Attorney Brinckerhoff insists in his communications with caught.net that he is an honorable lawyer and never did anything wrong in the Conboy case. Attorney Brinckerhoff also believes caught.net does a serious disservice to society.

Reported Legal Misconduct and Civil Rights and Ethics Violations Committed By Attorney Nelson Brinckerhoff In Rhode Island Courts
#2765

Complaint One:  One of the purposes of caught.net is to inform the public of the effectiveness of lawyers, as experienced by the public, so they can have some idea before they hire a lawyer what to expect.  Citizen Mark Conboy states the following regarding Atty. Brinckerhoff whom he had hired in a divorce matter.   Reasons I, Mark Conboy, feel Atty. Nelson Brinckerhoff is an incompetent lawyer:
1.  Dishonesty:   I lost trust in Atty. Nelson Brinckerhoff after he told me my ex signed an agreement for the sale of our home. The agreement was for a 50/50 split of the sale even though I owned the home before we were married.  My ex-wife wanted 100%.  I had no reason to sell a home which I earned and owned for 0%.  I specifically asked Atty. Brinckerhoff if he had this agreement signed by my ex and in his hands.  Atty. Brinckerhoff lied to me and said yes because he felt this would happen shortly and I needed an answer for the interested buyers. This lead to Atty. Brinckerhoff instructing me to proceed with the sale of the house.  My ex backed out of the agreement as soon as the sale was a done deal.  By not telling me the full story in this instance, Atty. Brinckerhoff's dishonesty cost me thousands of dollars.

2.  Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel:  Atty. Nelson Brinckerhoff has stage fright when arguing in court.  This results in poor communication and ineffective arguments.  I never found this out until I was in the trial and it was too late to switch attorneys.  Atty. Brinckerhoff stutters and is very passive.  Atty. Brinckerhoff's  nervousness and nervous habits resulted in him irritating the judge.  The bailiff was instructed by the judge to take away Atty. Brinckerhoff's pen while he was speaking because Atty. Brinckerhoff repeatedly clicks it while talking.  This happened on more than one occasion and the judge made this part of the record.   Sincerely, Mark Conboy.   Read Mark Conboy's complaint and the 2008 response from Atty. Brinckerhoff on the same page.

Read the rest of this page very carefully and ask yourself if Atty. Brinckerhoff sounds like a rational, well-balanced person. Yet, this is an attorney who stated he has been used by the Rhode Island Supreme Court Disciplinary Council to assist in investigating wrong doing of other attorneys!

In January of 2008 Atty. Brinckerhoff complained to caught.net regarding the above complaint. He was informed he could submit a rebuttal and it would be published and posted conspicuously. He submitted a rebuttal and caught.net posted it conspicuously on this page, Conboy's page and the main page of caught.net. This wasn't enough for Atty. Brinckerhoff and he has continued to harass and threaten caught.net since. Following are emails from Atty. Brinckerhoff.

Email 1 at the beginning of January 2008: how does someone respond to your site? It is good at throwing mud.

This email was ignored because it didn't indicate who they were or what they wanted to respond to. A second request came in a week later demanding to know why the first email wasn't answered. This time Atty. Brinckerhoff gave his name so caught.net could figure out what they were saying and referring to and requested Atty. Brinckerhoff submit a rebuttal for publishing. Caught.net received the rebuttal and responded:
"This response will be posted in it's entirety on the page within the next few days. Caught.net is a 100% volunteer effort and receives little to no funds for anything they do. Let the Disciplinary council open their files so the public can see what the complaints are that are filed against attorneys and we will disappear tomorrow. Otherwise, the public needs some means of finding out about lawyers before they shell out what, for most of them, is everything they have. If I were you, I would have left out the line about lawyering being an honorable profession. I am in complete agreement that it is SUPPOSED to be an honorable profession. But say that line anywhere today and it will be received with an outburst of laughter. Thank God for the honorable lawyer! If you are one, I applaud you. However, keep in mind, caught.net is a CITIZEN'S forum for those that believe they have experienced legal misconduct. If you think the site is just about mud slinging - you should see what we do not publish. Sincerely, caught.net." Atty. Brinckerhoff's rebuttal was published and noted conspicuously in 3 areas of the website.

