Teh Daily Squeak

Teh squeak c'est chic!

Tuesday, October 26, 2010


By: Trix E. Lom
Intrepid Reporter

Trix E. Lom is no stranger to covering Miss Debbie in teh courthouse:
her earlier dispatches covered Frisch's first sentencing on 3/12/09,
as well as her arraignment on teh present probation-violation.

In today's dispatch, Trix covers teh Day that hundreds, perhaps thousands
have waited for: Debbie Frisch finally gets held fully accountable for
her criminal habits...


Monday, October 25th, 2010

It's a wet, breezy morning in the Willamette Valley, where the storm pummeling Washington and Oregon from the coast to the Cascade Mountains continues blowing sheets of rain over us, downing trees and painting the sky a dismal gray. At 8:33 a.m. shackled inmates filed into Courtroom #306 on the third floor of the Lane County Courthouse in Eugene, Oregon, scanning the audience. They wore forest-green smocks with LANE CO. JAIL stamped in white across their backs. A sheriff was positioned at each end of the jury box where they took their seats.

The Honorable Debra Vogt arrived. She spent the first 15 minutes of court had been spent just discerning who was there and who was not. Some were missing, and one attorney, Mr. B., was out sick, leaving numerous defendants with no counsel. The Judge seemed agitated; she suggested Counselor B's cases would need to be reassigned.

Then Judge Vogt called Deborah Ellen Frisch's name. Judge Vogt announced that Deb's attorney, Mr. E., had called to say he was running late on his way from Salem. Her case was added to the recall pile.

It almost seemed fitting: Frisch had slipped and slid past the grasp of justice for over 4 years. Now, in a nod from Fate, she was getting one last reprieve.

The opening review of defendants complete, a litany of "show cause" hearings commenced at 8:47am.

Judge Vogt apprised defendants of their rights: the right to remain silent, to a trial by jury, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (Every defendant who admitted to a probation violation that day was then asked whether they understood their plea thereby waived their armory of familiar 5th and 6th Amendment rights.)

The first defendant had his probation revoked and received the 60 days in jail recommended by the prosecutor.

The tone in the courtroom seemed to shift at this: The consequences of appearing in this court were suddenly tangible--and dead serious.

The list of sobering sentences continued to rain on the courtroom. The prosecutor came down hard on plaintiffs who didn't take their probation seriously. One defendant who--like Debbie, I couldn't help but mentally note--had menaced his victim. The judge declared the purposes of probation were not being served in this case and sentenced the menacer to 120 days.

I could only wonder how this repeated cycle of revocation and incarceration sentences, particularly where noncompliance and menacing were involved, was affecting Deborah Frisch--who seemed to be the only woman on the docket that morning.

At 9:02 Deborah Ellen Frisch was called. Frisch spoke up to withdraw her motion to fire her attorney--about whom Frisch had blogged some nasty bits in her haughty pre-trial days.

Her attorney requested a trial, no doubt under orders from Frisch--the only defendant that day to demand that her obvious crimes be proven. So, again, Justice would be delayed yet a bit longer.

The long wait gave us a chance to gauge the efficient, competent machinery which works to reprimand the guilty, exonerate the innocent, and protect the public. It became obvious that Judge Vogt took no lip in the courtoom. She closes in like a bulldog until the guilty defendants admit to their culpability. But the judge tempered iron justice with constitutional mercy. (The judge, for instance, would not allow one pro se defendant to go it alone; he seemed too confused, in over his head, to defend himself adequately. Instead, Judge Vogt asked a court-appointed attorney to take a look at his file as a friend of the court.) The DA and various mental health counselors decried the system's "Lack of Funds!", almost to the point of a mantra.

But one observation that morning gave this fearless reporter great pause: A mid-morning misdemeanor defendant, who was given jail and remanded into custody, was not given any probation after his prison term.

It's at this point we realized it: there is usually no "post-prison" for misdemeanors--like Deb Frisch. I began to wonder whether Frisch would be sentenced to jail time, then set free.

I worried. I doubt I was the only one.


At 9:45 Judge Vogt called for the State vs. Frisch, referring to an order to show cause dated September 17, 2010, with two allegations: (a) that Frisch had entered a bar and had (b) harassed her victim.

