Deb Frisch Sentencing Statement to Criminal Court (3/12/09)

Well, teh City of Eugene filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on Friday.
As attachments, defendants included all SORTS of hilarious excerpts from teh
transcript of Deborah Frisch's March 2009 CRIMINAL TRIAL (and
conviction for assaulting an acquaintance)!

Thanks to dum-dum Debbie's frivolous lawsuit, now EVERYONE can read
(and lol) about teh humiliating BEATDOWN Deborah Ellen Frisch got in
last year's criminal court LOLs!

Let teh good LULZ roll!

Humiliated Deb Frisch Whines to Eugene Budget Committee (May 2010)

Well, now that dummy Deborah Frisch has been BANNED from
teh Eugene Federal Courthouse--and, as we now know, she received
a warning from teh FBI concerning her threatening emails--Dummy
Deb Frisch has few avenues left to vent her vileness.

...well, except for teh city of Eugene Budget Committee. (Note to
Debbie: teh Budget Committee doesn't give two shits about you--
they're THRILLED that you're receiving teh humiliating BEATDOWN
you deserve.)

Of course, Debbie knows that, when video surfaces, Gerbil Nation will
be there to slice, dice, and spread the mockery to teh ends of teh
Internets. (This, BTW, was one reason why Debbie feared teh April
15th deposition--since it would be videotaped, she knew teh video
of her getting pwned would spread like wildfire...)

So...without further ado, here is Dummy Deborah Frisch, whining
about her pitiful failures in Federal Court...

FBI QUESTIONS DEBORAH FRISCH FOR THREATENING JUDGE!! (1/22/10)

Well, it seems like Deb Frisch's lawsuit is getting attention--but
not exactly teh kind of attention Dummy Debbie was hoping for...

According to court papers filed yesterday, Deborah Frisch's
threats of court staff and the judge in her case earned Miss Debbie
a visit from none other than teh FBI!!

Here is teh relevant paragraph of DumDeb's filing yesterday,
referring to her being questioned by two FBI agents...

Deb Frisch SLAPPED With SANCTION$!! (5/17/10)

Here's teh text of a Federal Judge's granting a Motion
for Sanctions against Debbie Frisch, released today.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

DEBORAH ELLEN FRISCH,
Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF EUGENE, et.al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the court is defendants' Motion for Imposition ofSanctions
(dkt. # 14 7) filed on April 26,2010. Because Ms. Frisch failed to
appear at her properly noticed April 15, 2010 deposition, defendants
ask the court to impose the following sanctions: (I) require Ms. Frisch
to pay $515 to partially cover defendants' costs and attomeys fees;
(2) prohibit Ms. Frisch from opposing any of defendants' facts in support
of their upcOlning summary judgment motion with her own statements;
and (3) prohibit Ms. Frisch from supporting any facts in her own
summary judgment motion with her own statements. (Dkt. #147). Ms.
Frisch filed a response opposing the motion for sanctions (dkt. #161) on
May 9, 2010. I grant defendants' motion in part and deny in part.

Ms. Frisch agreed to be deposed on April 15, 2010....Defendants' counsel
[REDACTED] properly noticed Ms. Frisch's deposition.... Ms. Frisch sent
[REDACTED] emails indicating her reluctance to be deposed by
[REDACTED]. (ld., Ex. 3). In response, [REDACTED] sent Ms. Frisch
a letter stating that her noticed deposition would go forward on April
15, 2010 and cautioning her that he intended to seek sanctions if
she failed to appear. Ms. Frisch did not appear for her deposition.

Under FRCP 37(d), if a party fails to appear at her deposition, the
court may impose any of the sanctions authorized under
FRCP 37(b)(2)(A), (B), and (C). A court may prohibit a party
from introducing evidence and may require the party failing to
appear to pay reasonable expenses (including attomeys fees)
caused by the failure. FRCP 37(d)(3) and (b)(2)(A)(ii); see also,
Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 947 (9th Cir. 2001) (prohibiting
introduction of evidence is reasonable sanction so long as what is
prohibited bears a reasonable relationship to the discovery frustrated
by failure to appear at the deposition. Sanctions for failure to appear
at a deposition may be imposed even absent a prior court order.
Henry v. Gilllndus, Inc 983 F.2d 943, 947 (9th Cir.1993) (repeated
cancellations at the last minute constitute a firilure to appear).
Moreover, there is no need to fmd that the failure to attend was
"willful." Lew v. Kona Hospital, 754 F.2d 1420, 1427 (9th Cir.1985)
("Even a negligent failure to allow reasonable discovery may be
punished.").

