That is so great. It made my day.

Michael on May 28, 2013 at 2:47 pm

Debbie,

That’s why Americans hate lawyers!

You wonder what kind of a person Ramineh Behbehanian is that she hired a lawyer who could not find the time to tell her she had no legal case against you.

Apparently her attorney’s as stupid as his client. The truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander in America. He might as well try to collect from every one who wrote and reported on her in the media. Good luck with it.

Peter Shearer just messed with the wrong person! Its the kind of crude shakedown blackmail that gives lawyers a bad name. For the message he sent you, he should not only be liable for damages, he should be disbarred for unprofessional conduct.

I’ve heard of and seen many things in life but this is absolutely ridiculous! But it is also Islam – which cannot stand being criticized. Debbie, you gave this shmuck a piece of your mind and I hope devoutly that’s the last time we’ll heart from him.

G-d bless you and continue your reporting on your blog. America is still a free country! Amen.

NormanF on May 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm

My email:

Subject: STFU you pathetic little legal jihadist

To: pete@pierceshearer.com
Bcc: Debbie Schlussel
Dear Asshole (and I apologize for insulting assholes):

Your harassment attempt to deter Debbie Schlussel will go nowhere. It is an absolute joke and you picked on the wrong person. Debbie has lost more integrity from her “pinkie” toe than the total sum you have had in your body your whole life. She also has the courage of her convictions and will not back down to sleazebags like you engaged in legal jihad.

However, perhaps you can settle this thing once and for all. Why don’t you drink from one of the bottles your failed Iranian Jihadist placed in Starbucks before is has been cleaned out.

I_AM_ME on May 28, 2013 at 2:59 pm

If the esteemed Mr. Shearer responds to Debbie’s email it’ll have to wait until he’s done soaking his wounds in ice. Unless his shame-free self encases him in a shell of obtuse oblivion, the verbal beating Debbie visited upon him has left him feeling like he’s been scraped with a cheeses grater and sprayed down naked with rubbing alcohol.

Frankly, I hope he’s a misguided gamer and comes back for more.

lee of the lower case "l" on May 28, 2013 at 3:25 pm

LOL “Dear Schmuck at Law” Holy crap! You got it Debbie. The only way to deal with people like them is to shove it right back in their faces and not apologize.

Sean M on May 28, 2013 at 3:50 pm

she’s very pretty and has a kind face…

kirche on May 28, 2013 at 3:51 pm

@ kirche; ” she’s very pretty and has a kind face…”

You’re referring to the “Starbucks Jihad pharmacist? Well maybe if you’re into whips and chains. I can see her as a guard at Auschwitz named Bruno.

lee of the lower case "l" on May 28, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Well that lawyer is in for a nasty surprise because his client has made it to Cannibal Watch.

Among the efforts of The Cannibal Watch site is education. So many people attempt to promote Islam as the Religion of Peace. So many people call Islamist who wantonly kill innocents as Jihadists. This is like 9 blind men and the elephant. Relgion of Peace, Jihadist, terrorists, eh, what we are looking at is a bunch of cretins whose religion urgest them to cross the sacred, sacrosant, last moral imperative that separates humans from animals: Cannibalism.

Debbie, you have been too nice, too decent, you’ve held back. ANd look where it’s got us all.

Islamists are Cannibals. That’s the real underlying issue.

I mean, serious and seriously discussed for centuries, the one thing that separates them from the rest of humanity is their agreed upon right to eat people who are not the specific color of Islam they are. That’s right, Muslims are Cannibals.

What you’re dealing with is “humans for hamburgers” mentality.

Isn’t it time to return the terrorist label to normal psychos with murderous agendas and call a Cannibal a Cannibal.

I’ve talked to the heads of religious orders, from Catholics, to Baptist, to Lutherans, to Hindus to Buddhist of all persuasions, to Zen monks to Shamanists and none of them have in their religious books an order that is is OK to kill the enemy and EAT THEIR DEAD BODIES. That meat of your dead enemy is halal and will bring to closer to Allah.