The judge called for opening remarks.

Prosecution called three witnesses:

#1: J the Bartender

The first witness, J, was a bartender at Two Friend's Pub in Springfield, Oregon where Frisch had had a well-documented tantrum.

J testified that, on September 5th, he'd seen "that lady" (pointing at Frisch) in the pub where a Sunday night comedy show was about to begin.

J was asked to describe his interaction with defendant Frisch.

She was sitting at the far end of the bar, he recounted. So the bartender approached and told Frisch there was a two-drink minimum for the "no-cover-charge" show.

Frisch said she was just drinking coffee. She claimed to be a reporter

The bartender requested Frisch's journalist credentials.

This reasonable request enraged Frisch, who reverted to hurling outlandish accusations at the bartender. Frisch accused J of discrimination--even though the comedy that night was lesbian-themed.

When lies and accusations didn't work, Frisch commenced yelling and screaming. She left the pub, got in her car, and drove in circles in the parking lot, honking her horn and creating what J described as "quite a scene."

The prosecutor then asked J to confirm the principle purpose of Two Friend's Pub is the sale of alcohol.

J agreed.

On cross-examination, Frisch's attorney tried to refute prosecution's claim that "Two Friends" was a "bar" rather than a "grill."

Defense lawyer E. asked J whether Two Friend's Pub wasn't actually named Two Friend's Pub and Pizza.

J found the point dubious. "Lots of bars sell food," he pointed out.

But Defense Lawyer E had done some homework. He handed the witness Exhibit 101--a menu for the 2 Friends establishment.

The bartender identified the "menu" as "outdated," probably retrieved "off line."

Defense Lawyer E tried another tack: he asked the witness whether "Two Friends" brags about having bought Spaghetti Warehouse's menu.

The witness granted the point, but said they don't sell as many varieties of pizza any more. They have a full menu until 9 o'clock, J added, then they sell strictly fryer food.

The Defense Attorney tried to tie his knot taut: So primary purpose of Two Friends' is not the sale of alcohol?

The witness disagreed. We don't allow minors after 9 o'clock, he said.

And what time did Ms. Frisch arrive at the establishment?

Around 9 o'clock, guessed the witness.

J was dismissed and asked to step down.

Witness #2: Debbie's Harassment Survivor

Next the state called Frisch's harassment-target

[[Teh Squeak will simply call her "Survivor," for obvious reasons.
Frisch was on probation on account of having assaulted and stalked
Survivor in late 2008. Frisch, had demanded a trial in that first
case, too, and was easily found guilty.]]

Prosecution asked Survivor about her September 5th contact with the
defendant at Two Friends' Pub & Pizza.

Survivor seemed tense, visibly nervous, and on the verge of tears as she
began recounting Frisch's actions. Survivor said she'd gone to Two Friends'
and ordered a beer. It's a small tavern, and it was crowded for comedy night.

The witness began crying a little as she described how the defendant
had confronted her. Frisch bullied into Survivor's personal space.
"Why are you shaking your face like that?!" Frisch shrieked.

"She was so close to me," Survivor said, that she leaned back against
the bar, frozen in fear.

A friend noticed Frisch's bullying. The friend grabbed Survivor's arm
and pulled her "to safety."

The prosecutor asked Survivor whether she'd had any other contacts with
the defendant.

Yes, answered the witness, a few.

Survivor then described one of Frisch's earlier harassment-episodes, which
occured at the August 14th Eugene Pride festival at Alton Baker Park.

The witness was running a premiere booth there. Frisch arrived, noticed
her victim's booth. At first, Frisch walked away, which was surprising--
Frisch did not always so-retreat when they had these run-ins.

Survivor and her business partner assumed Frisch was leaving, she testified.
They watched her until Frisch seemed to be gone.

The business partner then went to make a phone call.

The instant Survivor was alone, Frisch returned. It was not even 20 seconds
later, she testified.

Frisch stood in front of the witness' ten-by-ten-foot booth. The bully was
apparently staring at a cardboard sign with an event notice standing on an
art easel in front of the booth, but the witness testified Frisch was staring
right at her.

Survivor froze with fear.

