What is this site?

This is maggiedesmond.net, a site that explores, for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, prosecutable crimes that a par­tic­u­lar Maggie Desmond has com­mit­ted or is in­volved in and that pursues posi­tive societal goals in con­nec­tion with the pro­tect­ed in ques­tion.

The prosecutable crimes refer­red to here include, but are not necessarily lim­it­ed to, the beating of women by men, sexual misconduct with children, abuse of pro­cess, extortion, threats of physi­cal violence intended to terrorize (this crime can carry prison sentences of over a decade in length), DDoS (a highly prosecutable violation of CFAA), and stalking.

The Maggie Desmond whose prosecutable crimes are, or will be, dis­cus­sed here is the one who is reportedly using SSN 571-80-5479. However, that SSN may or may not have originated with Maggie's husband, a man named Frank G. Desmond.

If a state­ment is made under oath, in a context that mandates the usual penalties for perjury, to the effect that the SSN list­ed above is Frank's and not Maggie's, this analysis will at least temporarily retract the implied assertion that the SSN is Maggie's.

This site is under construction. Links to rele­vant material will be added in due course.

Sub­se­quent to the add­i­tion of further context, parties as­soc­i­a­ted with Maggie Desmond will be asked, as part of a pro­cess of “gathering information” for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, to com­ment on Maggie Desmond's back­ground, bringing, moral sense or lack thereof, and other factors that may explain her en­thus­i­asm for and dedication to crimes such as wife-beating and sexual misconduct with children.

The term “gathering information” comes dir­ect­ly from a pair of gag-order legal cases that ran from 2012 to 2013 in which Maggie Desmond com­mit­ted at least one prosecutable crime in an effort to conceal crimes of other types.

200313. International Women's What?

Happy Friday the 13th!

This post is the start, for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, of a separate Maggie Desmond sec­tion.

Content won't be fully segregated by per­son. But per-per­son sections will help to keep drill-down in­forma­tion and detailed analyses organized.

Recently, we've had International Women's day (March 08), Harvey Weinstein's sentencing, and other events which were sup­posed to remind us that women are precious, etc., and not there to be beaten up or otherwise abused.

But there are wealthy women out there, attorneys and paralegals in par­tic­u­lar, who are fine with a man's fist smashing into a woman's face. They cry about it all the way to the bank.

Jim Kiraly, a violent wife abuser and guilty of sexual misconduct re­la­ted to children, prepares to pass away of natural causes at unit 21B, 636 Atterdag Road, Solvang, CA unless he's skipped town again as he's done in the past.

Or unless, of course, Jim has sim­ply changed units. The point is noted for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws (click here).

The attorneys and paralegals who fought to impose a gag order re­la­ted to Jim's conduct towards his wife and children are fine with that.

These peo­ple trust that Jim's death will close one of the uglier rich per­son legal stories out there, a story that dwarfs the Jeffrey Epstein case in some respects due to the involve­ment of some of the biggest names in the Silicon Valley legal pond.

But the story is unlike­ly to end with Jim Kiraly's death and his meeting with his new master be­low and his employment as lubrication for that master's erectus mentula.

Chris Burdick of the SCCBA, as the kids say, I'm talking to you, girl.  :)

But, really, the point applies more to Maggie Desmond of Hoge Fenton and to the female attorneys at that firm.

The fol­low­ing information is disclosed for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws.

The pur­poses in ques­tion have been linked to numerous times since the Ms. Desmond that is of inter­est to society in general, and to district attorneys in par­tic­u­lar, com­mit­ted a prosecutable crime more sig­ni­fi­cant than rape in 2012.

However, here's the link, just for fun, once again:

https://haggishell.com/infopurposes

The short version of the situation is that two 2012 to 2013 legal cases intended to extort agree­ment to a gag order entitle me to "gather information", a term used formally in the cases, re­la­ted to mul­ti­ple parties for the le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes documented at the link.

I'm entitled, as well, to disclose in­forma­tion obtained for the re­la­ted purpose of gather­ing additional in­forma­tion for the le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes in ques­tion.

