The problem with you is that you argue over small details while ignoring the bigger picture. You asserted that the efagz post was libelous because it stated that the Arizona police issued a search warrant to you, when in fact they issued a search warrant to your web host. This is a minor detail.
[The problem with the Efagz post is that there are several false “minor details” throughout it, the warrant matter is only one. And these false minor details are repeated over and over in order to paint a darker “bigger picture” of my actions and motivations than is accurate. For example, the post didn’t just state that the search warrant was served upon me instead of my host. Building upon that misinformation, the post’s author wrote over and over that I only sent the video because I was “forced” by the warrant. But that simply isn’t true. I voluntarily sent in that recording, I was in no way forced to send it and the police never asked me to send it. In fact police never even contacted me until weeks after I had sent that video.
Voilà how a “minor detail” libels me: Jessica’s malice towards me drove her to reckless disregard for the truth. There are about four or five other “minor details” in which the post’s author is flat-out wrong. If the author weren’t so eager to attack me, maybe she would have done more research and read the warrant more carefully. Because the only evidence I will use in court to prove libel comes from the search and arrest warrants—two sworn affidavits by a female police detective with over a decade of experience in sex crimes.]
The point is this: you witnessed the assault and screen recorded it. You have all along held the most damning piece of evidence imaginable. If you had wanted to see John Hock arrested, you could have submitted that recording to the police the day it happened. Instead, you blogged about the incident calling a sexual assault victim a “dumb slut” * and acted flippantly about the whole ordeal. The circumstances under which you finally submitted the key piece of evidence in the case are hardly relevant to the fact that you yourself have confirmed that you sent it to the police nearly three months after the incident occurred.
This is why it irks people to see you now repeatedly bragging about how important you are to the case. No one is denying that your recording is the key piece of evidence, but if you knew all along how important it was then you should have sent it to the police right away. You could have been the one to open the case, but you chose to ignore it and sit on the evidence.
[Again, completely incorrect as to my motivations and intentions. The truth is, I had no idea which police department to call. Maybe you spend your time tracking individual e-celebs’ updates, but I don’t. Most of my site’s content is user-submitted; and even in the posts I write, the media content is usually sent to me via email or instant messaging by readers who want to contribute but don’t care to do the actual writing. At the time of the assault, I was purchasing the condo that is now StickyHouse. I was packing up and moving from Midtown Manhattan to Downtown Los Angeles—literally one end of the country to another. I QUITE SIMPLY DIDN’T KNOW WHERE HOCK WAS. I didn’t even know that he was in the state of Arizona, much less the city of Phoenix.
Now, I have attempted to call the police once before over a sex crime: I tried to report Hot Mami for producing and webcasting live pay-per-view sex shows in the presence of her 9-year-old son. All I knew was that she was in New Jersey, but New Jersey police told me that without an address to investigate there was nothing they could do.]
So back to Hock. Without an address the police will not investigate. Read the search warrant: It was not any witnesses’ phonecalls that prompted the police investiagtion, it was the victim’s decision to file a police report containing essential details (victim’s name, assailant’s name, time and place of the crime). I have had these sorts of discussions with both Stickam’s counsel and FOX producers, immediately going to police with purely visual evidence of a sex crime isn’t as easy as you seem to believe. And even if the address of a crime is known, unless the video clearly depicts a minor or infant being raped, the victim must file a police report. Had Hock’s victim decided not to file a police report, the police would not have acted on any tips from sources other than the victim.]
Efagz is not mentioned in the police reports because the efagz members who witnessed the incident and were so disgusted by it that they went straight to the police were not acting on behalf of the efagz community. In fact Brodi is mentioned by name in the arrest warrant as the primary witness, she just never mentioned efagz because it doesn’t fucking matter. She didn’t report a crime to get hits to a website, she reported it because she wanted justice to be served.
[Does Brodi live in Lafayette, Louisiana? If so, she apparently does care about hits to a website—at least in comparison to the hits my own site gets.