The staredown lasted about a minute. Then business partner returned, and
stood in the area until Frisch left.

Frisch hadn't said a word, allowing her staring to do the scaring.

And how about the September 5th incident at 2 Friends Pub? asked the

Frisch approached Survivor at the bar--"close enough to touch" her.

The witness testified her face was shaking because she was trembling. Frisch
"broke the rules" of her 2009 probation-sentence, she said.

The witness' fear was palpable in the courtroom. The audience was quiet, out of
respect to the court, but it was clear most if not all its members--save the
bully in their midst--felt compassion for the victim.

Finally, Frisch was thrown out of the bar. The bully came around for one last
pass at her quarry. Frisch stood in front of them, ranting incoherently, for
about 30 seconds before she left.

The Defense Attorney seemed prepared with questions. Was the pride event
by invitation only? he asked the witness.

No, replied surivor.

And how close to the entrance was her booth?

Pretty near it, the witness granted.

Okay, continued the Defense Lawyer, but was there any publicity that the
Survivor, herself, would be there? How could Frisch have known that?

The witness replied yes, there was publicity of that fact: it was posted
on Myspace, Facebook, GLBTQ, Lavender Women, and Craigslist. The witness
also had an events page on Facebook.

The Defense Counsel tried to parry: "But if Ms. Frisch doesn't monitor
these pages--"

"She's on their online membership lists," rejoined Survivor, batting down
the lawyer's attempted defense.

Debbie's Defense Lawyer posed more minor questions. So Frisch was about
20 feet away from her when she first saw her at Eugene Pride? And Frisch
made no overt action of communication, such as waving at her, on August
14th? And Frisch just stared "in your general direction"--and nothing more?
he asked

But Survivor got the last word: Yes, she just stared--but who knows
whether Frisch would have escalated her menacing, had not the Business
Partner returned so quickly?

The Defense Lawyer now sought blemishes in the Two Friends Pub account. But
it was useless. At this point, it seemed the lawyer was reaching for something
that was already beyond his grasp.

I looked around the courtroom. I was surprised to see how many people were
there--all of them supporting Deb's harassment survivor. All of them anxious
to see Frisch's reign of bullying, at long last, penned in.

I felt so heartened by their presence; I'd had no idea I would have so many
kindred spirits in the courtroom today.

Witness #3: Helping A Friend In Need

The third witness for the prosecution was N. She exuded charisma--
beautiful, stylishly dressed, cheerful.

She testified she was at the Two Friends' Pub for a comedy show. She'd
arrived at round 8:30 that night, and was sitting with friends at a table.

Her friend, Survivor, then arrived.

The friend testified further details of Frisch's bullying and harassment:
N. had witnessed Frisch, three feet from Survivor, videotaping her with
her cell phone.

N.'s friend, Survivor, looked terrified, so N. took her friend outside.

N. corroborated Frisch's verbal harassment: "Don't shake your chin at me!"
Frisch had wailed. And soon after N. had rescued her friend, and taken her
outside, they heard Frisch pitching a tantrum in the bar: yelling, screaming,

With that, the State rested its case.


The Defense now took up their case. They only had one witness.

"Defense calls Ms. Frisch--" said the Defense Lawyer, who quickly
caught himself, and apologized: "I should refer to you as 'Doctor
Frisch,' shouldn't I, since--"

Frisch cut off her lawyer. "Ms. is fine," she spat.

(At this point, your usually-fearless journalist looked around: I couldn't
help counting the law enforcement presence. One-two-three-FOUR
sheriffs in the courtroom: one at the back, one on each side, and one
sitting at attention in the front row.)

Can you tell us about the Pride Rally? asked Defense Counsel.

Frisch claimed she hadn't seen her victim there.

And at the Two Friends? counsel asked.

Unable to lie, Frisch confirmed seeing Survivor there.

Frisch then tried to blame her victim for Frisch's own crimes: Frisch's
survivor "tried to menace me into leaving a public place merely because
she was there,"declared the defendant, adding that she told her victim to
"stop shaking your chins at me."

Cutting off her own lawyer. Denying the obvious. Blaming the victim.
As usual, Deborah Frisch had hit all her usual high points.