Atty. Brinckerhoff responded in Email 1 of 1-14-2008: Respectfully, Your site is seriously flawed if you unilaterally publish supposed complaints without input from the lawyer. Your title to my listing is prejudicial and biased. You do a disservice to the public, or as far as I am concerned, to me. I stand behind everything I did in the Conboy case so thank you very much for your slanted, untrue, biased and prejudicial input. I hope you feel as confident about what you do as I did in this case.
And FYI, lawyering "IS" an honorable profession. People come to me just like in any other profession who want help. I help them. I'm sure that whatever your profession is that you help someone in whatever you do. I have, of course, seen what I consider dishonorable conduct. You have to realize that lawyering inherently involves knocking heads against the other lawyer who was hired by the opposing party to represent them and maybe undo what you are trying to accomplish. It involves conflict, which usually doesn't make everyone happy. It can be very frustrating work for client and lawyer, but that is what we do. The reason Disciplinary files might not be open to the public is to avoid the harm from libel that an unregulated site like yours unleashes from the Conboys of the world.
Who elected you or your site Chief Prosecutor, based mostly on the rantings of disgruntled legal clients? You are really playing God, although no one appointed or elected you. You seem to have an ax to grind against lawyers. I have done my level best to help my clients. I don't always win, but I do resent a forum that allows mud to be slung by disgruntled clients who don't listen to my advice, get burned, and then blame the lawyer.
I hope if you don't remove my name from your site, that you at least make it clear that NO disciplinary action was ever either begun or taken against me ever and not in regard to Conboy. I take pride in being a lawyer and resent your aspersions to the contrary. We can all enjoy lawyer jokes, but lawyers exist for a very valid and helpful reason. Why does your site exist, Mr. unelected Chief Prosecutor?
Why don't you disclose why you hate lawyers?? Your thoughts are welcome as to why you publish unilateral charges. Your site is a disservice to the public. Your site is not a citizen's site, it is your site. You may publish this also, with your prior letter below. Please remove my entry from your site. Nelson Brinckerhoff, Esquire Jan. 14, 2008

Email 1 of 1-14-2008: To caught.net: I am going to contact you on a daily basis until you remove my name from your site. I do not care to be judged by you just because you hate lawyers. I might hate what you do for a living, besides this impertinent site, but I'm not throwing mud at you or your profession. Take my name off your site. I stand by everything I did in the Conboy case. Who in God's name are you to judge others? Think about it. Nelson Brinckerhoff

Atty. Brinckerhoff started a continuous barrage of bizarre emails and threats of daily harassment to caught.net. He was also demanding to know the names of everyone involved with caught.net.

Caught.net is a COLLABORATIVE website with aggrieved Citizens being the editors and complaints being submitted mostly from Rhode Island but also from all over the country. While the nature of the site demands the use of oversight on submissions, the site is designed to perpetuate itself like a "MySpace" without the site being identified with a group or individuals. Caught.net is set up similar to 12 step programs in the sense that it is not about who is running or hosting it or who is screening complaints. Caught.net is about the CAUSE of exposing injustice in it's various forms. This protects the purpose of the site similar to the principal of anonymity in 12 step programs. As a result, caught.net can remain focused on the cause of exposing injustice without being affected, negated or destroyed by individuals, groups, politics or anything else.

