DAVID. THis is a legal ntice to inform you (THE PLAINTIFF) that under California Legal Code 234.34 subsection 34A you are LEAGALLY no longer allowed to publish SLANDER and MISINFORMTION or eidt WIKIEPDIA pages about my client ANNA WILDING (THE DEFENDANT). PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST OR THE POLICING RAMIFICATIONS WILL BE EXTREME. The Defendant does not know you and will not longer engage with an AMATUER HOBBYIST filmmaker who dresses up like MORGAN FREEMAN from ACADEMY AWARd-winning MARCH OF THE PENGUINS in his spairtime. THE DEFENDANT (My client, AKA award winning documenarty maker and Obama photographer, ANNA WILDING) is not, and will never have been, and does not pertain to know or represent or impersonate any human beings known as "Matt Obolensky", to ALLEDGE otherwise is SLANDER and is also actionable in a Court Of Law. Please retract all claims about THE DEFENDANT from your "newsletter", publish a heartfelty APOLOGY which RENOUNCES any and all misinformation, illegitimate DEFAMATION against THE DEFENDANT (my client and close personal friend of many New York celbrities such as SATURN AWARD winnger Vincent D’Onofrio, ANNA WILDING), then after 48 hours DELETE Your blogletter. If you adhere to these legally binding court orders then THE DEFENDANT (know also as a businesss wunderkind and media-go-to, ANNA WILDING) will drop the case.
This is amazing JJW! Not only is it clearly ridiculous, but it so perfectly captures so many of the various pseudo-legal threats directed and David (and I) over the years. Parts of it could be straight copy-and-paste!
The cumulative incoherence of Anna Wilding, when set against the calm, reasoned, researched writing of David and Dylan, makes even a preschooler cry out "that woman is mad, Mummy!"
I despise her for clawing at fake gender arguments ("these websites are all run by men!") to back her claims and draw pity. She is the reason that morons equate the word feminism with the ridiculous.
Well for what it's worth (and I am a trained scientist) I can vouch that your work always reads that way.
I often wonder when I read your pieces about people like Anna, where the hell are the authorities in these exchanges? Obviously her legal threats have come to nothing, but as someone completely in the dark about how such things are handled by the police and lawyers, I would love to know more about how you and Dylan defend yourself against people like her? Perhaps a piece on the ins and outs of how journalists deal with backlash?
Or is there nothing you can do except write your side of the story and hope the public have sufficient skills in epistemology so as to discern the liars from the genuine?
The real trick with the (non-criminal) legal system is that it is more or less a game of Chicken. Basically, legal threats are totally meaningless - all that matters is legal action. And until someone is willing to put their money where there mouth is and take something to court, everything else is pointless.
But then things change. You can't, as someone on the receiving end of seemingly meritless legal action, just say "that's nonsense" and make it go away - it instead becomes a whole legal battle. Ignoring it isn't really an option anymore.
This leads to a situation where someone with a lot of money (or even maybe just time) can just keep throwing legal action at you, which you have to deal with - either by paying a lawyer, or begging them to stop, or trying to battle by yourself.
This last thing was a huge underlying theme in Tickled - the people on the receiving end of "Jane's" harassment were bombarded with letters and emails telling them they were about to be bankrupted in court.
So in most cases, we've just ignored things which then come to nothing. Maybe in other cases the thing to do is reconsider - change something, or take something down temporarily. When walking on very dangerous ground you can also get proactive - have lawyers look at what you're planning to put out, and ask you to justify what you're saying, then advise you what to change or avoid.
The only case in which any of my work with David has progressed to actual court was with Tickled. For which we were sued twice, I think. In that case lawyers dealt with it, and ultimately we were victorious (although in a non-prejudicial way, meaning there was always the chance the lawsuits would come back at some point).
Obviously Matt Obolensky here is also suggesting that David is currently being sued by many other people. None of which he's told me about yet.
As for criminal law - that's mostly the realm of the Police, and what is and is not legal in a criminal context can be unclear. It can also be hard to convince police that online words amount to criminal action. But they do have officers who focus on this stuff, we do have reasonably new law in NZ to address some of it, and organisations like Netsafe can help.
Oh wow that's super insightful, thanks Dylan! Scary stuff though...it seems it is up to the receiver of online abuse to figure out how best to fight it, and how much money to spend on the problem (or not)? That's scary for examples like the time (was it you or David) you were stalked by alt-right loonies to a residential address in Christchurch....what if the victim can't prove that online threats have turned to real-life crimes and get it dealt with by the police? I don't know if I would have the know-how for distinguishing online bullshit from criminal offences
Yeah, there's no simple answers unfortunately. Police will always take reports if you want to make them, and with enough consistent activity it might be possible to take action. But the nature of the internet does mean that it's all a bit nebulous. I think it's gradually something that agencies and the courts will get better at.