Judge Vogt asked for argument.

The prosecuting attorney's conclusion was simple: Miss Frisch had
acknowledged violation of her probation by attending a bar and having contact
with her victim.

Defense tried to claim the Two Friends' primary purpose is not the sale of
alcohol. It also sold food and held entertainment such as comedy.

Also, he began to argue, Frisch had not had prohibited contact with his
victim. She hadn't overtly communicated with her victim at the pride rally.
As for the 2 Friends. . .

The defense, frankly, seemed to be flagging here, as if he already knew
he'd lost. His argument was neither eloquent nor persuasive.

The judge wasn't fooled, either. "Oh, yes she did" violate her probation,
the judge replied. Frisch engaged in prohibited contact with her victim.

Then came a surprise: Judge Vogt reminded attorneys of the
"correspondence" she'd forwarded them. It was a communication originally
addressed to Judge Mitchell, but Judge Vogt had received it. Vogt also
alluded to a "court order" and "documents from concerned citizens" she'd

[Teh Squeak has learned that, in teh weeks leading up to teh
hearing, various
bits of information had trickled into teh Lane
County Criminal Courthouse--
including descriptions of Frisch's
sexual menacing of children on a public street two weeks prior,
and a Federal Court's
numerous orders, documenting Miss
year-long reign of harassment and terrorization of
court staff.]

The verdict settled--GUILTY!--all parties now tried to gravitate toward
an appropriate sentence.

The prosecutor bid high: Frisch's probation should be extended to five years.
It should require mental evaluation and treatment. There should also be a jail
sentence of 10 days.

Defense attempted to play up the "mental health" factor. Frisch has manifest
mental health problems, he offered, then asked whether the judge had seen
Frisch's original psychiatric evaluation in the case file.

The judge seemed incredulous. "You mean the one paragraph?" she asked
sardonically. Frisch, apparently, hadn't cooperated one whit with the

Defense tried to soldier on. That one paragraph reveals some issues, he

Then Frisch's lawyer attempted, amazingly, to bootstrap Frisch's criminal
habits into grounds for leniency. The correspondence Judge Vogt forwarded,
said the Defense Lawyer, shows she has offended a lot of folks. He then pointed
out the audience in the courtroom represents them: Frisch has inspired a lot
of ill will--all the more reason to give her treatment rather than prison.

One couldn't help but chortle at the audacity: Frisch had bullied the public
so intensely that good citizens who took time from their lives to see Justice
done--and that was supposed to be evidence, not for caging the criminal, but
for coddling Frisch with more counseling! It was reminiscent of the classic
definition of chutzpah: the man who, having murdered his parents, now
sought leniency on grounds that he was now an orphan.

Judge Vogt leaned forward. Public safety is also important, she declared.
The court is obliged, she said, to keep people safe from this probationer.

The judge said she was tempted to put in her jail for 18 months and "let
her sit there." But that would result in no supervision or requirements--and
Frisch obviously needs supervision.

Judge Vogt seemed vexed. Our court judicial system, she admitted, is not
adequately prepared to deal with the type of case Frisch presents.

Then the judge sprung the second surprise of the day: Deb Frisch has been
terrorizing people and is dangerous, declared the judge. Ten days? She asked.
Ten days won't do anything. Ten days is a wrist-slap, she said.

Then the judge turned to Frisch. Anything to say before sentence is

"No," said Frisch, in a voice that was clear but tense.

Then the judge issued a sentence which no doubt answered years of hopes
and prayers:

The sentence issued, Judge Vogt apprised Frisch of her 30-day right to appeal then
remanded the criminal to custody.

With that, Oregon Criminal 1675174, Deborah Ellen Frisch, was handcuffed and led
slowly to the back of the courtroom. She turned to survey the court for a couple of
beats. Then she was led away to begin her jail term.

Unlike last year's sentencing, Deb Frisch's family was not present.

The judge called a recess.

Outside the court, there were tears, smiles, and thumbs-up all around.
Much relief was expressed by Frisch's victims, and much gratitude. The man
whose daughters Frisch had traumatized 10 days earlier was even present, as
were other interested parties--some who'd traveled hundreds of miles through
a dangerous storm to be there.