I proceed in these endeavors cheerfully and with en­thus­i­asm related to the posi­tive social goals that a review by society of the decisions of the parties in­volved will promote.

Ms. Desmond's SSN, disclosed for legitimate and reasonable purposes that are protected under U.S. laws, is reportedly 571-80-5479. However, a man named Frank G. Desmond, con­firm­ed to be this Ms. Desmond's husband, is said to use the same SSN.

It isn't clear what's up with that; there's no such thing as a husband-wife SSN. It's probably a clerical error.

Also odd, the same SSN is as­soc­i­a­ted with some­body who died in 1993. But this issue isn't too uncommon. There are at least three peo­ple, for example, who are using my brother Ken Kiraly's SSN (573-45-7687). This can happen due to sim­ple assignment errors.

It gets bet­ter, though. A woman named Elena or Eliana Berry or Barry uses the same SSN as this Maggie Desmond.

And this Maggie Desmond may possess or be using up to two add­i­tion­al SSNs or others may be representing them­selves as her and using those SSNs to do so.

Surely peo­ple should have faith in the accuracy and robustness of the system.

Ms. Desmond has a pos­si­ble but unconfirmed DOB of March 24, 1949, pos­si­ble but unconfirmed phone num­bers of 408-219-5178, 408-374-7616, and/or 408-507-7616, and a pos­si­ble but unconfirmed res­i­dence address, noted for le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes that are pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws, of 1491 Hack Ave, Campbell, CA 95008.

There's some irony in the name of the street "Hack". It's reminiscent, of course, of “Hacker”. Perhaps Maggie recalls the relevance of the term.

We'll come back to this point.

Technical note: Yes, it's perfectly legal to disclose SSNs online — provided that it's done for le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes that are pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws. No, CCPA doesn't apply in this context of the gag-order cases.

Does anybody ques­tion that the stand­ard has been met in regards to any Hoge Fenton or SCCBA employee or asso­ci­ate who was in­volved in the 2012 gag-order cases or who has been in­volved with the gag order on an ex post facto basis?

Attorneys and others: There are, of course, strict rules and the details vary based on the States in­volved. Feel free to contact me to receive notes re­la­ted to the subject. Remarks re­la­ted to the accuracy of the notes in ques­tion are wel­come.

Relatives include an older Frank G. Desmond (age 78), a younger man with the same name (age 40), and Heather and Adrienne Desmond, of the right ages (44 and 40) to be Maggie Desmond's daughters or daughters-in-law.

The older Frank G. Desmond is con­firm­ed, based on property records, to be this Maggie Desmond's husband. This would make the younger Frank G. Desmond this Maggie's son or step-son. But it isn't clear where the two younger women fit in.

Adrienne Desmond and the younger Frank G. Desmond were appar­ent­ly born one month apart (DOBs are said to be May 13, 1979 and an unspe­ci­fied day in June 1979).

If the DOBs are correct, they can't be siblings by birth. So, who, exactly, is Adrienne?

The younger Frank could be this Maggie's son and Adrienne could be his wife as opposed to his sister. But the evi­dence seems to con­tra­dict this.

Or the three younger Desmonds, Frank, Adrienne, and Heather, could be siblings if Frank Jr. is a step-son or the DOBs are incorrect.

As a data point, the younger Frank seems to be a handyman with just a H.S. education. This isn't con­firm­ed, but it's a possibility that needs to be checked for le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes that are pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws.

It isn't odd to skip college. These days, college sim­ply isn't affordable for many peo­ple. In fact, I advise young peo­ple to skip it if the government loans are the only way. Those things are scams and nobody should go near them.

However, public records sug­gest that the younger Frank is on good terms with the older Frank and Maggie. In par­tic­u­lar, he's living with them pre­sent­ly — at age 40 — or has lived with them in recent years.

Add to that the fact that the older Frank is well-off pre­sent­ly — he seems to own real estate in Illinois — and Maggie is certainly no scrub-woman.