Islam, the Religion of Cannibals.

Don’t believe me? LOOK IT UP!

Islam Religion of Cannibals on May 28, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Well that lawyer is in for a nasty surprise because his client has made it to Cannibal Watch.

Among the efforts of The Cannibal Watch site is education. So many people attempt to promote Islam as the Religion of Peace. So many people call Islamist who wantonly kill innocents as Jihadists. This is like 9 blind men and the elephant. Relgion of Peace, Jihadist, terrorists, eh, what we are looking at is a bunch of cretins whose religion urgest them to cross the sacred, sacrosant, last moral imperative that separates humans from animals: Cannibalism.

Debbie, you have been too nice, too decent, you’ve held back. ANd look where it’s got us all.

Islamists are Cannibals. That’s the real underlying issue.

I mean, serious and seriously discussed for centuries, the one thing that separates them from the rest of humanity is their agreed upon right to eat people who are not the specific color of Islam they are. That’s right, Muslims are Cannibals.

What you’re dealing with is “humans for hamburgers” mentality.

Isn’t it time to return the terrorist label to normal psychos with murderous agendas and call a Cannibal a Cannibal.

I’ve talked to the heads of religious orders, from Catholics, to Baptist, to Lutherans, to Hindus to Buddhist of all persuasions, to Zen monks to Shamanists and none of them have in their religious books an order that it is OK to kill the enemy and EAT THEIR DEAD BODIES. That meat of your dead enemy is halal and will bring to closer to Allah.

Islam, the Religion of Cannibals.

Don’t believe me? LOOK IT UP!

Islam Religion of Cannibals on May 28, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Sorry for the duplicate comment, that should have been the references some of which are here:

http://quranexplained.wordpress.com/tag/human-flesh/

But Imam El-Shefie was more clear and he courageously said, “Human flesh may be eaten”. He added, “An enemy fighter or an adulterer may be killed and his flesh be eaten”. More seriously, Dawoud protested against Al-Muzni saying, “If you allowed the eating of the flesh of the prophets (sarcastically I say, “for fear that they would not be slaughtered in the Islamic way”), you should also allow eating the flesh of the infidels”. The final verdict for him, “Human flesh should not be eaten unless that would safe the life of the eater from starving to death and Allah knows best”.

Here is a great danger to the whole world. Islam, the Quran, and the scholars of Islam allow the Muslim to eat the flesh of the non-Muslim if that saves the Muslim from starving to death. We all know about the economic crisis which haunts the whole world these days. As we said, Imam El-Shafie said it very clearly, “An enemy fighter or an adulterer may be killed and his flesh may be eaten”. And in the eyes of every Muslim, a non-Muslim is an enemy fighter and an adulterer.

Islam Religion of Cannibals on May 28, 2013 at 4:20 pm

That’s just beautiful, Debbie.

DS_ROCKS! on May 28, 2013 at 4:23 pm

I swear I cannot understand what is going on in this country! Your reply though is “priceless”

Karen Jean-Reese on May 28, 2013 at 4:42 pm

I literally have tears in my eyes. That made my day. Thanks so much for sharing that one!

MarySJ on May 28, 2013 at 4:45 pm

Terrific DS, and I am so damn thankful that you called out this POS attorney that that Persian woman hired to defend her in court against Starbucks. My question is, did this dude acutally read the entire article word-for-word, or, was there a certain smear propaganda group in this country (I’m looking right at you Media Matters and SPLC) that linked that specific article to this lawyer and decided to bribe him with x-amounts of money to threaten you DS?

Debbie and Norman are both correct, this is why many folks in this country can’t stand attorney’s, this lawyer clearly gives attorney’s a bad image, even the good attorney’s such as Debbie herself (and Ann Coulter). My assumption is that, after that lawyer finished read that letter that Debbie sent to him, he’s not going to sue DS for anything.

