I am not any person named in the linked page, though I have met some or all of them. I am not affiliated with MIRI in any way. I did not post the linked page and I do not know who did.

The linked page is obvious slander. But its creation is a serious matter; the author is threatening to manufacture evidence. Thus, it should be handled the same way as a death threat: with an investigation to determine who sent it. The site is hosted on EasyWeb; the domain name admin contact details point to a proxy called myprivacy.net, but the author is not very technically sophisticated (the page was authored in MS Word) so an appropriate subpoena might suffice to identify them.

Also, Mendes & Mount might want to make a public statement as to whether or not they represent MIRI. The page mentions them by name, but they're located in the wrong state (New York) and none of the practice areas listed on their web page are relevant.

I understand fabricating evidence is bad. I understand that libel is bad. But I don't see how threatening to libel is that bad (on top of the actual libel).

12Kawoomba6yThe more serious it is publicly taken, the more incentive for the author (who could be some guy in Eastern Europe for all we know, well beyond the reach of any legal recourse) to redouble his/her efforts. Someone has spent a considerable amount of time and effort to make the biggest possible splash. Publicly making waves about it is just playing into the splasher's hands. So I advocate no public engagement on this matter whatsoever, doubled with a consultation with a specialized (not a run-of-the-mill) lawyer. Also, I'd look into the account who made the original post. The posting history (just one other post with "concerns") and then this random "stumbled on this slanderous noname internet site"-type post, coupled with the ludicrous slant ("doesn't look good"!?) would make me wager at considerable odds that OP is involved in the matter. Good news, in that case: check your IP logs, turn the IP address over to the police (if that's what the lawyer advises, which he probably will). Since the account had some activity in the past, I doubt the poster consistently used a proxy.
-4[anonymous]6y... Why are we trusting anyone named Quirinus_Quirrell again?


by [anonymous] 1 min read12th Nov 201449 comments