BINDL

Not everyone accused of looking like Jigsaw is confident enough to post photos with a tricycle, but that’s what makes Laura Loomer different

After identifying Jane Doe earlier tonight, I have now removed the information I published. Why? Because the principle has been served: to underscore that permanently anonymizing litigants who make sensational, spectacular, reputation-destroying claims about others -- so long as they can self-declare some form of victimization -- cannot be countenanced. It's destructive, and an egregious abuse of the legal system by huckster plaintiff's lawyers. This practice has to end. Lawyers who seek to monetize this sleazy tactic should have to think A LOT HARDER about the claims they're willing to throw out into the public domain, using impressionable clients who may not even know what they're getting themselves into. So why have I now removed her information? Because I don't believe she's the main "villain" here. I primarily blame the bottom-feeding, media-manipulating, sleazebag lawyers who've made a whole cash-grab industry out of this racket. Thomas Giuffra in particular has a lot to answer for. He's the central reason for the current debacle. Given the intense nationwide and global interest in this case, I don't want to bring any further negative attention to this woman. I don't believe she ought to be punished or subjected to any retribution or humiliation. I believe a RATIONAL solution is necessary here. Not more character assassination -- of her, the seven young men, or anyone else. Truly, that is my genuine view. I also recognize there are unique factors that must be taken into account given the hugely outsized publicity of this case. So that's why I have removed the information. The aforementioned principle has been served: eroding the premise that anyone who claims any form of victimization is entitled to permanent anonymity, even as their lawyer(s) use the courts -- aided by a compliant media -- to name & shame others for the most heinous of crimes. No matter how lacking in credibility their own claims might be, or contradicted by mountains of other evidence. That's all I ever sought to accomplish here. Not to impugn this young woman on a personal level. I have no animus toward her, and never have. I sincerely wish her the best, and hope her life is not defined by this calamity. I completely stand by the accuracy of what I reported as to Jane Doe's identity. This is not a retraction -- it's an independent discretionary judgment I alone have made. No lawyers or anyone else have influenced this decision.