Months worth of comments suspiciously critical of Amor and me, all by a single IP that backtraces (lol) to an ISP in Lafayette, Louisiana. Hmm. “She didn’t report a crime to get hits to a website, she reported it because she wanted justice to be served.” I’m either too jaded or too experienced to believe that. Brodi sure seems to be promoting Efagz on my website, peppered with an animus towards Amor whom I’m sure Brodi’s never even met.]
I am glad that you recorded the incident. Having your tape as evidence will make it very difficult for Hock’s lawyers to argue him out of this one. But this case isn’t about you, and it’s not about efagz; it is about John Hock and the girl that he sexually assaulted. I wish you would step off of your high horse enough to see that.
[I never wrote “the case is about me.” Jessica wrote that in the original Efagz post. However I have had several phone conversations with the arresting officer and the prosecutor. They have both repeatedly thanked me for how helpful I have been and for how much evidence I provided. Apparently only I had the foresight or ability to record and document what Hock did to his victim in Arizona. I’m certainly more familiar with the details of the assault than Jessica, whose inexplicably personal rage towards me evidently distracted her into making several factual mistakes.]
[signed, Anonymous. How courageous of you. Maybe one day when you want to be taken seriously, you’ll have the conviction to sign your name. Here’s how it’s done.]
*To return to the “dumb slut” point: Your defense against this is usually “that was a MyDrama post, that wasn’t me” but I am not referring to the MyDrama post entitled “The Face of a (SLUTTY) Victim!,” I am referring to your original post which you have since edited. Unfortunately for you, the arrest warrant contains the original text, complete with the statements “It’s hard to tell one dumb blonde slut from another” and “But technically, you’re not supposed to engage in sexual contact with someone who is unable to consent, even if she’s a dumb slut who has spread her legs for her assailant many times prior to this assault.”
[Yes, I edited the original post. In January 2010—almost a year after Hock’s February 2009 assault—I bought out Anthony’s interest in Elite Imaging Concepts, LLC and made sweeping changes to StickyDrama. (This purchase was effected by means of a notarized Membership Interest Agreement, meaning I’m not pulling this story out my ass.) Among these changes was my decision to remove content that, while not unlawful, might be deemed inappropriate for certain advertisers and corporate sponsors and promoters. StickyDrama was Anthony’s creation, and his original impetus remains with the site to this day. But even the original flippant post described what had happened to Hock’s victim as unlawful. Obviously rape is wrong. It’s also wrong to rape a 50-year-old prostitute who’s fucked thousands of clients. Rape is wrong, period, against a nun and against a slut.
The most common defense in court is to malign the character of the victim. We saw this happen in the Kobe Bryant case. The defense didn’t call her a “slut,” but they would suggest she was promiscuous and was only alleging rape for attention or money. My post anticipates that strategy by acknowledging the victim’s sexual history AND asserting that it is completely irrelevant to the fact that a crime occurred that night.
Furthermore, consider this: If Hock is convicted, a door will open for the victim. A door to millions of dollars. A door to a CIVIL lawsuit (as opposed to Hock’s criminal trial) filed by the victim against AVC (the company that owns the Stickam service). Stickam would have the public believe that Hock was just some random rogue user of whose proclivities the company was ignorant. Now, everyone on Stickam back in 2007-2008 knows that nothing could be further from the truth. But only I have direct evidence—concrete evidence that I have not given to the State of Arizona as it does not directly bear on Hock’s guilt—that AVC was indeed aware of Hock’s proclivities and instructed its employees not to ban him for Terms of Service violations in light of the many new user registrations he brought the fledgling network from his gigantic Myspace account. Hock’s victim deserves compensation for what happened to her, and Stickam deserves to pay for its foolish support of a controversial entertainer like Hock.
I haven’t asked either party, but attacking my character is probably the last thing the prosecution wants. The fact that Hock’s attorney spent pages attempting to discredit me should be a clue right there: Attacking my character has the effect of undermining the evidence I provided. And only I have provided the State with concrete evidence. If to you this case really is about “a girl who was RAPED,” as Jessica wrote, and if you want to HELP that girl in her legal hurdles instead of HINDER her, stop attacking me. Because like it or not, I am a crucial figure in the victim’s case.]