Yesterday I wrote this in the Napa Valley Register in response to yet another libelous attack from Nathan Lean:
Lean, well aware of the many death threats I have received from Islamic jihadists, has published, on the Internet, information he believes to be about my location and my family with the clear intent of endangering me and my family and intimidating me into silence. The FBI is aware of these veiled threats from Mr. Lean.
The editors of the Register, of course, had no way of knowing that they were publishing the rantings of an obsessive and threatening stalker; however, now that he has spread his misinformation, I am grateful that they have given me the opportunity to set the record straight.
Lean, in a frothing rage over being thus exposed, contacted the Napa Valley Register to complain. Yesterday I received this email from Register editor Michael Donnelly:
Mr. Lean has been in touch and expressed concern about being called a stalker. I agreed with him that it is name-calling, and doesn’t fit the parameters of our letters policy. I have edited that out of the version online.
Also, your claim that the FBI has been contacted about his postings, I assumed you know this because you were the person contacting the FBI. Can you further substantiate how you would know that the FBI was contacted? If not, I will look at editing that sentence as well.
Further, Mr. Lean is alleging that he has made no public online postings in regard to your family. Can you provide a link to the website where this might exist?
Thanks in advance,
In response, I sent Donnelly the name and email address of the FBI agent who has Lean’s case and the address of one of the Twitter posts in which Lean posted what he thinks is a picture of my wife and my home address. I am not going to post that link here as it would further endanger innocent people, which is, of course, just what Lean wants and abundantly establishes him as a stalker.
Faced with this documentation, Donnelly left up the parts of my piece about the FBI and the threats from Lean, but he took out this sentence: “The editors of the Register, of course, had no way of knowing that they were publishing the rantings of an obsessive and threatening stalker…”
I called Donnelly to complain; he said that he had to take it out, as that was accusing Lean of a crime for which he had not been arrested or convicted. I pointed out that Lean, in his piece to which I was responding, accused me of murders in Norway with which I had nothing to do, and for which I have not been arrested or convicted. Donnelly, however, did not see, or professed not to see, his own inconsistency, and the stalker charge came out while the murder charge stayed in. I also asked him if he had demanded documentation from Lean of the latter’s many defamatory claims. He didn’t answer the question.
So I am writing this post to repeat and reemphasize the charge that Nathan Lean is a creepy, obsessive stalker who trolls the Internet fanatically looking for personal information about me, my family, my background, and my resume, hoping to use it to discredit my work and intimidate me into silence — or indeed to provoke a physical attack from one of his Leftist or Islamic supremacist allies. This is all obvious from his behavior, and if he disputes it, let him bring suit. The discovery process will be fascinating.
Please also sign this other petition, asking the Bishop of Sacramento not to capitulate to Lean’s anti-free speech thuggery, and allow me to speak at Kolbe Academy’s conference in late July: