldn't mind a witch hunt against "jd09." He's the one getting on my nerves by linking everything in sight on this blog to autoadmit. I can even tell you he uses a Mac (09, not trust)...and of course he came to Boalt because it's the highest "ranked" school he got into. Pathetic.
By posting no names but effectively narrowing the search to one person you're keeping the potential student's name among Boalt students, with facebooks, who read this blog. Sure it's not posting the name, but it still makes me uncomfortable. I guess there is no going back now though.
There's one guy that fits THIS profile we've come up with. When I asked if anyone could vouch for the guy, I'm looking for someone to give me a reason he doesn't fit. Maybe he never lived in Rockridge/Elmwood area. Maybe he got an H in Torts his first semester. We do not know for sure this is the guy...
In the interests of both anonymity and intellectual honesty, I don't think you can go from 5 --> 1 with any publicly available info at this point. I was a mid-year graduation but my grad date rolled over, as well. And, of course, as someone above pointed, *none* of the shit he posted is confirmed. Isn't the MO of XO to lie with impunity about just about everything?
Ok, well if you ignore the grad date completely and just go with white, male, non-"name" UC, then i count 8 1Ls. And that's still too many to try to speculate, even in my own mind.
However, if he is either an '05 or '06 grad, I think this leaves about 5 people, but I'd have to count again. And 3 of those 5 I know pretty well, and I don't think it's them... so that leaves 2 suspects. Ignoring the graduation date, though, leaves one. The same one everyone else has spotted.
I wonder if anyone will vouch for him.
I just got his address and he does NOT live in Elmwood/Rockridge... this is getting creepy, but I just cannot open my Evidence book right now (although it might give me some perspective)...
Mike M--I'm the one who appears to have baited Armen to reveal the N&B bloggers' identities. I assure you, it only appears that way. That was a comment between me and Armen...he knows what the comment meant. I signed my initials and it's not hard to figure out who I am. The facebook witch hunt would have been much easier in my case.
SS
Speaking of Character & Fitness, we now have THE Anthony Ciolli, the Penn 3L who founded xoxohth.com, on this thread. How is that Character & Fitness application going buddy?
But where does trust say he actually lives in elmwood/rockridge? i don't see that anywhere. what am i overlooking?
(this is such a great outlining-procrastination tool)
I second 10:09's comments. Outing this person, even only amongst students with the facebook, is disgusting. What if you're wrong? What if you're right and he's not expelled?
I am disgusted by armen's vendetta against this guy. He's already in a pile of real world shit and armen is trying to rub it in as much as possible. When you figure out who it is, or who you think it is, are you going to get your posse together to go laugh at him?It reminds me of a certain other site that likes to kick people when they're down.
Contrary to some media reports, I never founded xoxohth. Alas, if I had there likely would never have been any media reports about the site.
It's weak (LIKE EVERYTHING WE HAVE HERE), but Trustafuckupian said at one point he was limited in the bars he could go to--limited to the Rock/Elm area.
Ok, Anderson. I'll have to take your word for it, because I can't find it anywhere.
So, basically, he either moved or was lying about something somewhere along the way?
Ok, 10:40 here...i just found it. You're right, he does say that he is limited to the elmwood/rockridge area.
At this point, it's more of a sleuthing & curiosity exercise than anything else. What we're doing is identifying the most promising Boalties to become divorce lawyers, personal injury litigators, PIs, CIA agents, and/or investigative bloggers.
Yes... this is helping me understand the true meaning of circumstantial evidence...
Maybe he's limited to Rockridge bars because everyone else has thrown him out for being an asshole??
As an aside, I think it's interesting how many people came to the defense of Trustafarian - moreso on autoadmit than on this blog, of course - as opposed to the prof emailing DB from Hastings a few months ago. From my perspective, the judgment displayed by that guy pales in comparison to our dear Boaltie friend, Trustafarian.
Only three of the five worked on BTLJ. Hint: No one on pg 12.
I went ahead and emailed who I think it is. We'll see what he says. Signing off...
And of the three remaining, the only one I don't know anything about is the same person everyone else was originally wondering about/suspecting.
dude.
anything we wanted to communicate to non-boalties about our collective lives has been truly and fully communicated by the VOLUME of procrastinating posts this fine, albeit rainy, saturday eve.
holy shit!
I really will feel bad if we're wrong. But at least Anderson's email will give him a chance to clear his name, and end all the speculation about him.
So I've found this whole thing to be really entertaining so far, and I am sucker for the gossip, but going through the facebook and finding that "one guy that fits the profile" sort of ruined it for me. I know him, he's legit, literally the last person that would ever pull something like this.
Seeing as how I bet there are a bunch of people thinking he's the guy right now. . . I vote to call off the witch hunt.