Finances might have been dif­fer­ent 2 decades ago. But my sense is that they probably weren't a bar to college. That period, the late 1980s to the early 1990s, was be­fore costs skyrocketed to the current ridiculous levels.

So, it's not clear why Frank Jr. skipped college — if he did, in fact, do so. That is, once again, unconfirmed.

To be clear, this detail, the part about skipping college, is probably inconsequential. But I tried to explain to Maggie, 8 years ago, what I am and how I do what I do. This is part of the same thing.

No, I never had the ability to sim­ply snap my fingers and materialize Gmail passwords.

That was some­thing which Maggie and Michael tried to sug­gest in the Pleadings, but, as with every­thing else, they never made an al­le­ga­tion.

People have asked me, “What were the allegations?” But there were no al­le­ga­tions that legal­ly justified the orig­in­al filings.

I don't mean that it was a “he said-she said” situation. I mean that there were no rele­vant allegations.

But the cases were never going to be per­mit­ted to get to the stage where I'd be allowed to point that out.

The idea was to use illegal Discovery demands to drain my life savings until I agreed to sign a gag order re­la­ted to wife-beating and sexual misconduct re­la­ted to children.

It was actual criminal abuse of pro­cess. Not just fudging the rules.

Michael and Maggie should have been in prison years ago. But that and 50 cents won't buy a news­paper.

I do have, regard­less, a minor but definite skill. It manifested at age 6. I buried it. If I'd spent the decades work­ing on it instead, 2012 to 2013 would have gone differently.

Not that I didn't manage to f*ck Michael Bonetto's clients. And if I'd gone public immediately with the deal that John Perrott had cut with Michael, I think that I could actu­al­ly have gotten the two of them disbarred.

Disbarment happens, like, once in a million cases. But I think that I could have done it.

Or at least I could done some­thing. But I was too passive due to the part about my life being shattered by a crime that I found it impossible to comprehend at the time. Oh, well.

I lost my home of 25 years, though. Most of my possessions, too. That was a wake-up call.

I did research and learned that what Maggie and Michael had done actu­al­ly was a prosecutable crime. I was beaten up by transients and had to face a life of that type in middle age.

I start­ed to evolve.

I learned that attorneys, the abusive type, tend to go so far over the line that they're vulnerable from a legal per­spec­tive. They assume that ordinary citizens aren't able to research even the most basic legal issues.

Michael Bonetto did this at one point. He claimed that a par­tic­u­lar law prevented me from disclosing parts of the gag-order cases publicly.

Lowly non-attorney or not, I managed to embarrass him slightly on that point. But I doubt that the issue had his attention more than momentarily.

Over the years, I've learned how to address this sort of thing more effectively. Would you like to phone some of the attorneys that I've dealt with?

I'd start with Rebecca because that story is funny. She faced 30 days in jail. Not the usual State Bar penalty.

The usual State Bar penalty for minor transgressions is to offer attorneys a nice glass of wine served with fellatio or cunnilingus. But I documented the situation and noted that embarrassment, at the very least, was a more like­ly outcome in this case.

The attorney lit­er­al­ly quit her job and ran. I didn't expect that. I phoned her and asked, “What's the matter, Rebecca? Cat got your tongue?” She seemed less inclined to make threats subsequently.

Feel free to ask me for that attorney's phone num­ber. Tell her that the Old Coder sent you. That I know she return­ed to her job later. And that it'll be best, in a le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able sense that is pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws, if she doesn't return to be­ha­vior that is not only prosecutable but smug and dismissive of the rights of U.S. citizens.

If you like, I'll tell you how I dealt with that attorney's replacement and offer you his phone num­ber as well.

That one was a little boastful at first. He talked about how he argued cases in front of State Supreme Courts. Or SCOTUS. I don't recall.

He seemed a litle quieter after I sent some details to every member of the Board of his 37-office law firm and noted the embarrassment that his actions might lead to. But I don't know, for sure, that my letters were even read.

Regardless, I'm not as passive as I used to be, folks.  :)

No, I wouldn't be able to “take” most attorneys as a Pro Per. But here's the thing: The Law isn't about the Law. What attorneys do to ordinary peo­ple, including their own clients, is bully, lie, cheat, and steal.

