Thanks for the rest of the article, and thanks for the Reader.
This is addressed to Robert K. Johnston of Vista, who wrote in on August 13 to letters (“.45 Caliber Insurance”). In regard to your response to “No Good Guns,” from July 23 by Name Withheld, toward the tail end of your letter, why are you so ignorant, Robert? You say, “If you are going to write it, you need to own it! It takes far more courage to put your name to your words than it does to send in an unowned straw-man letter. Enough with these ‘Name Withheld’ jobbies already, folks!”
Why do I say you are ignorant, Robert? First of all, you don’t have any idea of the possibilities why this person may have chosen to withhold their name, and it may have nothing at all to do with courage. For instance, I myself, this letter included, have gone by Name Withheld, and it has nothing to do with not “owning” what I wrote.
I am a victim of severe past domestic violence by an ex-husband who started doing drugs and went berserk from then on. I do not want my name printed because I do not want him to find me, lest he try to kill me, as he threatened. I have moved on to a new state, new town, and there is no reason for me to put my name on something that he might possibly see, even if it’s just on the internet.
Now I’m not saying this is every Name Withheld’s issue, but you just don’t know each person’s life and what their reasoning is behind it. Domestic violence occurs more frequently than you seem to be aware of. Of course, you probably, being a man, have a far lesser chance of being severely physically abused, since you can probably defend yourself better than I, a woman, so why should you have to worry? Maybe Name Withheld is in some kind of witness protection program, or maybe their issue is entirely something else and none of your business. You just don’t know these people, and neither do I, but in this country, people have a right to speak their mind and to do so in privacy, if they choose.
We are not “jobbies” (which, according to a Google search, the definition means a piece of excrement or a stupid person). Am I a piece of doo-doo or stupid if I have the courage — yes, courage — to move far away from my abuser and to start a new life and to maintain that better way of life by staying careful? If you say yes, then the only answer I have for you is it takes one to know one, jobbie. Enough with you and these others complaining about people not printing their name.
What do you care, anyway? Are you going to try to locate them and go after them if you disagree with them? May the “Name Witheld By Request” people live on, in peace.
Name Withheld by Request
The Meal, The Hope Are Free
Thanks and compliments to Ed Bedford (“Tin Fork,” August 13) for reviewing one of the free church-sponsored community meals. Yes, it’s all about social and unity things, not just poverty or homelessness. Years ago, I nearly starved to death before somebody gave me a list of them, and now, better off financially, I still attend one or two per week, and you should, too, helping with whatever you can: cooking, cleanup, security, food or money donation, or even just company. I now keep the database for free meals on my air-conditioning website, nz9f.com. Events listed are appropriate for families, and a printout could help someone far more than giving them money.
I am the attorney who filed the lawsuit against Stephen Doyne, Ph.D., which was covered in your article “The American Board of Nonexistence” (“City Lights,” July 2). I am writing to respond to the false and misleading statements by Doyne’s attorney, Christopher Zopatti. (“Not Overtly Psychotic,” Letters, July 23.)
Just to recap, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of Emad Tadros, M.D., and alleges that Doyne, a prominent San Diego child custody evaluator whom I have seen family law judges recommend, uses false and misleading credentials in his CV, such as claiming he taught at USD School of Law and other universities that deny in writing any record of Doyne, and claiming he is a “Diplomate” of organizations like the American College of Forensic Examiners (ACFE) that have been exposed as internet certification mills.
Zopatti’s letter demanded that the Reader retract its article on the lawsuit. In defense of Doyne, Zopatti claims he filed a declaration from a USD law educator named Rodney Jones that “confirms the employment of Dr. Doyne at USD.” That is absolutely false. The declaration never says Doyne taught at USD. It says Doyne took one of Jones’s classes with the stated intent of later teaching at USD. That is all. As a member of the state bar, Zopatti knows better than to make false statements like that.
Maybe the reason Zopatti had to distort the truth is that he had nothing else. On the one hand, we filed two letters from USD that flatly deny any record of Doyne even after an extensive search. On the other hand, all Doyne was able to produce was that declaration from Jones stating Doyne took Jones’s class. Nothing else. If Doyne did teach at USD he should be able to find a faculty member or former student who remembers him teaching (most of them are on the state bar website), or even an old course outline, pay stub, employment record, photo, yearbook, or some other record.
Zopatti also claims he filed a course catalog that identifies Doyne as an instructor at another university, UCSD, where Doyne also claims he taught but which also denies any record of him. What Zopatti does not mention is that the catalog lists Doyne as an instructor of a one-day seminar. This lawsuit is not just about lies but also about misleading claims, and I consider it unethically misleading for a professional custody evaluator to claim he was a UCSD instructor when he only taught a one-day seminar.