And WTH did this guy get his law degree, from “Keith Olbermann State University of Law” or something?

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on May 28, 2013 at 4:55 pm

If she put vinegar in it was this a dry run to see if she would get away with it?

CH: Great minds think alike. I believe it was a dry run or the real thing. I don’t believe it was vinegar b/c several employees and customers smelled acetone/rubbing alcohol and it first tested positive for high levels of that. DS

Cathy H. on May 28, 2013 at 5:01 pm

You have to be cautious, Debbie. As a result of this letter, J. Peter Shearer, Esq. may file a defamation lawsuitof his own against you because you called him a “schmuck,” when he may assert that his conduct only rises to the level of a “schmendrik.”

Ralph Adamo on May 28, 2013 at 5:02 pm

Your comment that you will complain to the state bar of california if you hear from him again is going too far. That is extortion, a felony. Though I otherwise agree with your statements, that one may be problematic. Be careful about such threats.

donald Roberts on May 28, 2013 at 5:32 pm

What will be next? A campaign to restore her job at Starbucks? A suit against Starbucks when they don’t hire her back? A suit against customers who don’t want to go into a store where she is working? The law hasn’t quite regressed to that state yet, but it is descending fast.

If there is ever an enlightened age in the future, they will be writing books about the decline of the law in the United States in the last 100 years.

Little Al on May 28, 2013 at 5:44 pm

And why, Mr. Roberts (Shearer?) is this extortion and/or a felony? What is your reasoning and support for such a statement?

Little Al on May 28, 2013 at 5:46 pm

Nod to Norman F. This really is why so many people hate lawyers. I’d love to see that lawyer willingly drink a bottle of the accused spiked juice. Just absurd the absence of morals and standards of some sub humans.
I’d like to see the b—– willingly live in a home right next door to some of the female jihadi family as well. That would be considered cruel and unusual. What a limp wrist that piece of human fecal matter is.

samurai on May 28, 2013 at 5:51 pm

Hell yeah! Ya just gotta love
DS, unless you are a pos.

Robert on May 28, 2013 at 5:53 pm

Ha ha, your response is hilarious! I would love to know if he responds to your letter or runs away with his tail between his legs. What the heck could he possibly say without looking like a complete doofus? Romi has probably already fired him! She is probably sitting at home with steam coming out of her ears! Bite me Romi! Awesome job as usual Debbie!

Lars on May 28, 2013 at 5:57 pm

It is an ethical violation to threaten criminal action to gain advantage in a civil action. To my knowledge a complaint to the state bar is not considered a criminal action. The state bar does not impose fines or imprisonments. The examples were always actions which were titled “People vs [named individual].

Windy Wilson on May 28, 2013 at 6:32 pm

Debbie,

Great response! Yes, most people have no shame. The attitude in this country is get away with what you can, while you can until someone stands up to you. With thanks to Norman F, this is the problem with lawyers.
Lawyers don’t practice justice, the practice the law and they don’t practice the law, THEY TWIST IT!

Now……….

Speaking of Chutzpah, I would be tempted take the letter that was received and save it until I ran out of toilet paper. I would use his letter for such purposes and return it to him with postage due.

Yes, Yes, I know it’s crude and vulgar but I believe in fighting fire with fire or crap with crap if you will.

Peter on May 28, 2013 at 6:43 pm

Vinegar and Isopropyl alcohol should have been easy to differentiate by smell, let alone from chemical testing. The Hazardous materials personnel from the San Jose Fire Department tested the liquid on site to ascertain what the foreign substance was. A portable spectrometer confirmed that the substance contained within the contaminated juice was isopropyl alcohol, not vinegar. According to Captain Cleo Doss of the San Jose Fire Department, “It was significant enough to be seriously harmful. I can’t say it will cause death, but it’s a possibility,” reported the Contra Costa Times.

Moreover, on site witnesses said that the drinks had the smell of alcohol or acetone. Nobody said the drinks smelled like vinegar. And I’m sure that just about everyone at Starbucks has had salads with dressing made with vinegar, and would readily be able to distinguish a vinegar smell from the more “chemical”-like alcohol or acetone smells.

The new story is that vinegar, not isopropyl alcohol, was the purported additive to the Starbucks drinks. And if that were not enough, we’re hearing that the smell might have been fermentation of the drink, not vinegar. Ridiculous.

What do I conclude from all of this? I conclude that the chain of custody was screwed-up and the evidence was contaminated by those handling the evidence, rendering it useless for prosecution purposes. Botching the chain of custody is a common police issue, and contrary to those CSI TV shows, too often incompetent police people handle the evidence, not highly experienced forensic professionals. Will the media delve into how alcohol could have been “transformed” into vinegar, who handled the evidence, and what did the toxicology reports reveal? Don’t bet on it.

Ralph Adamo on May 28, 2013 at 6:52 pm

Speaking of libel suits, for some reason I am reminded of this important libel allegation case more than a decade ago……

Holocaust Denial and the 2000 Libel Trial in the U.K.

In 1993, Dr. Deborah Lipstadt wrote Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory to expose the lies, distortions, and political agendas that drive Holocaust denial. In the book, she discussed a number of specific Holocaust deniers including David Irving who she called a “dangerous spokesperson” for Holocaust denial.

In 1996, Irving sued Dr. Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin Books Ltd., for libel, saying his reputation as an historian was defamed. The suit was filed in the U.K., where libel laws favor plaintiffs. Irving represented himself. Dr. Lipstadt was represented by barrister Richard Rampton, Q.C. and Anthony Julius and James Libson of Mishcon de Reya. The trial started on January 11, 2000 and ended on April 11, 2000 when Judge Charles Gray handed down his judgment: Dr. Lipstadt and Penguin had won their case resoundingly.

Judge Gray found that Irving had “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence” in order to portray Hitler “in an unwarrantedly favourable light” particularly in his treatment of the Jews. Irving had “significantly” misrepresented, misconstrued, omitted, mistranslated, misread and applied double standards to the historical evidence in order to achieve his ideological presentation of history. Judge Gray also found that Irving was an “active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.”

The trial and the verdict made headlines around the world.

Ralph Adamo on May 28, 2013 at 7:17 pm

Speaking of libel suits, for some reason I am reminded of this important libel allegation case more than a decade ago……

Holocaust Denial and the 2000 Libel Trial in the U.K.

In 1993, Dr. Deborah Lipstadt wrote Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory to expose the lies, distortions, and political agendas that drive Holocaust denial. In the book, she discussed a number of specific Holocaust deniers including David Irving who she called a “dangerous spokesperson” for Holocaust denial.

In 1996, Irving sued Dr. Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin Books Ltd., for libel, saying his reputation as an historian was defamed. The suit was filed in the U.K., where libel laws favor plaintiffs. Irving represented himself. Dr. Lipstadt was represented by barrister Richard Rampton, Q.C. and Anthony Julius and James Libson of Mishcon de Reya. The trial started on January 11, 2000 and ended on April 11, 2000 when Judge Charles Gray handed down his judgment: Dr. Lipstadt and Penguin had won their case resoundingly.

Judge Gray found that Irving had “for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence” in order to portray Hitler “in an unwarrantedly favourable light” particularly in his treatment of the Jews. Irving had “significantly” misrepresented, misconstrued, omitted, mistranslated, misread and applied double standards to the historical evidence in order to achieve his ideological presentation of history. Judge Gray also found that Irving was an “active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.”

The trial and the verdict made headlines around the world.

http://www.hdot.org/trial

Ralph Adamo on May 28, 2013 at 7:18 pm

Latest news I could find … http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/05/24/no-charges-for-woman-in-san-jose-starbucks-alleged-poisoning-case/

Dale Zalaoras on May 28, 2013 at 8:11 pm

Debbie, great response. Thank you for sharing it. I have been enjoying your blog for quite a while. I like your style.

Jack Rackim on May 28, 2013 at 8:25 pm

BWAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!! Debbie, I love you. In all my years of being a legal assistant, I never had the pleasure of being asked to type such a letter. Too bad, because if I were your secretary, it would have been an honor.

You go get ‘im, and don’t back down from this Peterpulling Sheepshearer.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on May 28, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Excellent response, Debbie. In addition, I_AM_ME’s own email, also posted here on May 28, 2013 at 2:59 pm is also excellent. After seeing even only Debbie’s response, let alone also I_AM_ME’s email, I would be very surprised if Debbie hears back from either the “Schmuck at Law” lawyer or his client. The reason why I say this is because–in light of I_AM_ME’s challenge–if Debbie does hear back from either one of or both of these two clowns, I would be expecting that the lawyer’s response would include his saying that, yes, he did drink one of the bottles that his failed jihadist client placed at Starbucks and survived and would be willing to do it again in front of Debbie. Which means, that Debbie has heard the last of those two a$$clowns.

JeffE on May 28, 2013 at 9:16 pm

sorry that you have to deal with such crap.

thanks for fighting.

regards

General P. Malaise on May 28, 2013 at 9:28 pm

How could later tests not determine alcohol if customers could smell it?
How does that work?
Guess we’ll just have to wait till she gets her act together and learns how to poison people properly.
Wacko bird world.

Zarus on May 28, 2013 at 9:34 pm

When they are later “tests.” In other words, when a few people got behind closed doors, and decided to change the results of those “tests.” There were no later tests, just a wink and a nod. And when some third party investigator tries to get hold of those samples to run their own tests, they’ll be told that the evidence “mysteriously disappeared.”

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on May 28, 2013 at 9:48 pm

Most likely the police screwed up the chain of evidence or labs screwed up doing the tests. Worse could be she has a friend or fellow muslim in the lab who did it on purpose.

It can happen. Their was a case in New Mexico where a woman claimed an exboyfriend was the father of her child. The man argued their was no child. The court demanded a DNA test. He was the father. He continued to deny it, while paying child support and demanding she bring the child to court. After 5 years he finally got a judge to listen and force the woman to bring the child to court. She was late but brought the child. The child’s grandmother showed up with the court guards a minute later. Turns out the woman stole the child from the bus stop outside the court house. Their was no child, she just had a new boyfriend that worked at the lab that did the DNA test.

ender on May 28, 2013 at 10:28 pm

Personally, I would not have even dignified that letter with a response. Bear in mind, however, that the South Bay is the Mexico/Middle East capital of the United States where they ban American students from wearing the American flag on Cino de Mayo and let students carry knifes because it is part of their religion.

The stench on the bench will make you clench in this state. This lawyer is a collaborator plain an simple; and a cause of action for defamation should be taken seriously. Remember, this is a state where they awarded damages to burglars that received injuries while they broke in and ripped off businesses.

AR on May 28, 2013 at 11:11 pm

Debbie, your response to scum mouthpiece makes me wish you had the time/inclination to write courtroom dramas. That was one brilliant letter…

Shalom

Nir Lieu on May 28, 2013 at 11:23 pm

This attorney Shearer reminds me of a classic joke. So, attorneys out there, including Debbie, please don’t take offense……

A man is sitting at his stool at the local bar, complaining to the bartender. “I can’t stand lawyers,” the man says. “I was driving my car and stopping at a light, but before I could come to a full stop, I just barely tapped the car in front of me.”

“So what happened?” asked the bartender.

“The guy in the other car was a lawyer, and he sued me for $120,000, claiming whiplash, loss of consortium, and some other stuff that I didn’t understand, and he won,” the man complained.

“Wow, that’s terrible, but I wouldn’t hold that against all lawyers,” said the bartender.

“Oh yeah?” “Later that same month, I got divorced, and my lawyer ripped me off for $85,000, and I had to pay for my wife’s lawyer too, and she charged me $130,000!”