By the way, have I men­tion­ed that John Perrott and Michael Bonetto, the latter a "rising star" attorney at Hoge Fenton, cut a deal that was intended to defraud Michael's clients?

In short, a lot of attorneys cross the line. It becomes second nature, part of their identity. They can't help it, because they don't even think about it.

And, when they do this, it's pos­si­ble, in a le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able sense that is pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws, to f*ck them.

I've con­sid­er­ed writing a book, "How to F*ck Attorneys", and asking reputable attorneys to offer suggestions. If it's off the record, my guess is that some of them will be willing to com­ment.

That's a serious proposal. If you're an attorney, take the possibility of helping to f*ck the segment of your profession that needs to be f*cked under advisement.

In regard to the Frank G. Desmond Jr. college issue, details matter.

I'm careless. I miss too many details. I need them to be able to see the truth. It's not pos­si­ble to tell in advance what's important.

I don't see as much about Heather as I do about the other two.

Heather is known both as Heather Desmond and as Heather Inada. So, there's that.

As Heather Inada, Heather is re­la­ted to a George Inada. She's in­volved, add­i­tion­al­ly, in a bus­i­ness with him under both names. George is probably Heather's husband as opposed to her brother, but this is unconfirmed.

Update: O.K., stuff is con­firm­ed. Hoge-Fenton's staff includes an Andrienne Desmond who is be­lieved to be my Maggie Desmond's daughter, daughter-in-law, or rela­tive of other type.

This means that the two Frank Desmonds are re­la­ted to my Maggie Desmond as well. The elder Frank is con­firm­ed to be her husband and the younger one is probably her son or step-son.

It'll be, based on this in­forma­tion, a le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able step to communicate, for the purposes that have been documented, with third parties in Campbell or other geographic areas or personal con­texts, such as Churches or advocacy or social groups, that are as­soc­i­a­ted with this Maggie Desmond.

Communication with parties of such types who happen to find this page in Google or Bing is hereby requested.

You, the fine peo­ple, at Hoge Fenton in San Jose, CA, obtained a sense of how I prefer to approach things in 2012. The short version, folks, is that I aim for meticulous.

I *told* you that I'd sought the advice of the Pismo Beach police be­fore I sent the violent abuser Jim Kiraly of Solvang, CA, SSN 038-20-8134, postcards tell­ing the abuser that his threats wouldn't stop work on a book.

A book that wasn't even an issue.

I was never going to talk about the events that Jim hired you to conceal, Michael Bonetto of Hoge Fenton, Maggie Desmond of Hoge Fenton, and others to be named, for le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes that are pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws, in the decades that remain to us.

So, the whole thing was for nothing. Except for the six figures that I was told you'd gotten out of my father and my brother.

The Court refused even to be in­volved with a set­tle­ment and told you to get the t*rd off of its plate. That was an awkward moment, I'm sure, but it was just a moment. You cried, as noted previously, all the way to the bank.

When Jim Kiraly threat­en­ed me subsequently and engaged the services of a black-hat to DDoS me, hey, how could you have predicted that?

I under­stand and am sympathetic to the plight of busy and hard-work­ing attorneys. I'm the kind and un­der­stand­ing type.

It's important, for the aforementioned le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able pur­poses that are pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws, that confirmation of identity take place.

Is the Ms. Desmond in ques­tion the one who was employed by Hoge Fenton and who com­mit­ted a crime more sig­ni­fi­cant than rape of a per­son, a crime that amounted to the rape of the truth and of the Law?

Update: Based on Adrienne Desmond's employment by Hoge Fenton, the answer is "yes".

The Adrienne Desmond who is employed by Hoge Fenton — Adrienne Marie Desmond — attended Westmont High School in Campbell, one of this Maggie Desmond's cities.

But, even with­out that point, what are the odds that two Maggie Desmonds in the same small region would be close­ly associated with two Adrienne Desmonds?