Oooooh! About half way through the first quoted sentence I knew this was Anna’s work. She’s like the queen of Karen’s, trying to complain to the manager of the internet. Keeping her Wikipedia page factually accurate must be completely exhausting to the, no doubt, army of patient cyber nerds faithfully trying to keep the world’s online encyclopedia truthful. Give those guys a beer and a pie.
I’ve been sort of waiting for her to pop back up, malignant narcissism does not do well in a vacuum so I’ve been patiently awaiting her reappearance. Wild indeed. I can almost hear the rattling spittle in her words. Try, she is unhinged.
Also the descent in to chaos is too palpable these days. I crave the mundane. Its all too much and I’ve had a headache for about six months.
Totally! It’s the spacing, the choice of words, the sentence structure. I was going to mention it but was hesitant to put the word “Style” anywhere near Anna…
David, please just keep on being you. My antidote to a world gone mad is a screen free day and hugging a tree (or a neighbors cat). Your posts make me laugh out loud and feel frightened all at the same time; here in NZ I feel quite sheltered from the chaos that is the 21st Century. I’m glad I am getting old and will not live to see the zombie apocalypse or the singularity or wherever we are heading and even though I am a midwife, I actively discourage procreation in my children and their peers. You are no more a malignant sociopath than I am Mother Theresa. Kia kaha e hoa.
LOLing and being scared at the same time is a good combo. Thank you for making me smile at that! Also thanks for not agreeing that I am a malignant psychopath. That means a lot :P
Not sure if you've seen it, but just a couple days after Matt's blog posts the Reddit account u/annawilding was created. The only post so far is her "Key Skills Of A Successful Photographer".
On the surface it seems fairly well written, but has a lot of the usual vague 'look at how good she is' type claims.
My favourite sentence - "Many successful standard commercial photographers you may come across in the industry have fantastic technical skills or are successful because they’ve mastered the soft skills of client relationships and communication, but are not necessarily as artistic as Ms Wilding." Barf...
Here is another example of a pseudonymous identity - Real77 - with a strikingly similar writing style to Matt that was very invested in a certain person's Wikipedia page and was eventually banned from Wikipedia editing for making repeated legal threats and engaging in sock-puppetry - which is creating multiple accounts pretending to be different people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Real77
Matt accuses David of being an obsessive, self-obsessed, sociopathic stalker who defames people and makes vexatious and incessant legal threats.
Now that's nothing at all like the David I know.
One of the defining characteristics of paranoia is a phenomenon called 'psychological projection' in which unlikable or shameful parts of the self are attributed to others and then reacted to with a mixture of fear and outrage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
One way of discerning projection is to take what someone accuses another of and reconsider it as admissions of often shameful things the accuser does themselves and see if that makes more sense. It works quite well as a way of understanding certain ex-political figures.
As soon as I read this "Matt accuses David of being an obsessive, self-obsessed, sociopathic stalker who defames people and makes vexatious and incessant legal threats" I thought - sounds like she's describing her own actions! And sure enough...
As someone so eager to portray herself in an amazing, professional light, her writing is so incredibly bad. To me it shows that she has absolutely no lawyer or assistant (or good friend) helping her out. This is not to insult writers who struggle, but the lack of professionalism she actually has.
As I was reading “Matt’s” part I had the gut feeling that this was going to be The Pretender. Something about the writing style, the over the top descriptive language previously used to give herself accolades. I was right.
This must be getting to you somewhat but it’s such great work you’re doing. I just hope you’re doing okay mentally and giving yourself a little present every now and then - maybe make a point to visit a farm animal sanctuary or a cat cafe. The quadruped will make you feel better, the bipeds create too much chaos. We care about you David!
As I was reading this I thought boy this Matt is super angry and he has a very interesting writing style! As soon as you said anna it all clicked!! I can just imagine her writing this - hair crazy - eyes filled with rage furiously typing with no time for spell check. Probably mad you hadn’t thought, tweeted or blogged about her in so long (such a Stalker move). I love how she feeds into the idea that New Zealand is this tiny island with maybe three lawyers, one supermarket and native dwellings too 😂. Someone should send her work to Pulitzer!
