You know how threats go, right? (UPDATED AGAIN)

This woman doesn’t. Not only did she threaten someone through the phone, leaving a message, but she her target posted it on YouTube. Talk about “exploding the internet”.

If she takes it down, I’ve downloaded it and will update this blog post accordingly.

The caller in that recording did not post the video. The person who received it Someone did.

I don’t have time to get into an analysis of the video and what she says, but just listen to her carefully. Listen to what she threatens to do if anti-vaccine people are not left alone.

And, is it just me, or is there a hint of antisemitism sprinkled in?

Anyway, here’s the transcript:

“Hi, uh, Doreen (?), my name is Holly. Um, and I was actually just calling, because I wanted to let you know that I found out your address… um… where you live in South Bay with your, uh, husband. And I just want to let you know that I am going to be posting that very, very, very publicly, uh, on Facebook if your group does not leave some of the… uh… antivaxers alone. Um. So just take this as a word of warning, uh, miss professor of law. I do know how… You do know hows these things work, these threats work, right? Um…  But I will be calling the police and reporting you for harassment. I will also be blowing up the internet, showing your address and all of that. Just want to let you know. Um. So if you don’t leave us alone, we’re, we’re going to do this to you. Ok. Great. Well, have a good day. Bye-bye.”

I emphasized in bold the part where she outright admits that it’s a threat.

UPDATE:

After denying it over and over again, the woman who made the threatening phone call has come clean and apologized:

So maybe this is the end of it… For now.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “You know how threats go, right? (UPDATED AGAIN)

  1. Honestly I don't think that is Valley Girl. That is pure midwest Chicago burbs…DAH BEARS!But, that part is irrelevant. The fact that this moron is the worst threatener ever is definitely relevant, however.

  2. "I'm just wondering if someone would ever really use their own name if they were threatening?"Ah the old that was stupid, I would never do anything stupid argument. Crimes happen all the time on impulse. Impulse crimes look stupid because they are stupid. Smart people can and do stupid things at times."I went and looked at her page and she actually does seem very educated."Hmmm… what? "Her anti-RIC stuff is very important and she is probably saving many babies."Saving? Okay I can agree male circumcision is an outdated concept, but saving would imply these children at risk in the first place. It would also suggest anyone is listening to an antisemitic fool. But on to pox and pertussis parties. Had she taking her 9 year old to a pertussis party it's highly likely the 9 month old would contract pertussis. He's not vaccinated and pertussis can kill an infant. Even chicken pox, a modestly mild disease ISN'T 1% of the time. Before the vaccine 11,000-13,000 children were hospitalized for chicken pox for life threatening complications. Roughly 136 people died per year, a fatality rate that dropped over 90% since the vaccine was deployed. But she's against that, she's for the more deadly solution. That's an idiot. So I reject your hypothesis that any kid isn't circumcised because of her. She maintains an echo chamber of mothers who either didn't, or regret doing so. More over she smoked pot while pregnant and giving birth. I'm not aware of the safety profile of pot for this application, nor is Hollie. It's natural so it must be good. Yeah, well so is nightshade and rattlesnake venom. "but she doesn't seem dumb enough to 1-use her name and 2-leave a message"Impulse criminals often don't seem dumb. They just act dumb because they didn't think things through. She's pretty dumb asking publicly for a pertussis party for her 9y/o, saying point blank she took her 6y/o to a pox party, she smoked pot while pregnant. She also posts pics of penises on Facebook and can't grasp that's a violation of their policy. I support information on circumcision, but she can click no preview so a kid doesn't see some guy's cock."I smell a little BS and think it may just be a set up"Well this is now a criminal matter, and they'll sort it out. Hollie at any point could make a YT video with her own voice. If it doesn't sound like an uneducated Valley Girl, that would support your hypothesis. She has not responded to requests to do so.http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=369153973180144&set=a.367137970048411.81308.363490460413162&type=1

  3. (I have no clue who this chick is and know nothing about her) I'm just wondering if someone would ever really use their own name if they were threatening? I went and looked at her page and she actually does seem very educated. Her anti-RIC stuff is very important and she is probably saving many babies. So, not saying I'm on her side, but she doesn't seem dumb enough to 1-use her name and 2-leave a message. I smell a little BS and think it may just be a set up… sorry. Just sayin'

  4. Yes, I posted the recording. It wasn't the caller, or the receiver. Before you claim something isn't right the rule of law is like a letter. Bob can send Mary a personal letter. Bob has the reasonable expectation that it won't be read in transit, but that expectation ends the moment Mary receives it. Mary could give it to someone else, she could call her mom and read it, she can read it over a blowhorn, radio, webcam, or TV. She can relay it using a telegraph, fax, or post it on a web page, or publish a book with that letter printed on every page. She can translate it to Chinese, chop it up into little pieces, put lines in fortune cookies and sell them for whatever she likes. This is the precedent for answering machine messages, same rule applies. Because this is a pending legal matter, I can't go into the details on how I got it. The receiver believes it's Hollie. Whether this is the callerID log, phone record log, I simply don't know. I'll be sure to ask. It's hypothetically possible after the receiver phoned CPS on Hollie and entirely different person impersonated Hollie. But this would be resolved easily by Hollie posting a YT video saying she doesn't sound like that. Hollie had not responded to my requests to do so. Appropriate parties are pursuing the matter under the presumption it is Hollie. I'm being anonymous so some bimbo doesn't slash my tires.

  5. You know, I would hate to be a killjoy, but this disturbs me: "he caller in that recording did not post the video. The person who received it Someone did."Okay, the recording would have been on the office phone, because I doubt Hollie would have recorded herself. So I have a few questions:How did the anonymous person get the recording?Is that actually Hollie's voice?I can't see the Facebook pages because I refuse to join: is Hollie blaming someone else?And if it was someone else, why are they saying they are "Hollie"?Something is just very odd.(I was going to say something about knowing the law professor lived in "South Bay", but then I found out it was her faculty info page. Though as I looked some more, she is definitely a person in the Bay area, along with Liz, that I'd love meet.)

  6. Why am I not shocked? I think this is mild compared to what these people are going to do as they get more desperate.Another anti-vaxx braintrust strikes again.

Comments are closed.