Working backwards from Adrienne produces the result that the two Maggies share the same full name or seem to do so: Margaret Webster Desmond.

B-I-N-G-O was his name-O.

So this is my Maggie, the one who told me that she didn't know what to say to me. Well, Maggie, you've had time to think about it. Have the words come to you yet?

Say, you know that the violent abuser Jim Kiraly never denied a thing under oath, don't you? But, of course, Hoge Fenton's priority was to ensure that Jim never need­ed to do so.

Maggie, you wrote or contributed to the Pleadings, didn't you? Are you able to confirm or con­tra­dict this point?

The Pleadings are a funny story. I've writ­ten about them be­fore, but I'd think that I'll approach it differently in the future.

I'll send annotated copies to citizens and ask them for their take on the doc­u­ments. And their take on the type of per­son who'd submit them with a straight face.

Tell the truth, Maggie. The Pleadings were a prosecutable crime, in and of them­selves, weren't they?

You know that I was never going to talk about Jim's fist, my mother's face, and Jim's conduct towards children, right? That all I wanted was for the enraged, violent, abuser who'd hurt my mother and me to stop threat­en­ing me and to go away?

And, most importantly, that you, sweet horror b*tch, were never going to force me to sign a gag order re­la­ted to Jim Kiraly's fist and his sexual organ?

You know what you've done to abused women and children every­where, Maggie Desmond of Hoge Fenton, right? But, sure, Happy Birthday.

Haggis Hell asserts the right to use the photo be­low of Maggie Desmond here and elsewhere. The photo is hereby relicensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Third parties are invited to use and dis­tri­bute the photo under that license.

Any DMCA action at­tempt­ed by any party will be contested. Photos hosted overseas aren't subject to DMCA, regard­less. Attorneys and others are expect­ed to go through the procedures that the host country has agreed to use.

On Friday afternoon, March 13, 2020, I email­ed Adrienne Desmond to try to nail down some of the loose points. A copy of the let­ter fol­lows below.

I didn't have a con­firm­ed business email address for Adrienne, though I did have 2 unconfirmed personal addresses. I sent the let­ter to the unconfirmed addresses and to a few of her as­soc­i­ates at Hoge Fenton and requested forwarding.

ATTN: Hoge Fenton (including Shev Rush, i.e., P.R.)

I don't see, at first glance, an email address for Adrienne Desmond, appar­ent­ly a daughter or daughter-in-law of Maggie Desmond in the San Jose office who is employed there as an assistant to her mother or mother-in-law.

Would you there­fore be good enough to for­ward this short inquiry to the younger Ms. Desmond in that office? Oh, and Shev Rush, if you're P.R. for Hoge Fenton, you and I should talk.

The inquiry for Adrienne Desmond is as follows:

Adrienne, good day. I trust that the informal salutation is acceptable as your mother or mother-in-law [and I] are well ac­quaint­ed. In fact, she's had a sig­ni­fi­cant effect on my life. I'll never forget, honestly, the last words that she said to me.

I'm wri­ting to request clarification of the nature of the professional and familial relationships between Maggie Desmond and yourself. In short, your DOB placed next to the younger Frank Desmond's DOB suggests that the two of you can't be siblings.

But, if that is correct, where do you fit in to the picture?

For context, which you'd obviously need and expect, kindly visit either of the fol­low­ing two iden­tical websites:

https://maggiedesmond.net/

https://michaelbonetto.com/

One motivating factor for the inquiry is the growing realization on my part that mortality isn't sim­ply a con­cept. I don't have a lot of time to waste.

My abuser Jim, the wife-beater that Maggie and, of course Michael Bonetto, are familiar with, isn't expect­ed to last long. That is part of my own realization of the importance of Time. Jim may, in fact, have joined the choir invisible since one of my agents last spoke with him a few months ago.

Jim is going to escape prosecution. And your mother or mother-in-law took from me, not only my life savings, my home of 25 years, and the books that the boy loved, but any realistic chance that I'd be able to get Jim on the stand, even in a lim­it­ed civil lit­i­ga­tion context, be­fore he croaked.