Hi David not sure best outcome 1) narrative beats in a great doc-series “the rise & fall of a faker(s)” or justice & protection from the deranged. Either way you have my support though a bit of caution though “talent(s) seem freakin crazy , unhinged & I would hazard a guess prefer you disappeared it seems yes!!! Really, black-balled in the industry or on a google search engine entirely at the least defamed/dismissed there is no bottom it seems . Lets be honest without payoffs to settle grievances & slights escalation is inevitable. Still don’t know how Vincent “blow-my-brains-out” “Full Metal Jacket made a cameo in this episode. What next Tem Morrision our 2nd in this duel or you (webworm incorp) (joke by the way do assume Vincent entirely gamed by subject 1 sociopath. Lawyer up on the t-shirt dime or with an advance on tv series to gag these fools? As a side many us that believe in you are connected with those in the global entertainment industry. How can we raise money contribute & to your legal fees & position legitimate influences in your defence of the truth. You win public opinion every time my friend. Get in front of it.
I discovered one good piece of advice right at the end of "Matt's" piece: "Do not read hate-filled blogs". Though I must say this content warning should have been at the start of the blog post.
As for the assertion that "Many wikipedia editors hang out at libraries." - how did Matt know? Sadly he doesn't explain how I would recognise a member of the cabal conducting their nefarious business in the reference section.
I *think* the library thing is a reference a specific individual that Anna believes is engaged in a campaign against her on Wikipedia... But I can't be sure as I don't know exactly who she thinks is doing it, nor do I know where they do their Wikipedia stuff. But from previous context that's what I've concluded - it definitely seems to be a specific person she has in mind.
These wikipedians have no shame - they are gathering in Auckland, undoubtedly to conspire in their malicious defamation of many leading, internationally recognized award winning people.
DAVID. THis is a legal ntice to inform you (THE PLAINTIFF) that under California Legal Code 234.34 subsection 34A you are LEAGALLY no longer allowed to publish SLANDER and MISINFORMTION or eidt WIKIEPDIA pages about my client ANNA WILDING (THE DEFENDANT). PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST OR THE POLICING RAMIFICATIONS WILL BE EXTREME. The Defendant does not know you and will not longer engage with an AMATUER HOBBYIST filmmaker who dresses up like MORGAN FREEMAN from ACADEMY AWARd-winning MARCH OF THE PENGUINS in his spairtime. THE DEFENDANT (My client, AKA award winning documenarty maker and Obama photographer, ANNA WILDING) is not, and will never have been, and does not pertain to know or represent or impersonate any human beings known as "Matt Obolensky", to ALLEDGE otherwise is SLANDER and is also actionable in a Court Of Law. Please retract all claims about THE DEFENDANT from your "newsletter", publish a heartfelty APOLOGY which RENOUNCES any and all misinformation, illegitimate DEFAMATION against THE DEFENDANT (my client and close personal friend of many New York celbrities such as SATURN AWARD winnger Vincent D’Onofrio, ANNA WILDING), then after 48 hours DELETE Your blogletter. If you adhere to these legally binding court orders then THE DEFENDANT (know also as a businesss wunderkind and media-go-to, ANNA WILDING) will drop the case.
Yours Sincerley, Lankest Tomboy, Lawyer at Large
This is amazing JJW! Not only is it clearly ridiculous, but it so perfectly captures so many of the various pseudo-legal threats directed and David (and I) over the years. Parts of it could be straight copy-and-paste!
I think Anna has found her best representation yet
If you would like to retain Lankest Tomboy Lawyer at Large, I'm sure he'd be happy to fight the case.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN PSEUDO?
So good! I'm chuckling 😄
The cumulative incoherence of Anna Wilding, when set against the calm, reasoned, researched writing of David and Dylan, makes even a preschooler cry out "that woman is mad, Mummy!"
I despise her for clawing at fake gender arguments ("these websites are all run by men!") to back her claims and draw pity. She is the reason that morons equate the word feminism with the ridiculous.
Trying to keep things logical, smooth and calm. Trying.
Well for what it's worth (and I am a trained scientist) I can vouch that your work always reads that way.
I often wonder when I read your pieces about people like Anna, where the hell are the authorities in these exchanges? Obviously her legal threats have come to nothing, but as someone completely in the dark about how such things are handled by the police and lawyers, I would love to know more about how you and Dylan defend yourself against people like her? Perhaps a piece on the ins and outs of how journalists deal with backlash?
Or is there nothing you can do except write your side of the story and hope the public have sufficient skills in epistemology so as to discern the liars from the genuine?
The real trick with the (non-criminal) legal system is that it is more or less a game of Chicken. Basically, legal threats are totally meaningless - all that matters is legal action. And until someone is willing to put their money where there mouth is and take something to court, everything else is pointless.