Defendants' motion for sanctions is well taken. An essential part
defendants' discovery in this litigation is taking Ms. Frisch's
deposition. By failing to appear at her deposition, Ms. Frisch has
prevented the defense from using this tooi to gather evidence.
The record establishes that Ms. Frisch wilfully failed
to appear at her deposition, despite being properly
noticed and warned, by letter, that defendants would
seek sanctions if she failed to appear.

Ms. Frisch argues that the deposition notice, which was mailed
March 19,2010, was not valid because it noticed a deposition date
which was past the discovery deadline which was in effect on
March 19,2010... This argument is not persuasive. On March 23,
2010, I granted an unopposed motion to extend the discovery date
to April 16,2010. (Dkt. #142). Moreover, if Ms. Frisch was confused
about the validity of the deposition notice, she had ampie time to
address that concern instead of simply not appearing at her deposition.

I grant defendants' motion for sanctions in part. I find that under
the circumstances it is reasonable to order Ms. Frisch to reimburse
defendants for the costs they incurred for the court reporter's
appearance ($75) and to prohibit Ms. Frisch from using her own
statements as evidence in dispositive motions.

ORDER
Ms. Frisch shall pay defendants $75, which was the cost of the court
reporter's appearance.... Ms. Frisch shall not use her own statements
as evidence in dispositive motions. Ms. Frisch is prohibited from
controverting any of defendants' facts in support of their motion
for summary judgment with evidence in the fom10fher own
statements. The court shall disregard any supporting facts in the
form of Ms. Frisch's own statements which are included in Ms. Frisch's
recently filed partial motion for summary judgment (dkt. #144) or
motion for summary judgment (dkt. # 170).

Defendants' response to Ms. Frisch's partial motion for summary
judgment and defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be
filed within fourteen days of the date this order is filed.

Fed Judge BANS Deb Frisch from courthouse!! (5/17/10)

Here is teh FULL TEXT of today's COURT ORDER banning
Deborah Frisch from any federal courthouse in Oregon...

Spicy parts are highlighted...
:D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DNISION
DEBORAH ELLEN FRISCH,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF EUGENE, [et al]
Defendants.

ORDER SANCTIONING
DEBORAH ELLEN FRISCH

By order filed May 10,2010 (dkt. #166). I ordered Ms. Frisch to show
cause why I should not limit to her access to federal courthouses in the
District of Oregon. I directed Ms. Frisch to specifically address: emails
sent from her coyotemind@gmail.com email account between May 7
and May 10, 2010 and her harassment of jurors and attorneys involved
in court proceedings. Ms. Frisch filed a response May 11,2010. (Dkt. #167).

I have provided Ms. Frisch with notice of the proposed sanction of limiting
her access to the courthouse and given her an opportunity to respond.
Delong v. Hennessey. 912 F2d 1144, 1147 (9th Cir. 1990); In re Powell,
851 F2d 427 (DC Cir 1988). I have carefully considered Ms. Frisch's
response filed on May 11, 2010. (Dkt. # 167).

Ms. Frisch denies that her behavior toward court staff while in the intake
area of the Eugene courthouse clerk's office was abusive or disruptive.
She admits that she "exercised poor judgment" the emails she sent
between May 7 and May 10, 2010, and claims that her telephone
conversations with court staff during that same period were "professional,
pleasant, and not abusive." (Dkt. # 167 at 3-4). Ms. Frisch appears to
assert that her contact with a juror after a June 2009 trial was justified
as part of her investigation into the bias that she alleges tainted the trial.
(Id. at 5). She claims that she learned of the defense attorney in the
February 2010 trial "from reading the pleadings in the case for months
prior to the trial at the ... free PACER terminal." (Id. at 5). Ms. Frisch
includes, as an exhibit, a letter from the Oregon Attorney General's
special counsel, which Ms. Frisch believes establishes that her conduct
towards the defense attorney was not harassment. (Id. at 5-6). Finally,
Ms. Frisch denies attending court staff's personal events, claiming
the only events she attended were public. (Id. at 6). Ms. Frisch requests
that I direct Eugene Division Manager [REDACTED] to negotiate a
"mutually acceptable agreement regarding plaintiffs interactions
with clerk's office staff." (Id. at 7).

