Should you hire Eyecon Investigations?
Addressing Anthony Esparza of, IIRC, Eyecon Investigations:
1. On Sunday, July 29, I noticed three visitors from Palo Alto Networks,
one to each of the domains associated with this site, each from a
display that was supposedly 800x600.
I.e. a Bing search for the single word “amazon”. That
does seem slightly odd. Additionally, the 800x600 lines up with
earlier visits from, of all places, China.
The IPV4, FWIW, geolocated to the middle of nowhere. But none of
this is important. It's just a mildly interesting note.
2. Did you know that you've misspelled the word
“primarily” right at the start of your LinkedIn profile.
WTH. How did you not notice that for years?
3. As a separate note... you're a life coach? Seriously? I mean, all
kidding aside, I don't
think you've got any business hanging out that shingle. We're
going to need to look at license issues there, too, in due
4. I proceeded in good faith, Anthony. Your remarks related to your
lack of obligations were straw-man. You didn't even tell me that
you didn't wish to speak.
And you owed me an explanation of what you were talking about when
you suggested that something had turned up in connection with my
I had no idea of what that was about. That possibility didn't even
occur to you. You may have a license, but you're incompetent in
More importantly, your wild-eyed ravings about “FBI”
“vast resources” weren't simply uncalled-for, they
were most likely a prosecutable crime.
Those ravings are in writing. There is nothing that you can do
about that. They will go here in due course where your “FBI”
friends as well as the residents of the SLO area will able to read
Addressing the general public:
1. This site has just been launched. It'll probably end up as the
business review portion of a larger collection of sites.
2. I was threatened recently by an SLO-area investigator who
he had “vast resources” with which to hurt people and
FBI agent friends who had his “back” and would silence
people at his bidding.
The threats are in text and so there is little room to contest
what was said.
3. As I was threatened, and as the threats were arguably prosecutable
crimes, legitimate and reasonable purposes related to documentation
of the matter and of this person, Anthony Esparza of Eyecon
4. Anthony has made, in addition to threats, statements or indications
related to the facts that are entirely false. I assert the right to
advise the general public of my experience with Anthony and to
address the false statements or indications.
The right to use the first two domain names is hereby asserted
under nominative use and/or similar principles which apply in the
Eyecon isn't going to be allocated the entire
unprofessional.services domain. The domain will probably evolve
into a general review site and Eyecon will most likely end up
with a subdomain.
6. Anthony has the right to his own say, though he's lied through
his teeth so far. His story may be obtained from him at:
His email address is: Anthony Esparza <email@example.com>
His LinkedIn can be accessed through the following human
7. The context for Anthony's regrettable and hopefully brief
involvement in my life has to do with the Kiraly Gag Order Cases.
We'll come back to the subject, but, in short, it's related to
a wealthy SLO-area wife-beater, Jim Kiraly, who tried to extort
my signature on a
gag order and smashed my life in the process.
Anthony expressed interest in helping me to confirm Jim's location.
Then he (Anthony) texted me and asked me to explain why I wasn't
using my real name.
This made no sense. I asked Anthony to
explain and he didn't respond.
He ignored further communications
until I realized that he was ignoring me. I demanded an explanation.
I made no demand at all that he work for me.
This part is in text. Anthony Esparza will not be able to contest
what was said.
Anthony responded and said that he had no obligation to work for me.
Which wasn't the point. It was *sshole behavior to make an
unsettling comment about my name, refuse to explain, and disappear
without telling me that he was terminating discussion.
The last part is unacceptable. If people don't wish to speak
with me, they're going to tell me. They're not allowed
to say, “He should have known that I was ignoring him”.
They're also not going to issue high and mighty threats and tell
me that I'm not allowed to respond.
F*ck that. And, actually, it appears that my neurology and my
own “resources” are such that, in a legitimate and
reasonable sense that is protected under U.S. laws,
I'm able to do exactly that.
I make it a priority to do so.
8. My feelings about
this sort of thing date back to Court cases that ran for a full
year, 2012 to 2013.
It's an interesting story. The Plaintiffs spent
perhaps $100K to $250K trying to force me to sign a gag order.
They failed. For the attorneys
in the audience, there was no Court-backed settlement. I made the b*tches
sign a non-settlement document in which I promised to discuss them
publicly for the rest of their lives.
I even slipped multiple loopholes
for myself into the document. Opposing Counsel didn't try to stop
me. He really didn't want the cases to continue.
The other side spent six figures for
nothing. I wasn't present at the signing,
but it makes me smile to imagine the scene.
But the cases cost me everything in what is now old age.
Everything but my ability to defend myself. Which is where the next
steps in this situation come in.
9. Anthony Esparza
threw in threats to use FBI agents who had his “back”
as well as his own “vast resources” to harm me.
This was all without cause, arguably a prosecutable crime, and
that will be discussed with the relevant State-level licensing
criminal shouldn't be allowed to have a P.I. license.
Whether or not Anthony retains a license, a noticeable fraction
of the population of the SLO
area, in particular those who might seek to hire P.I.s in the future,
are going to hear about Mr. Esparza's behavior.
10. Attorneys are welcome to correspond. They should be advised that
I consider most attorneys to be a nutritious breakfast and
crunchy in milk, including but not limited to those attorneys who
charge $450 per hour and up and boast of speaking before State
11. Phone numbers of attorneys I've dealt with in the past, including
the Supreme Court type, will be provided on request. New attorneys
are invited to phone them.
Actually, call CyberCoders and ask them how Rebecca and David, if
I remember the names correctly, are doing.
Rebecca was General
Counsel or some such title. I talked to her when CyberCoders
committed age discrimination against me. She threatened me, I
noted that she'd slipped up on something significant and that
the State Bar had told me she'd most likely be prosecuted as
opposed to disciplined.
It was just a misdemeanor, probably
not even County Jail, but, still.
She went *poof*. She was gone. I located her and asked,
“What's the matter?”
But she didn't want to talk.
David, her replacement, came from a 37-office law firm. He was
rather pompous. He went *poof*, too.
I'm not sure why. I
did note that he'd committed what might be a prosecutable crime
within minutes of arriving. But, still. Most attorneys are casual
about that. They assume that civilians won't notice such things
or don't care if they do.