But then things change. You can't, as someone on the receiving end of seemingly meritless legal action, just say "that's nonsense" and make it go away - it instead becomes a whole legal battle. Ignoring it isn't really an option anymore.
This leads to a situation where someone with a lot of money (or even maybe just time) can just keep throwing legal action at you, which you have to deal with - either by paying a lawyer, or begging them to stop, or trying to battle by yourself.
This last thing was a huge underlying theme in Tickled - the people on the receiving end of "Jane's" harassment were bombarded with letters and emails telling them they were about to be bankrupted in court.
So in most cases, we've just ignored things which then come to nothing. Maybe in other cases the thing to do is reconsider - change something, or take something down temporarily. When walking on very dangerous ground you can also get proactive - have lawyers look at what you're planning to put out, and ask you to justify what you're saying, then advise you what to change or avoid.
The only case in which any of my work with David has progressed to actual court was with Tickled. For which we were sued twice, I think. In that case lawyers dealt with it, and ultimately we were victorious (although in a non-prejudicial way, meaning there was always the chance the lawsuits would come back at some point).
Obviously Matt Obolensky here is also suggesting that David is currently being sued by many other people. None of which he's told me about yet.
As for criminal law - that's mostly the realm of the Police, and what is and is not legal in a criminal context can be unclear. It can also be hard to convince police that online words amount to criminal action. But they do have officers who focus on this stuff, we do have reasonably new law in NZ to address some of it, and organisations like Netsafe can help.
Oh wow that's super insightful, thanks Dylan! Scary stuff though...it seems it is up to the receiver of online abuse to figure out how best to fight it, and how much money to spend on the problem (or not)? That's scary for examples like the time (was it you or David) you were stalked by alt-right loonies to a residential address in Christchurch....what if the victim can't prove that online threats have turned to real-life crimes and get it dealt with by the police? I don't know if I would have the know-how for distinguishing online bullshit from criminal offences
Yeah, there's no simple answers unfortunately. Police will always take reports if you want to make them, and with enough consistent activity it might be possible to take action. But the nature of the internet does mean that it's all a bit nebulous. I think it's gradually something that agencies and the courts will get better at.
Oooooh! About half way through the first quoted sentence I knew this was Anna’s work. She’s like the queen of Karen’s, trying to complain to the manager of the internet. Keeping her Wikipedia page factually accurate must be completely exhausting to the, no doubt, army of patient cyber nerds faithfully trying to keep the world’s online encyclopedia truthful. Give those guys a beer and a pie.
I’ve been sort of waiting for her to pop back up, malignant narcissism does not do well in a vacuum so I’ve been patiently awaiting her reappearance. Wild indeed. I can almost hear the rattling spittle in her words. Try, she is unhinged.
Also the descent in to chaos is too palpable these days. I crave the mundane. Its all too much and I’ve had a headache for about six months.
She certainly has a "style" once you start seeing it. Including a unique use of the spacebar.
Totally! It’s the spacing, the choice of words, the sentence structure. I was going to mention it but was hesitant to put the word “Style” anywhere near Anna…
And the spelling!! Or should that be spleling?
David, please just keep on being you. My antidote to a world gone mad is a screen free day and hugging a tree (or a neighbors cat). Your posts make me laugh out loud and feel frightened all at the same time; here in NZ I feel quite sheltered from the chaos that is the 21st Century. I’m glad I am getting old and will not live to see the zombie apocalypse or the singularity or wherever we are heading and even though I am a midwife, I actively discourage procreation in my children and their peers. You are no more a malignant sociopath than I am Mother Theresa. Kia kaha e hoa.
LOLing and being scared at the same time is a good combo. Thank you for making me smile at that! Also thanks for not agreeing that I am a malignant psychopath. That means a lot :P
Not sure if you've seen it, but just a couple days after Matt's blog posts the Reddit account u/annawilding was created. The only post so far is her "Key Skills Of A Successful Photographer".
On the surface it seems fairly well written, but has a lot of the usual vague 'look at how good she is' type claims.
My favourite sentence - "Many successful standard commercial photographers you may come across in the industry have fantastic technical skills or are successful because they’ve mastered the soft skills of client relationships and communication, but are not necessarily as artistic as Ms Wilding." Barf...
Had totally missed this new Reddit account. Many thanks. Her world expands....