Ms. Frisch did not limit her response to the document
filed on May 11, 2010. She also responded by telephoning
court staff, including various court employees in the Portland
courthouse. Ms. Frisch made rude and abusive statements
to court employees during these phone calls. She also
responded by sending numerous emails to court staff which
addressed aspects of my order to show cause. The emails
were abusive, rude, and, in some cases, vulgar and profane.
In many cases, the emails threatened that if court employees did not
take certain actions, Ms. Frisch would engage in some unwanted behavior.
For example, in an email sent to a court employee from Ms. Frisch's
coyotemind@gmail.com account at 5: 10 PM on May 11, 2010, Ms.
Frisch stated "If I am forced to revisit this issue, I will be forced to document
your pattern [of behavior] and speculate on the reasons you choose [to behave
this way]." Ms. Frisch sent an email from her coyotemind@gmail.com
address at 5 :00 AM on May 12,2010 to court staff and others in the
Oregon legal conununity stating that it would probably be necessary
for her to again contact the juror from the June 2009 trial to ascertain
whether this juror consented to being mentioned in my order to show cause.
This same email alleged that I used private and personal emails between
Ms. Frisch and court staff as the basis for my order to show cause.

I find that in her response to the order to show cause, Ms. Frisch
admits that her behavior is inappropriate, but does not indicate that
she is willing to curtail her abusive behavior. I find that Ms. Frisch's
suggestion that Eugene Division Manager [REDACTED] negotiate a
communication agreement is not an option. Previously, I amended
my order blocking Ms. Frisch's email to allow her to email [REDACTED]
so long as the communications were professional and related to Ms.
Frisch's case. (Dkt. # 131). Ms. Frisch was unable to comply with
this restriction. It is unfair to continue to disrupt the work of court
employees in an effort to accomodate Ms. Frisch.

I find that Ms. Frisch's latest barrage of emails and
telephone calls to court staff-from May 7,2010 through
the present, illustrates Ms. Frisch's disruptive behavior.
[fn. 1 Many of Ms. Frisch's emails are attached to this order as
sealed exhibit 1, which is available to any court reviewing this
order. All of the emails sent from Ms. Frisch are not included
because there are simply too many. Ms. Frisch has sent
well over 40 emails to court staff] Court staff should not be
subjected to numerous emails as a result of this court entering
an order to manage its docket. To be clear to Ms. Frisch, none
of her contacts with court staff are personal contacts. Court staff
must interact with Ms. Frisch in a civil manner as part of their
employment. This is one of the reasons that Ms. Frisch's
continued abusive behavior toward court staff is so
disturbing and disruptive to court business. I find that
Ms. Frisch's threats that she will act in a certain way unless court
staff comply with her wishes is disruptive to court business.
[fn. 2 For example, in a previous email sent January
6, 2010, Ms. Frisch forwarded an email that she had
sent to numerous recipients accusing a court employee
of engaging in oral sex with the defense counsel on this
matter. Ms. Frisch stated that she would "abort" this
email thread if court staff called her to let her know
when she could pick up an item at the intake counter.
A copy of this email is attached as sealed exhibit 2 to
this order.] Moreover, several of Ms. Frisch's latest emails have
been sent directly to my law clerk, which is in violation of my
November 30, 2009 order (dkt. # 92), which ordered that Ms.
Frisch shall not communicate directly with any of my chambers
staff about the merits of this case, or about any matter unrelated
to the case, by email...or in any fashion." (Dkt. #92 at 2). In short,
Ms. Frisch's emails and telephone calls serve no other
purpose other than to harass court employees. Furthermore,
by communicating directly with chambers staff, she is engaging in
ex parte contact on matters concerning the merits of her case.