They basked in many emotions--relief, gratitude, even healthy skepticism that,
after coddling Frisch for so long, the Justice System would actually make good
on the promised sentence.

Yes, this was Their Moment.


Monday, October 25, 2010


90 DAYS!!!!!!!!11


DEB FRISCH Marched out in cuffs...Ninety days, no matrix out.
Five years supervised probation....Mental health evaluation.
Required mental health treatment...
No access to Internet during probation...
Probation officer to be given all Internet logins and passwords...
PO to be able to search her residence at will...

Judge called Frisch a "dangerous offender", noted that she
had been escalating
for years, and stated she was not taking
probation seriously.

KARMA: Federal court employees sent Lane County judge paperwork
documenting Deb's "terror threats" against court staff...












Thursday, October 21, 2010


Eugene (Oct 21)--In teh most sweeping restraining order yet, a Federal Magistrate Judge has compelled Dummy
Deborah Frisch,in every conceivable way, to STFU! and cease-and-desist her attempts to harass court staff and
their families!

(Debbie responded to teh order as expected: by throwing yet another impotent shit-fit on her blog, lol.)

Over teh last year, Debbie has received warning after warning after WARNING after WARNING!...that her attempts to bully teh court into giving her a victory in
her incompetent frivolous lawsuit would be met with sterner measures.

Teh judge made good on those warnings today, as he
For teh LULZ, here is teh text of teh order handed to
Debbie today (screencap of teh document can be found
at this link



Deborah Ellen Frisch was a pro se litigant in a civil rights action filed in this court. See
Frisch v. City of Eugene, et. al., Civ No. 09-6126-TC. Pursuant to a stipulated settlement
agreement, Frisch's case was closed on August 18,2010. (Civ. No. 09-6126 #s 220, 223).

This court finds that during the pendency of her case and thereafter, Frisch has engaged in
a pattern of behavior directed at court staff that was and remains disruptive to court business.
That behavior includes the following:

1. Repeatedly leaving abusive voice mail messages to court staff;

2. Repeatedly emailing court staff at email addresses both professional and personal. The content of those messages are often profane and vulgar and appear to be sent with the purpose of harassing and intimidating court staff;

3. Appearing at public events where court staff and/or their families are in attendance for the
apparent purpose and effect of harassing and intimidating court staff;

4. Contacting relatives and acquaintances of court staff by email and through internet social
networking sites'with the apparent purpose and effect of harassing and intimidating court staff.

5. Continuing to file documents in her closed case, Frisch v. City ofEugene, et. ai., Civ No. 096126-TC, which are inappropriate, profane, vulgar, and abusive to court staff.

In response to the disruption to court business created by these unwanted and harassing
communications and behaviors, I have twice ordered the court's technology department to block
Frisch's email communication from entering the court's email gateway and have limited Frisch's
access to the courthouse. Ms. Frisch's disruptive behavior, however, has continued.

In view of Frisch v. City ofEugene, et. ai., Civ No. 09-6126-TC having been closed-and
all appeals rejected, and in light of Ms. Frisch's continued e-filing of inappropriate, profane,
vulgar, and abusive documents, which serve solely to express Ms. Frisch's displeasure with court
staff, I revoke Ms. Frisch's e-filing status. Should Ms. Frisch need to file any documents, she
may send them through the United States mail to the United States Courthouse 405 East 8th Avenue, Suite 2100 Eugene, Oregon 97401.

For the reasons stated above, I intend to declare Deborah Ellen Frisch a "vexatious"
litigant and now order her to show cause in writing why she should not be required to comply
with the following orders of the Court:

1. Ms. Frisch shall only be allowed to enter the courthouse for proceedings in which she is a
party, witness or for other legitimate court-related business following pre-approval from me (see 4. below);

2. When she comes to the courthouse, Ms. Frisch is required to state the purpose ofher visit to a
Court Security Officer (CSO);

3. A CSO will accompany Ms. Frisch to the courtroom or court clerk's office as necessary to
complete her legitimate court-related business and will escort her from the courthouse at the
conclusion of her business within the courthouse;

4. If Ms. Frisch needs to enter the courthouse for any reason other than as a party or witness, she must send a written request through the United States mail addressed to me at my chambers for my consideration. If I approve entry, Ms. Frisch will comply with the requirements of 2-3 above;

5. Ms. Frisch shall cease and desist from any form ofcontact with court staff or their families
outside of those contacts necessary to conduct court business that I approve in advance.
a. Specifically, Ms. Frisch shall not come into the visual or physical presence of
court staff or their families, other than in a manner consistent with 1-4 above;
b. Ms. Frisch shall not wait outside the courthouse or the homes or workplaces of
court staff or court staff family members;
c. Ms. Frisch shall not contact by telephone nor send or make written
communication in any form to court staff;
d. Ms. Frisch shall not speak with court staff unless approved in advance by me;
e. Ms. Frisch shall not communicate or attempt to communicate in any way with
court staff through third persons; and
f. Ms. Frisch shall not access the personal page( s) of internet networking sites (Le.
Facebook) of court staff or the family members ofcourt staff.


DATED the 21st of October, 2010.

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, October 19, 2010


Deb Frisch Probation Violation Hearing 2010


Eugene (Oct 19)--Deborah Frisch has been unemployed
since 2006
, but she's been busy lately.

Over teh last week, Miss Debbie has posted numerous
threatening blogs, harassed scores of innocent people
(some of whom have filed reports with teh Lane County
Sheriff), and actually gave police officers an eyewitness
view of Frisch's unworthiness to live outside of jail

In short, Debbie's behavior pretty much begs for teh
prison-term she faces at next Monday's probation-violation
hearing in Lane County Criminal Court.

Most disturbing of Debbie's offenses involves her threats
toward two innocent children, last Thursday.

According to sources (and, stupidly, Debbie's own blog),
Deborah Frisch hurled sexual invective and threats
toward a state congressional candidate's young daughters
last Thursday
. Frisch followed up this criminal behavior
by emailing the innocent victims' father--falsely pretending
to be a Lane County employee. (Impersonation of a civil
servant, by teh way, is a crime under Oregon State Law.)
Once Frisch's incompetent disguise was blown, Dummy
Debbie then libeled the victim--and impotently threatened
him with one of her well-known toothless TORT CLAIMS

Of course, this is hardly new for Deb Frisch, who lost her
job in 2006 after hurling similar sexual and death threats toward
a child over teh internet
. Since then, Frisch has had two criminal
convictions for stalking, threatening, harassment and assault (in
2006 and 2009).

As Debbie's October 25th probation-violation hearing approaches
(for teh terms of Frisch's 3-year probation sentence, see here),
teh list of her vile and violent crimes just gets longer and longer.

One has to pity Debbie's poor court-appointed lawyer in all of this
--since teh poor chap will be forced to defend against a reign of criminal
behavior which even Clarence Darrow couldn't justify.


Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 13, 2010


Eugene (Oct 13)--Debbie wanted a war. So now it's war she has.

Teh story is moving fast: 24 hours ago, Debbie Frisch learned that
she wasn't gonna get a non-public defender in her upcoming probation-
violation hearing. Frisch faces a likely jail sentence when she is tried on
probation-violation charges in less than two weeks, October 25th.

Debbie responded with an almost unprecedented SHITSTORM tantrum
of DOZENS of harassing, threatening and libelous blog posts. Frisch also
harassed relatives of police officers on Facebook.

Late yesterday, one of the victims decided not to be a victim anymore: in response,
JG has hilariously posted Debbie Frisch's RELATIVES' contact info...

Here are Frisch’s family members. More to follow:

* Allen D. Frisch (age 69)
* Andrew M Frisch
* Lisa Beth Frisch (Age 43)
* Susan C Frisch (Age 67)

And so long as we’re in to posting family info:

858-350-1232 Allen and Susan Frisch, 319 Punta Baja, Del Mar, CA (Mom and Dad. Must be so proud!)
Andrew Frisch 552 Alameda De Las Pulgas, San Carlos, CA (brother)
Lisa Beth Frisch San Diego, CA (sister) Husband is Michael Mee. 4279 Corte Favor, San Diego, CA

Sources say that more than one of the relatives has since taken their
phone off the hook...


Tuesday, October 05, 2010


Deb Frisch Arraignment 2010

By: Trix E. Lom,
Intrepid Reporter

We last heard from our fearless reporter, Trix E. Lom,

when she covered Miss Debbie's March 2009 sentencing on assault,
and stalking charges in Lane County Court.

When Trix heard about Frisch's arraignment today--for teh
crime of violating teh terms of her probation set at teh March
2009 sentencing, Trix decided to pay another visit to teh
court, and see how Miss Debbie behaved during her court
appearance today.

Here is teh UNCENSORED play-by-play dispatch from teh
fearless reporter...


Your reporter arrived just before 8:30 and stood in a crowded line waiting to clear security. Suddenly, a familiar voice cracked, "What's the difference between HIV and a lawyer? You need a microscope to see HIV." Pause. "It's a way to say eff the lawyers." One guy cackled, a sound like a nervous hiccup. "You laugh," the voice stated flatly.

At the head of the line the same voice brayed, "Will my first amendment rights set off the metal detector?"

"Probably," answered the officer in charge, amused, then delivered the same instructions as to everyone else: empty your pockets, take off your belt, take off your shoes. The crowd re-assembled ourselves in the small area behind security, waiting for the one elevator, which a sheriff declared was "the slowest elevator in Lane County." When it opened, we piled in; it was close and crowded. A woman turned to gently touch a beautiful baby held by a young mother, who smiled.

"You can touch babies?!" came an unwelcome shout, followed by nervous chuckles. "That's legal?! Who knew?!" Pause. "It must be legal; it's happening in the court house!" We all piled off the elevator.

Immediately your reporter was confronted with a sign demanding "No activated cell phones" in the court room. Cell phone dispatched, your intrepid reporter entered the sparsely attended court room, where defendants, including Frisch, waited stiffly on plastic chairs that lined the back wall. She was called forward immediately to pick up her paperwork, in quick succession with others in attendance, although many plaintiffs were not present.

A sheriff entered and many heads turned to watch him take his position at the back of the courtroom near the door. I updated my shopping list.

Frisch moved forward and sat across the aisle from your reporter. Owing to Frisch's financial woes, she appears to be on an involuntary starvation diet. She is frighteningly thin now, which makes her appear taller than before, but obviously still has the same big mouth. The chubby campus pole-dancer of yesteryear is gone, and this desperate, poorly dressed, shrieking wraith is what the once-respected Doctor of Philosophy has become; a person one would assume is probably homeless, and certainly disturbed.

The staff, working industriously at the front of the courtroom, seemed oblivious to the suffering of those waiting to be arraigned; the man next to me twitched incessantly. Frisch had moved up into the second row by then. She wore a cheap, dark brown jacket and glasses and her wild hair was close-cropped.

The shout of "All rise!" was heard, and we rose. As the judge entered, Frisch stood in the second row with her head down. Very few people in the courtroom lowered their heads; most of us watched the judge as he entered at our left, strode across the front of the courtroom and took his seat at the far side. Frisch, however, didn't just lower her head. Her shoulders also slumped down and forward, the entire top of her body wilting as if in humble supplication.

We sat again, as ordered by the judge and he established the rhythm of the proceeding: Plaintiffs would be apprised of their rights and of the charges against them, which they would answer with a plea, and a hearing date would be scheduled. He then gave a separate set of Miranda and other rights for each type of violation. Those accused of misdemeanors have the right to a six-person jury, the right to face their accusers, and the state has the burden of proof. Those accused of probation violations also have the right to confront witnesses but not to a jury: a judge will hear their case, and the judgment is made on a preponderance of evidence, not on reasonable doubt. He asked everyone to speak up, as the proceedings were recorded, and again reviewed the rhythm he expected: The accused will enter a plea, get a call date, sign some paperwork. If they fail to appear on the call date, an arrest warrant will be issued.

Frisch leaned far over on the bench at this point, her face close to the back of the pew before her, one bony elbow pointed upward, the full aspect of her body pointed left, as if to cock her right ear toward the proceedings.