I think it's appropriate that I ask Maggie to expand on her final words to me.

Though she works tirelessly to protect child sexual abusers and wife beaters and to destroy the lives of their victims and so most like­ly forgets the details of individual cases, her words to me sug­gest­ed a degree of reflection.

Maggie needs to state what she observed in the reflection. But that's a subject to be dis­cus­sed with her. In your case, once again and respectfully, who, exactly are you?

Depending on the nature of your two relationships with Maggie, to be clear, I'm entitled to ask you, for le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes that are pro­tect­ed under U.S. laws, add­i­tion­al questions re­la­ted to your perceptions of Maggie's be­ha­vior as well as biographical in­forma­tion that may indicate whether Maggie chose to commit a prosecutable crime due to her upbringing or due to genetic factors.

Nature vs. Nurture is a thing, you know. For what it's worth, Jim became what he became due to both issues. His side of the family had been brutal and physically violent for generations, but the part where his father punched his mother through a glass door couldn't have helped.

Say, ask Michael and Maggie for me, how common is this level of abuse of process? I've tried to ask attorneys that I know on a personal basis about this. The one who'd be at the level of your most senior peo­ple turned and looked at the curtains. She wasn't able to look at me or respond.

But that doesn't prove that it's common or uncommon. Which is it?

One more thing. I'd like to remind Alison Buchanan, as I do periodically, that she doesn't deserve to be a Judge and that it would be inappropriate for her to move in that direction. It's odd enough that she's presumptuous enough to instruct others on ethics, of all things.

That part ought to be looked into. Aren't there rules about who's allowed to teach ethics? Or do they take just anybody who commits or contributes to actual prosecutable crimes?

Somebody who teaches ethics, and who may even have contributed to the County-level rules, rules that are stricter than at the national level, not only stood by while the rules were raped by Michael Bonetto, she declined even to com­ment on the role that the guidelines are, or are not, intended to play in the be­ha­vior of your firm.

Sure, that's great.

(This was the end of that let­ter.)

Photo be­low is of Olga Kerechanko, married name Olga Kmeta, mother to Anatol, Grace, and Eddie Kmeta. Grace married Jim Kiraly, who beat her up and sought a gag order out of fear that the fact would be dis­cus­sed.

Olga was calm and steadfast. She had a wonderful dry sense of hum­or. She lived with cancer for decades be­fore it final­ly took her in 1987. The photo here is probably dated circa 1975 to 1978. At this point, Olga was in her 70s.

I'm not sure of how much Olga knew about Jim's and Grace's marriage. Grace talked to me about every­thing, up to and including her sexual relations with Jim. But, in all of that, she didn't say much about Olga.

Looking back, that was odd. Grace and Olga seemed to get along fine. But their rela­tion­ship might have been com­pli­ca­ted by the fact that Jim was violent and controlling. It's dif­fi­cult to imagine them chatting lightly about it over tea.

On Friday evening, March 13, 2020, I sent a follow-up let­ter primarily to past or present neighbors of Frank and Maggie Desmond.

That let­ter is pasted be­low. I've omitted a copy of the earlier let­ter to Adrienne Desmond, which I in­clud­ed in the let­ter to the neighbors to pro­vide context.

Recipients in­clud­ed the fol­low­ing past or present neighbors: Susan Gorman, Jaqueline Yamaguchi, Kevin Yamaguchi, and Clark Cardoza. One co-worker, Dianne Bogart, was Cc'd.

Susan Gorman: You seem to be a past next-door neighbor of Frank and Maggie Desmond. I'm wri­ting to ask you to (a) indicate whether Adrienne Desmond is Maggie's daughter or, instead, a daughter-in-law and to (b) tell me what you can about how Maggie views herself.

In the Holocaust, many "Good Germans" con­sid­er­ed themselves upright citizens even as they com­mit­ted crimes that were unimaginable in scale prior to the 20th Century. But prior centuries saw the same things all the way back, on a smaller scale, because denial is what peo­ple do and what they are.

Does Maggie stand out as a kind and generous citizen?