Finally, even after being ordered to show cause why I should not
limit her access to the District of Oregon courthouses, Ms. Frisch
has continued her disruptive behavior inside the Eugene Courthouse.
Ms. Frisch was rude to the Court Security Officers (CSO's) when she
entered the Eugene Courthouse on May 14,2010. Ms. Frisch
continued her expletive-laden barrage as she exited the courthouse.
[fn. 3 A report of Ms. Frisch's behavior is attached to this order as
exhibit 3, with names redacted in order to protect the privacy
interests of the targets of Ms. Frisch's abuse. [SEE BELOW FOR
LULZy SCREENCAP!!1]]

I have previously warned Ms. Frisch that her behavior could result
in sanctions. (Dkt. #92). When Ms. Frisch continued to send vulgar
and profane emails, I blocked her email from the court's gateway,
but still did not sanction Ms. Frisch. (Dkt. # 116). In an effort to
accommodate Ms. Frisch, I amended the order blocking her email
to allow her to contact [REDACTED]. (Dkt.#131). Yet, Ms. Frisch's
abusive behavior toward court staff continues. This leaves me
no choice but to sanction Ms. Frisch by limiting her
access to the US District courthouses in Oregon-this
includes the courthouses in Eugene, Medford, Portland,
and Pendelton.

This sanction is narrowly tailored to allow Ms. Frisch to proceed
with her litigation, but to protect court staff from Ms. Frisch's
continued abuse. DeLong, 912 F2d at 1147. Ms. Frisch is admonished
that she shall not directly contact any member of my chambers staff
in any fashion. The only exception is that she may contact my
courtroom deputy [REDACTED] by telephone to discuss matters
directly relating to this litigation in a civil and professional manner.
Ms. Frisch is further admonished that she shall not to send emails
to or make telephone calls to other District of Oregon court employees,
unless these emails are directly related to business before the court
and are conducted in a civil and professional manner. Ms. Frisch
is warned that failure to obey this order may result in
further sanctions, including contempt proceedings.

I take no pleasure in sanctioning this pro se litigant; however, Ms.
Frisch's continued abusive and disruptive behavior leaves me no
choice. The orderly administration of justice must be afforded the
greater priority. Court staff, CSO's, attorneys, and jurors must be
allowed to perform their important work without having to endure
such hostile and obscenity-laced retaliation.

ORDER
It is ordered that: (I) Ms. Frisch shall only be allowed
to enter the courthouse for proceedings in the above
captioned case; (2) when she comes to the courthouse,
Ms. Frisch is required to state the purpose of her visit
to a Court Security Officer (CSO) and; (3) a CSO will
accompany Ms. Frisch to the courtroom where her
proceeding is taking place and will escort her out of
the courthouse when her proceeding ends. If Ms.
Frisch needs to enter the Eugene Courthouse for any
other reason she must send a written request through
the United States Mail to my chambers for my
consideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Deb Frisch LIES in Federal Court filing (5/11/10)

Well, Dummy Debbie filed a weak response to a Federal Judge's
notice that Debbie's vile courthouse behavior will soon lead to her
being BANNED from teh premises.

In teh response, filed today, Debbie impossibly tries to DENY teh
overwhelming evidence of her use of teh courthouse to harass
innocent victims. Debbie's stategery is pathetically transparent:























Notice how teh judge refers to Debbie's harassment as
involving "email AND THE INTERNET." Dummy Debbie,
in a a fumbling sleight-of-hand, replies only to teh first ("email")
part of that charge.

Of course, readers of Internet Is Forever know why Miss
Debbie wants to distract from teh "internet" aspect of
Debbie's harass-a-thon: because Debbie's foul, vile and
vulgar postings about her victim on Facebook (and her blog)
were documented (screencapped and posted)...on this humble
site! (See these links for original posts: 1, 2, and 3):

Of course, teh judge overseeing Debbie's case knows VERY
WELL about these February 2010 libelous and harassing
postings...so Debbie's moronic attempt at lying by omission
will prove an impotent defense...

Federal Court Moves to BAN Deb Frisch from Courthouse

Today's COURT ORDER by a Federal Judge says it all...

Deb Frisch harassing calls to Federal Court Staff (5/7/10)

You ain't gonna believe this.

In documents filed in Federal Court today, Deborah Frisch reveals
--in detail--how she made repeated vile and harassing phone calls
to federal Court Staff.

(For moar on Debbie's shit-fit today, see here.)

Here's a record of teh ELEVEN menacing calls Deborah Frisch
made in just a single hour on Friday. (Again, this list comes
from Debbie's OWN COURT FILING):



































Debbie's verbose reference to "provid[ing] documentation of
...emotional damages" is easy to translate: in short, Dummy
Debbie repeatedly swore at, abused and threatened
court staff.


















