In Which Glenn Greenwald’s Friend Mona Holland Equates Me to a Neo-Nazi in Prison for Trying to Murder a Judge

And repeats “NOTORIOUS HATE SITE” over and over like a parrot on crack
Weird • Views: 27,088

It would seem that this post from yesterday found its mark: If You Read Down to Paragraph 18, You Discover That Glenn Greenwald’s Latest Article Has No Evidence.

The festivities were kicked off this morning by the Mighty Greenwald himself, who called out his legions to attack with a couple of provocative tweets:

He’s linking to one of Gawker’s typical smear jobs (complete with crappy low res video screen grab) — written five years ago. BREAKING NEWS! For some odd reason that I’m pretty sure is related to my article, Greenwald went out of his way to find something vicious to post about me. It’s a pretty sleazy way to dodge out of dealing with the substantive criticisms in my post, but there you have it.

These tweets led to a predictable chorus of Greenwald personality cultists who are mostly in my TweetDeck global filter now (some people there’s just no point in even reading), so I thankfully missed most of the wharrgarbl until Greenwald’s long-time defender and sometime associate Mona Holland decided to directly equate me to Matthew Hale, the neo-Nazi who was once defended (pro bono) by Glenn Greenwald, and is now serving a 40-year prison term for conspiring to murder a federal judge.

So, that happened today.

UPDATE at 2/26/14 3:02:48 pm

Since Matt Hale has been brought up, we should mention that as Hale’s lawyer, Glenn Greenwald’s conduct was found to be unethical and deceitful after he recorded conversations with witnesses without telling them. Savor the irony of that, given Greenwald’s current crusade against intelligence services.

Here’s the judge’s opinion: ANDERSON v. HALE | Leagle.com.

Defendants’ counsel recorded telephone conversations with various third party witnesses, without disclosing to those witnesses that they were being recorded. Counsel and his tape-recorder were both in New York. The witnesses, at least some of them, called from Illinois. Plaintiff moved to compel disclosure of these tapes, arguing that this conduct was unethical and therefore vitiated any attorney workproduct privilege that may have attached to these recordings, and sought a protective order prohibiting any further recordings. The magistrate judge granted both motions, finding defense counsel’s conduct unethical under two separate rules: Local Rule 83.58.4(a)(4), prohibiting “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;” and Local Rule 83.54.4, stating “a lawyer shall not … use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of [another] person.”

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh