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.

Nothing too unusual so far. But the referrer string, in each case, was:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=amazon

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 course.

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 name.

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 some respects.

More importantly, your wild-eyed ravings about “FBI” friends and “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 them.

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 suggested that 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 Investigations, exist.

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.

5. Watch this space for additions most likely to be made in or possibly by the 4th quarter of 2018. Domains are expected to include:

https://anthonyesparza.com

https://eyeconpi.com

https://unprofessional.services

Both http and https protocols should work. BTW This site recommends Let's Encrypt to those in need of SSL certs.

The right to use the first two domain names is hereby asserted under nominative use and/or similar principles which apply in the current situation.

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:

(805) 680-0754

His email address is: Anthony Esparza <eyeon7@earthlink.net>

His LinkedIn can be accessed through the following human readable shortcut:

https://haggishell.com/esparza/linkedin/

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 certainly behavior that will be discussed with the relevant State-level licensing people. A 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 Supreme Courts.

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.