If this is the case, if Maggie Desmond is kind and generous, what conclusion can be drawn from the fact that she's com­mit­ted a prosecutable crime that is more serious than rape and is no more troubled by it than you are when you trim a fingernail?

It's con­sis­tent, at least, with the theory that most peo­ple are pack animals, content to nuzzle the other rats in the nest pleasantly but eager to rip apart passerby rats because that is what rats do.

In short, we can say that peo­ple, as a rule, lack ethics or morality in any true sense of the word and that Maggie's be­ha­vior and the be­ha­vior of her as­soc­i­ates is sim­ply an example of that fact.

That conclusion obviously has implications, but it's trite. All that I've got with that is a picture which, rele­vant or not, most peo­ple will sim­ply ignore as they bumble about their automaton ways.

If I'm going to use Maggie in a productive way, if some­thing positive can be made to come out of the mul­ti­ple prosecutable crimes that she's in­volved in -- including wife beating, DDoS, extortion, sexual misconduct with children, and physi­cal threats as well as the crime of abuse of pro­cess that she and her as­soc­i­ates committed dir­ect­ly -- I need to go deeper with this analysis.

Tell me what you can about Maggie's upbringing and religious beliefs. Or what you yourself be­lieve about ethics and morality and the fact that the typical per­son practices neither; the fact that any­thing which ap­pears to be altruism or kindness is usually genetically programmed pack be­ha­vior.

Jaqueline Yamaguchi: See the remarks be­low to Kevin Yamaguchi, who I gather is your son or rela­tive of other type.

Kevin Yamaguchi: You seem to reside just a few doors from Maggie Desmond. However, you're about half her age. You've probably seen her but don't know her well. OTOH You live with your parents or another elderly couple. If the story and the pur­poses involved are interesting, ask your parents to com­ment on Maggie. The pur­poses in ques­tion are list­ed at the link which is provided further down.

Clark Cardoza: You reside on the same block as Maggie. Offer such in­forma­tion as you can. Of course, neighbors don't actu­al­ly know neighbors in the modern world, and you may never even have met Maggie. However, the possibility doesn't render this let­ter pointless. It's part of a complete picture. One must cross the T's and dot the I's.

The fol­low­ing is a let­ter that was sent to Adrienne Desmond earlier today. Note: The text con­tains a typographical correction and should be con­sid­er­ed the latest updated copy. The let­ter to Adrienne provides add­i­tion­al context, including a link that it­self provides a link to a list of le­gi­ti­mate and reason­able purposes.

Attorneys and others are advised to review the pur­poses list be­fore electing to com­ment in a peremptory manner. As it happens, the remarks about Maggie committing a crime that is both prosecutable and more sig­ni­fi­cant than rape aren't hyperbole. The woman did exactly that.

I'd like to ask you a re­la­ted question.

If the system is designed so that most wealthy and powerful peo­ple not only don't face con­se­quen­ces for do­ing whatever they wish to do, if the truth is that it's designed so that con­se­quen­ces aren't even the­o­re­ti­cal­ly possible through legal actions — the Jeffrey Epstein case notwithstanding — is it pos­si­ble to address the crimes com­mit­ted by wealthy and powerful peo­ple in a productive manner?

If you feel that it's pos­si­ble, what, exactly, is the avenue that you'd like to point to? Let me guess; your answer will be the pablum that we feed to children, the nonsense that I, as an espe­cial­ly naive child, be­lieved for a life­time.

Maggie Desmond and her friends sacrificed my life on an altar that was half a century tall. An altar ded­i­ca­ted to the worship of wealth and violence; in par­tic­u­lar, the wife-beaters that Maggie fights for. My life was worth more than the pile of dust that remains. I'll make some­thing positive come of this.

Get the facts be­fore you presume to judge.

The Friday evening March 13, 2020 let­ter to Maggie Desmond's neighbors in­clud­ed a copy, at this point, of the let­ter that I'd sent to Adrienne Desmond earlier in the day.

The copy is omitted here as text that is iden­tical save for one typographical correction is posted higher up.