Here is another example of a pseudonymous identity - Real77 - with a strikingly similar writing style to Matt that was very invested in a certain person's Wikipedia page and was eventually banned from Wikipedia editing for making repeated legal threats and engaging in sock-puppetry - which is creating multiple accounts pretending to be different people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Real77
Matt accuses David of being an obsessive, self-obsessed, sociopathic stalker who defames people and makes vexatious and incessant legal threats.
Now that's nothing at all like the David I know.
One of the defining characteristics of paranoia is a phenomenon called 'psychological projection' in which unlikable or shameful parts of the self are attributed to others and then reacted to with a mixture of fear and outrage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
One way of discerning projection is to take what someone accuses another of and reconsider it as admissions of often shameful things the accuser does themselves and see if that makes more sense. It works quite well as a way of understanding certain ex-political figures.
As soon as I read this "Matt accuses David of being an obsessive, self-obsessed, sociopathic stalker who defames people and makes vexatious and incessant legal threats" I thought - sounds like she's describing her own actions! And sure enough...
As someone so eager to portray herself in an amazing, professional light, her writing is so incredibly bad. To me it shows that she has absolutely no lawyer or assistant (or good friend) helping her out. This is not to insult writers who struggle, but the lack of professionalism she actually has.
Oh wow.
As I was reading “Matt’s” part I had the gut feeling that this was going to be The Pretender. Something about the writing style, the over the top descriptive language previously used to give herself accolades. I was right.
This must be getting to you somewhat but it’s such great work you’re doing. I just hope you’re doing okay mentally and giving yourself a little present every now and then - maybe make a point to visit a farm animal sanctuary or a cat cafe. The quadruped will make you feel better, the bipeds create too much chaos. We care about you David!
Go home Anna Wilding, you're drunk.
Anna was glaring up at the sky, menacingly chewing the last of her lunchtime ollie bollen.
Ollie Bollen Sky. Ol bolen sky. O bolen sky.
That's it! She thought. Obolensky!
Vengeance will me mine *laughs like Lemongrab
As I was reading this I thought boy this Matt is super angry and he has a very interesting writing style! As soon as you said anna it all clicked!! I can just imagine her writing this - hair crazy - eyes filled with rage furiously typing with no time for spell check. Probably mad you hadn’t thought, tweeted or blogged about her in so long (such a Stalker move). I love how she feeds into the idea that New Zealand is this tiny island with maybe three lawyers, one supermarket and native dwellings too 😂. Someone should send her work to Pulitzer!
She really does portray New Zealand exactly how many outsiders see it. A real stereotype!
Hi David not sure best outcome 1) narrative beats in a great doc-series “the rise & fall of a faker(s)” or justice & protection from the deranged. Either way you have my support though a bit of caution though “talent(s) seem freakin crazy , unhinged & I would hazard a guess prefer you disappeared it seems yes!!! Really, black-balled in the industry or on a google search engine entirely at the least defamed/dismissed there is no bottom it seems . Lets be honest without payoffs to settle grievances & slights escalation is inevitable. Still don’t know how Vincent “blow-my-brains-out” “Full Metal Jacket made a cameo in this episode. What next Tem Morrision our 2nd in this duel or you (webworm incorp) (joke by the way do assume Vincent entirely gamed by subject 1 sociopath. Lawyer up on the t-shirt dime or with an advance on tv series to gag these fools? As a side many us that believe in you are connected with those in the global entertainment industry. How can we raise money contribute & to your legal fees & position legitimate influences in your defence of the truth. You win public opinion every time my friend. Get in front of it.
Napoleon!! The world is crazy. Best to curl up and love a kitty!
Agree.
Wow
It's a lot.
I discovered one good piece of advice right at the end of "Matt's" piece: "Do not read hate-filled blogs". Though I must say this content warning should have been at the start of the blog post.
As for the assertion that "Many wikipedia editors hang out at libraries." - how did Matt know? Sadly he doesn't explain how I would recognise a member of the cabal conducting their nefarious business in the reference section.
I *think* the library thing is a reference a specific individual that Anna believes is engaged in a campaign against her on Wikipedia... But I can't be sure as I don't know exactly who she thinks is doing it, nor do I know where they do their Wikipedia stuff. But from previous context that's what I've concluded - it definitely seems to be a specific person she has in mind.
I concur.
How can the authorities allow this dire confluence of wikipedians and libraries: "The theme of this WikiCon is Outreach to the GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) Sector and Inclusion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiCon_Aotearoa/Auckland_2021
These wikipedians have no shame - they are gathering in Auckland, undoubtedly to conspire in their malicious defamation of many leading, internationally recognized award winning people.
I felt so proud of myself for immediately thinking this new rude fellow going after you sounded suspiciously like Wilding.