Damn. So...now we can try to figure out where the lies were. I seriously doubt everything he posted was a lie.
To 11:04: If you know him, ask him.
I really think you should delete these posts searching for Trustafarian's identity.
It's in the hands of the Boalt administration and law enforcement now. Let it stay there.
I have very little sympathy for "Trustafarian." What he or she did was stupid at the very least. It certainly failed as a joke. I can usually spot a hoax and I'm all for crass, morbid humor, but that message made me nervious. Like many others, I want to know who Trustafarian is and I also want him or her to face appropriate repercussions.
That said, I urge the "sleuths" not "narrow" anything down to any real person before official word gets out. Innocent people could get their reputations tarnished. So far, we only know that it's just some Boalt student. Let's leave it at that. That's bad enough.
This witchunt is retarded. Honestly folks, he didn't hurt anyone's reputation except his own. All of this feigned moral outrage and these platitudes about needing to send the right message is a lame cover for your personal curiosity.
What did you expect to find? Some evil jerk with a history of kicking puppies who managed to get through 1L without making any friends?
Stop using this scandal as an excuse to procrastinate from studying.
11:04 here.
There really isn't any need to ask him. Doesn't live in Rockridge, never wanted to do tech, wouldn't be asking where the good bars are, and really just too nice of a guy.
And I can tell you with absolute certainty that if someone came up and asked me if I did it because they got bored and decided to go sleuthing through the facebook, I'd think they were a hardcore douchebag.
Point taken.
actually, i think the only DBs are the people who are already outlining. suckers!!! ;)
No, I did not expect to find an evil jerk who kicks puppies and has no friends. I expected to find a stupid jerk who threatened to "suit up" and kill people, who would have been better off kicking puppies, and who will likely not have any friends left once 1L year is over.
Interesting sidenote: I tried to take his self-confessed admissions numbers (3.72 GPA, 164 LSAT) to lawschoolnumbers.com to try to work backwards and maybe find his profile and find more info -- I figured it's a good bet that he's the kind of guy that was obsessing on that site last year as well.
Turns out, there's no matches even close. But in browsing through some of the admit data, his *story* now strikes me as a little incredible: he applies to Boalt on Feb 1, almost at the deadline, as a white guy with a bottom-quartile LSAT and a bottom-quartile GPA from a non-Ivy and gets admitted fourteen days later?? I have a hard time buying that. And if you look at the scatterplot of February admissions to Boalt last year, there's no one even close to that profile admitted in that kind of timeframe. Not even close.
So maybe the "trust" in "trustafarian" is all too indicative of what he had going for him but, otherwise, that result sounds a little fishy. (I'm not judging Boalt, I'm just noting how admissions seems to work.)
So if he was lying about the #s, he's probably more likely to be lying about other stuff, which would undermine a lot of this sleuthing. Take that for what its worth.
Um, whoever said that we should acknowledge that we're doing this b/c of our own personal curiosity, I fully admit that. And so have other posters.
11:17-as far as I can tell, you would be right.
I think what you guys have been doing tonight is pathetic. I think you're contributing to a situation where a number of Boalt students are going to have a cloud of suspicion and gossip hanging over their heads on Monday.
And furthermore--I think it's pretty chicken-shit for you to be hiding behind that same internet anonymity that you are trying to dispel.
Then again, maybe it's for the best. I'm pretty sure I would have a lesser opinion of you if I knew your actual identities. Let's hope you keep your DB-ery online.
Armen, whats the record for number of comments to a post? are we there? are we close? this is great saturday-night-at-home-studying-feel-like-a-loser entertainment.
I am doing this solely out of my own curiosity. And if I was on the receiving end, I'd be livid as hell. But, hey, I struggle with my hypocrisy (and my lack of outlining) almost every day.
Morbid personal curiosity...
11:29, what scatterplot?
But you make some really good points.
Also, is it possible that this person is not actually even a Boalt student? Is it possible that DE sent that letter to Hastings just because the guy claimed to be a Boalt student?
Here's my proposed punishment for Trustomatic: Wear an orange jump-suit to school through the end of finals and join the tireless, mega-phone wielding demonstrators in the courtyard against Professor Yoo.
I think that'd do it.
This blog is picking up so much steam, maybe we should do a N&B happy hour before the year is through. I know ATL and Volokh do stuff like that -- and they eat live puppies for a living.
I can see it now: "Hey, you're Anonymous 7:32!" "And you're Anonymous 8:14! Awesome!"
On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if every single commenter showed up and that consisted of...seven people. Though that would still be better-attended than bar review.
No. He should be forced to attend the HR clinic or run the Reruns of the OC at Boalt club...
As a white male UC grad with similar numbers and stats, and who is NOT trustifarian, I am not going to dignify this witch hunt by telling you who I am so you could further narrow down the choices.
Since I know all the other white male UC grads, and know which of them it already could not be, I'd like to say that this is ridiculous. Go back to outlining and stop trolling this blog at midnight on a Saturday.
11:34 is my personal hero.
Also, i am so sick of all the self-righteous people. If you weren't curious, you wouldn't be reading this blog. At least not past the first few comments. Don't act like you don't want to know.
It's not midnight yet. You must be him.
Mmmm... live puppies... drool...
(Dear FBI: I'm only kidding. This is a joke. I don't eat live puppies.)
I only eat dead puppies.
Let's pick a 1L at random and make the autoadmit "facts" fit them. Should be easy.
In absolute terms, this thread is now the record holder. But both OCIP threads had hundreds of comments deleted as the firm postings were updated. They're at 158 and 166 currently (not counting deleted comments).
So, as one of the 5 that it has been narrowed down to (even though someone ruled me out, thank god) I'm going to say this is thoroughly enjoyable, and I would suspect some of you think it's me. Please keep speculating... this is way too much fun.
Can we christen this person the 'Boaltabomber' from now on? Like Unabomber.
We could also nominate an outgoing 3L as Trustarfarian, and let him accept the mantle of abuse, response, etc. Someone who has already committed unspeakable evil...someone who is a fatuous blowhard...someone who feels compassion only for the milk of free market techno-capitalism which is his succor...someone who has yet to vociferously and unequivocally denounce the Federalist Society. 3L quasi-Hastings-terrorist, thy name is 1L.
I have in my hand a list of 278 names of the members of Trustafarian's class. Now, Mr. 1L, are you now, or have you ever been, Trustafarian?
poor motherfucker. he's fucked now. i'm going to be a prosecutor and STILL can't muster the passion to hate this guy. he just made a really really really really really really dumb mistake. wish i could taste blood on this one and really feel comfortable going for the jugular (dear AGAG and FBI: metaphor.) but instead i just want to slap him and move on, with trustfund in my school, doing very poorly on finals but advancing nonetheless to his second year of blah school.
note to self: get more blood thirsty.
11:52 PM: his name is lichaa. lichaa, lichaa, lichaa.
OMG, this is epic!! First the King of the Assholes himself, Tony Ciolli, founding non-founder of XO, stops by. And then an authentic Page 12-er! Poppa told me you didn't exist except in a child's imagination. And you're not distended for being non-outed outed as the non-threatening threat?! This is so very meta on so meta levels. I love it. LOVE IT. Armen, this blog is going to be picked up by Letterman soon.
11:53, you're way to witty and introspective to be a prosecutor. Don't let them take you.
Not cool, 11:55. The very fact that you say this person's name repeatedly points out that you're a 3L, that you were present in a certain class 1L year, and that you're way uncool.
And leave the feds out of this. Don't they get enough crap?
I'm going to jump on the "what's the point of this -- this is stupid" bandwagon.
Evidently, he doesn't have enough problems being subjected to a federal criminal investigation... or having the prospect of damages hanging over his head. I'm sure he's not worrying about lost job opportunities and threats to his future legal career, or about prospective disciplinary action by Boalt. I imagine he cares not about people searching out his posts and building his comments into their various characterizations of his "douchbaggedness." I'm sure he loves being isolated as the only person to have ever commented on the unattractiveness of Boalt students --- as the rest of us undoubtedly consider Boalt students invariably attractive. And there's no way he has seen this message board, which would mean he has no reason to stress about others searching him out and harassing him... or about people thundering down with their social retribution.
So --- let's continue casting stones, and giving people more and more reasons to get angry at him. Let's spend all of our time searching for clues to determine his identity, such that we might create the discomfort he has not yet felt. And let's ignore the other people out there (half of them on this messageboard) that would delight in sending him threatening messages of their own.
Marginalize while you still can -- the hour is late!
12:00 a.m.
you are no fun.
go ruin someone else's party.
xoxo
I understand the calls to stop the witch hunt, but it's hard for me to feel bad for this guy's "lost job opportunities" or about him feeling "discomfort." Frankly, for making a comment like that, he deserves whatever ends up coming his way, and I think the least of his worries are people speculating about his identity on message boards.
If these were the olden days, we'd form a huge rowdy mob with torches and pitchforks, and roam from house to house, looking for Trustafarian.
pitchforks are hot.
trustfund babies are not.
These are not the old days, and that is not what anyone posting here hopes for or plans in any way.
Are you SURE we can't still do that?
Actually, I don't want to, the stress level from all this probably took 5 years off his life span anyway. Lets keep this tread light-hearted.
<< Home