“Ouch!” the bartender said, sympathetically. “I suppose there’s more?”

“You bet!” I got audited by the IRS and they threatened to put a lien on my bank account if I didn’t pay them $20,000. I hired a lawyer to defend me and he negotiated a $5,000 settlement.”

“Wow, that’s great. That sounds like the lawyer really did a great job for you that time,” commented the bartender.

“Not really. My bill for his services was $15,000,” complained the man.” The man then got up from his stool and yelled out “All lawyers are assholes!”

But someone in the back of bar yells back, “Hey I take offense to that!”

The man, a little embarrassed, figuring he might get sued again somehow, says, “I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to offend you. Are you a lawyer?” he asks sheepishly.

“No,” the man at the back of the bar says, “I’m an asshole!”

Ralph Adamo on May 28, 2013 at 11:24 pm

Any evidence to be tested by spectrometer must be stored in a glass or metal receptacle. The alcohol to be tested for is a petroleum product. Plastic containers are a petroleum product. Most orange juice containers are plastic. If they stored the item in its original container (plastic) as is customary to not manipulate evidence and leave it in its original state, they would have screwed up. They only would have known of the interference issue, if they were trained in arson/suspicious fire investigation.

Did they make a mistake- probably.
Is it their fault- probably not. Nobody can know everything.

westward wanderer on May 28, 2013 at 11:35 pm

I know this much. As Debbie says . . .

This.Is.Islam

Denigration
Obfuscation
Accusation
Obliteration

“Ball Of Confusion, that’s what the world is today.” – The Temptations, 1970

As it was then, so it is now.

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on May 28, 2013 at 11:53 pm

The best laugh of the day.

Keep up the good work Debbie.

Bob Smith on May 29, 2013 at 2:21 am

Brava, Debbie!

Chavie on May 29, 2013 at 9:12 am

Outstanding!! My first email of the day and simply outstanding!!

CG on May 29, 2013 at 9:35 am

You Go Girl!

Pete on May 29, 2013 at 9:38 am

G-d bless you Debbie.What a wonderful response.What I loved about it was that it contained none of the legal double talk and purposeful obfuscations used by lawyers but good, honest down to earth language understood by everyone….even lawyers. The word schmuck described that attorney wonderfully.

Jerry G on May 29, 2013 at 9:56 am

A local attorney in Tampa has a promo ad in which he poses the following question – more or less:

IF YOU ARE AT THE BEACH AND SEE AN ATTORNEY BURIED UP TO HIS NECK IN SAND, WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

ANSWER: GET MORE SAND!

I wonder if Mr. Shearer has been to a Florida beach lately to tempt the Fates and test the kind hearts of Floridians as to what their answers would be if he were found up to his neck in sand??? You’d be quite surprised how the winds and beach surge can really pile the sand around you when least expected.

Debbie, continue to keep your Floridian readers informed.

Dennis on May 29, 2013 at 9:59 am

Who paid Shearer’s fee?

lexi on May 29, 2013 at 10:25 am

There are two items here. I happen to be a chemist Mam. Rubbing alcohol will not only poison, it will cause mental deterioration and eventually total loss of mental power. Acetone is one of the lethal components that could be found in a blood stream. I am totally perplexed about the official statement that they could not determine the existence of the two items. Gas Chromatography can detect them clearly and quantize them. Who ever said he can’t do that is either totally ignorant or a liar.

G. R. Scharoubim on May 29, 2013 at 10:29 am

And to think caramel colored rubbing alcohol was recently found in some bottles at New Jersey bars. I’m so glad I’ve been so antisocial all my life, and don’t go out to eat or drink. And I don’t drink very much at all. Rubbing alcohol. UGH!!!

Alfredo from Puerto Rico on May 29, 2013 at 10:39 am

A California attorney threatening a Detroit area attorney? Now, that’s funny.

Go, Debbie!

Pray Hard on May 29, 2013 at 10:41 am