Atty. Brinckerhoff appeared mentally and emotionally incapable of understanding this and other issues caught.net must deal with. In response, caught.net sent the following to Atty. Brinckerhoff:
All those involved with caught.net are kept as confidential as possible due to an ongoing investigation into death threats and other threats made against the website on a routine basis. So far the threats have been verified as coming from prison guards and lawyers. Caught is not making the complaints - the public is and it is their names that are exposed.
I am going to be very blunt - you are making a damn fool of yourself. I don't know if you are suffering age related decline or maybe you are a drunk. But you clearly are not thinking clearly. You have no concept of the rights we have in this country. A few of us met last night and this is what we discussed.
1. Filing a complaint with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Council regarding your threats to harass us through electronic media in an attempt to suppress free speech.
2. Going in for a restraining order to have any further harassment from you stopped.
3. ALL of your emails will be published at the top of your page [not Conboy's] so we can accommodate your concern about google searches.
4. ALL of the documents filed along with the results will also be published on your page on caught.net.
You haven't even read our purpose statement - we don't hate lawyers or judges. We are a website that exposes legal misconduct and abuses in the legal system. Our purpose is to improve the system - not destroy it. We believe in the rule of law and the Constitution. We have had contributors to caught.net that dwarf you in position and power in this state and will result in your further embarrassment once your unprofessional conduct is fully exposed. You had a client that wasn't happy with your service. He decided to complain so others could know. THAT IS HIS RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. You were given the opportunity to respond and this is permanently published so people can get both sides and make up their own minds.
You have proven yourself as not respecting the Constitution and you operate through intimidation and threats. You have proven yourself as dishonorable in your contacts with us. And now, the public will know.
Now do what you need to do to straighten yourself out. You are corrupt and have strayed off the path. Sincerely, caught.net. Atty. Brinckerhoff responded:

Email 1 of 1-15-2008: TO THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ, hiding behind his curtain - I am going to be very blunt - you are making a damn fool of yourself. I don't know if you are suffering age related decline or maybe you are a drunk. But you clearly are not thinking clearly.
In regard to me, you said, "You had a client that wasn't happy with your service. He decided to complain so others could know." Conboy may be an idiot, but Caught.net is determined to give every idiot a platform, and Caught.net stands behind its idiots.
You have proven yourself as dishonorable in your contacts with me. Now do what you need to do to straighten yourself out. You are corrupt and have strayed off the path. Nelson Brinckerhoff

Email 2 of 1-15-2008: I did not engage in legal misconduct or abuses, can't you get that straight? I would do the same today that I did with Conboy many years ago.
This is your admitted reason for listing me: "You had a client that wasn't happy with your service. He decided to complain so others could know." He is the one who came out with the short end of the stick in the divorce because he did not listen to me and because of the facts of his marriage. Your publishing such unilateral allegations is irresponsible and disservice to your supposed goal and not related to the merits of the claim.
You are a cowardly fellow for doing what you do. Continue to hide behind the curtain, Oz. All you do in my case is allow a deranged, unhappy man to find a scapegoat, because you hate lawyers. Why don't you tell the public why you are on this vendetta?
You may publish this, Oz. Nelson F. Brinckerhoff.

Caught.net asked Atty. Brinckerhoff if he would like his name removed from the main page of caught.net and he responded: Email 3 of 1-15-2008: No, I want my name removed from your entire site. I resent your site acting like God on my case with Conboy. As I said I would not have done anything differently in his case. You obviously hate lawyers in general and will do whatever you can do to besmirch all lawyers. You unilaterally put Conboy's rantings on there with no verification, and now with my response still persist in keeping his diatribe up there. Plus, you hide any response at the end of not what comes up on Google about me with your biased titling, but at the end of his second article with footnotes from God. Who is really interested in reading all his rantings, but to get to my defense, you have to go through all his nonsense.
You act like his divorce is some news, Perry White. He got a divorce and didn't listen to his lawyer, and did poorly as a result. Now, you put me up there in your headlines with cases that actually made the Providence Journal and act like anyone is interested in God's new revelations from on high - Caught.net. I'm the only one who cares.
You do a disservice to me, yourself and the public with your apparent lack of any standards. Think about it. Do you want to know why there is a disciplinary counsel for the bar association? To avoid all the problems someone who thinks he's God can cause for professionals. They punish those who are found at fault. As far as I know, Conboy never even called that office. I never received a call of inquiry from them at which point I would have defended myself and the case would have been dismissed after a BILATERAL investigation.
But we all know you are smarter than the rest of us - Mr. Caught.net. Get A life and stop doing harm to others, or at least me. Why don't you tell me what your full name is, instead of acting like "the Great Oz" behind a curtain - the great and powerful Mr. Caught.net? I expect you to totally remove my name from your site. I was not "caught," as you think. I was just thrown mud at. Please print this if you like, but keep my name out of it, Mr. Oz. Caught.net Note: What possible purpose would be served by publishing this email without knowledge of who sent it?