Debbie, again, tries to hide Teh Facts behind verbose language,
but teh purport is obvious: simply, Teh Courtroom Deputy told
Dumb Deb that she was violating teh Judge's November 30th
STFU order.

As of 5:00PM Monday, there's no word for how teh Court will
respond to Debbie's vulgar court-order-violating earthquake.

DEVELOPING...

Deb Frisch's Legal Incompetence and Illiteracy (5/4/10)

In order to pilot a lawsuit through teh federal courts, one needs to navigate teh Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Of course, that requires reading skills, which Deborah Frisch sorely lacks. :P

Hence today's screencap of a defense-motion filed on Tuesday, which hilariously illustrates Debbie's legal illiteracy.

Backstory: After defense lawyers filed a motion to hold Little Miss Debbie financially responsible for teh mandatory deposition she evaded, Dummy Deb played a Monkey See, Monkey Do, and filed a laughably frivolous motion of sanctions against defense-attorneys, April 29th.

A few days later, City of Eugene Defense attorneys struck back, pointing out that:

• Dummy Deb Frisch used teh WRONG RULE in her motion

• Dummy Deb Frisch even BOTCHED the application of that WRONG RULE, and

• Dummy Deb Frisch's motion trumpeted her IGNORANCE of teh proper (Rule 26(c)) procedure for objecting to (terms of) a deposition

In short, Miss Deborah Frisch screwed teh pooch in her amusingly incompetent attempt to "play lawyer."

So, without further ado, here's teh short, but sweet, BEATDOWN of Deb Frisch:

Jobless Deborah Frisch envies successful professor (5/4/10)

Debbie Frisch's angle is pretty obvious in this one: since Deb
Frisch has been unemployable since losing her job for threatening
a child online (in 2006), she often hurls foul language at successful
academics. Hence today's blog, where Deb Frisch throws her
vileness-laden bile at someone Debbie wishes she were: a professor
whose ideas are respected.

Debbie will probably never learn...no one will ever take her vulgar
crap seriously. And no matter what she posts, it won't change that
Debbie lost her job in humiliating fashion in 2006, that Debbie is a
twice-convicted criminal, and that Debbie has been on her family's
financial life-support (and panhandling and on food stamps) for
several years.

Deb Frisch impotent TUFF TAWK to Springfield Police (5/1/10)

Well, well, well...MORE toothless threats from Debbie yesterday--
this time, to the Springfield Police, for investigating Debbie Frisch's
harassment of a Springfield citizen.

All this started on April 10th, when Deborah Frisch tried to violate
her probation by attending a dance at a bar. She was denied entry
for obvious reasons. This led Debbie to begin a harassment onslaught
(part 1, part 2, part 3) against the bouncer who bravely stood up to
Debbie's bullying. (Debbie was even posting harassing comments/
blogs online the morning she was hiding from her Federal Court
deposition on April 15th.)

Rather funny that Debbie would mention a lawsuit against Springfield
...since EVERYONE knows that teh Springfield lawsuit was DISMISSED
on SUMMARY JUDGMENT in February.

Funny, too, that Debbie threatens to send one of her phony meaningless
TORT CLAIMS NOTICES!!1 (For info on why Deborah Frisch's
"tort claims notices" are laughably toothless, see here.)

Eugene Police Auditor tells Deb Frisch to STFU (4/24/09)

Well, it's been a week of TUFF TAWK for Little Miss Debbie...

Among other droppings, Debbie howled about filing a GRIEVANCE!!1
against teh police officer who attended teh deposition Debbie hid from
on April 15, 2010. (Of course, since Debbie has a police record involving
violent crimes, teh Eugene Police Lieutenant's presence was well-advised, lol.)
Debbie now faces monetary and disciplinary SANCTIONS for teh dodged
deposition, lol.

But it's worth taking a trip down memory lane here. As it happens, Dummy
Debbie filed a GRIEVANCE!!1 with teh Eugene Police Department last year.

And--big surprise!--teh Eugene Police Auditor's office rejected Debbie's
grievance-filing a whopping ONE DAY LATER! (Screencap of teh document,
filed in Federal Court last year, appears below)

We hope Debbie enjoys scribbling her impotent paperwork--coz it sho ain't
gonna survive long in teh official channels.