One man with no attorney was encouraged to take advantage of the court-appointed attorney and take on the $370 fee for doing so. The court-appointed attorney stood up, walked confidently behind the plaintiff, and joined him. The judge advised him to speak with his attorney as soon as possible, and was amenable to all the court-appointed attorney's suggestions upon what had to have been an extremely brief review of the accused man's paperwork.

The next man was also unsure whether he wanted an attorney. The judge warned him that, in case he were found guilty, his record would be nonexpungeable. He asked whether this man had heard what he'd told the last man and, of course, reminded us of the saying among lawyers that anyone who defends themselves in court has a fool for a client.

At this point Frisch appeared to be suffering. She'd moved to the left end of the bench, head down in her hands, feet in the aisle, looking over her left shoulder behind her, as if searching for someone.

By then, I was favorably impressed with this proceeding: everyone received legal support, no one was treated unkindly, and the rhythm the judge wanted was well-established. The third guy said yes to the court-appointed attorney, without needing the lecture. His fresh attorney denied his charges. Apparently everyone pleads not guilty. His client was headed for a probation violation hearing, where an indictment would get him a show cause. The judge sternly warned him there would be additional offenses if he didn't show up, and reminded him that his release agreements were in full force. "You mean I have to keep checking in every day?" he asked. This reporter thought immediately of how helpful a daily check-in would be for some people.

Abruptly, Frisch was called forward. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Later that day, Deborah Frisch blogged about the abruptness of her being cawled up: "how fucking ugly was that transgendered bulldyke who did the roll call for judge zennache (which you almost missed!)," blogged cowardly Debbie, who would never have had the guts to say this face-to-face...]

Frisch stood alone and said she had no attorney. The judge asked for clarification on the paperwork in front of him; she has one case on appeal? She stated she's involved in three cases: one in which she's defending herself, one that's on appeal in which she's defended by a court-appointed lawyer, and this one, a show cause for which she wanted a court-appointed attorney.

"Ms. Frisch, I've seen you before," said the judge.

"I've written many essays about you," she answered. [EDITOR'S NOTE: In a lulzy trick of fate, it turns out teh judge has overseen part of a small-claims lawsuit against deadbeat Debbie]

The judge began to apprise her of her right to request a different judge, she interrupted several times, cawing "No!" "No!" "No!" until he stopped showing her the same courtesy as everyone else by fulling explaining her rights and stated he'd just wanted to be sure she felt no conflict. She reiterated she had no concern.

The judge seemed as confused as some gerbils had been about Frisch's hearing being a show cause rather than an arraignment, but then simply stated she would be assigned a lawyer and a trial date. The lawyer standing next to her in court then, a tall, thin middle-aged man in a light gray suit, was a member of a consortium, and would not necessarily be the one to defend her. She will be notified of who is appointed to defend her.

Her lawyer immediately denied her charges, and she was scheduled to the probation violation docket for October 25th 8:30 a.m.

As she signed her paperwork, she was advised that this would be her only trial in the matter and she should speak to her lawyer as soon as possible to prepare for it. As with the other cases, very little was said.

She had a quick conversation with her new attorney, in which I imagine she did not say "Eff the lawyers," filled out some more paperwork, ostensibly for him, and made a hasty departure as various copies changed hands.

EDITORS NOTE: Of course, despite teh travails of teh day, Miss Debbie quickly
showed she hadn't learned her lesson. Within hours, she posted several vile and
vulgar blogs

Perhaps jail will sober Frisch up, perhaps not. But either way, we can expect
numerous lulz from Debbie's impotent battering against her fate...AND TEH

Labels: , ,


Deb Frisch Probation Violation 2010




OCT 25


Labels: , ,


September 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   June 2008   July 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   October 2010   November 2010   December 2010   February 2011   March 2011   April 2011   July 2011   October 2011   January 2012   May 2012   June 2012   July 2012   August 2012   September 2012   March 2014   April 2014   September 2014   February 2015   March 2015   April 2015   May 2015   June 2015   July 2015   August 2015   September 2015   November 2015   December 2015   October 2016   November 2016   December 2016   January 2017   February 2017   November 2017   December 2017   January 2018   February 2018   May 2018   June 2018   July 2018   August 2018   September 2018   October 2018   November 2018   January 2019   May 2019   February 2020   October 2020   August 2021   August 2022  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]