Email 4 of 1-15-2008"List Of Legal Misconduct Prosecutorial misconduct and Ethics Violations Committed By Rhode Island Lawyers"
Dear Great Oz,
Please tell me how I have "committed" any of the above, even reading Mr. Conboy's diatribe? You seem to be the type of person that believes anything he reads as long as it makes lawyers "laughable," as you like to say in your impartial manner. Your sight is a presumptuous pile of garbage in so far as your coverage of me. I don't care to read any of the rest.
Please remove me from your site, OZ. Or at least tell me what your real name is behind the curtain. You know why I call you that, don't you. As least the disciplinary counsel has the balls to say who he is. You don't. You like throwing mud over the curtain, Oz. Come on, act like a man.
You have to realize how unfair your site it. Do you care? Or do you want to just vent your hatred of lawyers in general. Well, I am not a lawyer in general. I stand behind everything I did in the Conboy case. Can you say the same about what you do to people from your veiled, poor quality controlled site? Come on, act like a man. Please remove me from your site. You can publish this. I dare you, O Great OZ. Nelson Brinckerhoff

Email 1 of 1-16-2008: A list of reported ethics violations committed by Atty. Nelson F. Brinckerhoff in Rhode Island courts. Secret complaints now public! Wow, Oz. I wish I could be as wiz-bang as you. Very clever with the "!" I never would have thunk it. Why don't you just say unverified mud is slung here? Why don't you answer any of my questions, Ozzie? Are you afraid of the truth, that you're as big a sham as the real OZ, but you're not even a real Oz. Just some nut who likes to feel important.

Email 2 of 1-16-2008: And while we're at it, isn't "reported" just as misleading as "ethics" and "violation". "Reported" as listed means reported to the kangaroo court - caught.net - or should it mean to someone who means something, or anything, who has some standards. You don't.
I ask a lot of questions and get no answers from OZ behind the curtain. My only response is and get accused of being senile or a drunk. I don't think you like my questions. Why don't you discuss this with you, yourself and you, and see what the majority thinks, Oz.
Take me off your despicable site or at least change the title so your site can at least approach some degree of reality. It is a piece of crap as it now stands because you have no standards and no policy or procedures that even try to find the truth that you accuse the disciplinary board of failing to find. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Why do you hate lawyers, Oz? What happened to turn you into an SOB/OZ? I'm curious.
Why don't you list yourself as you yourself (2 of your ids) having "reported ethical violations" for being such a smug know-it-all who enjoys slandering people unfairly. The shoe fits. That's a breach of ethics in my opinion. But then again you are the great Oz. Please consult with your triumvirate.
I hope you have a conscience.

Email 3 of 1-16-2008: I take back what I just said. I can live with the new title but not the old OZ title. I have no "ethics violations" so please remove that title. That title is still there. Tell me what "ethical violations" I have. Now remember in English, there are two words in that phrase: ethics violations. Please tell me what violations of ethics I have committed? You owe me that if you wish to slander me.Caught.net Note: Caught had not made any changes to the title

Email 4 of 1-16-2008: the titling, the placement of my rebuttal. It gives me a better opportunity to not feel like a condemned criminal who has done nothing wrong and be practically lynched by your site. I hope that is not your purpose.
I would still like it better if you removed me as I would do the same things for Conboy as I did then. You are not a lawyer. How dare you be judgmental. This was a difficult case. Conboy was evidently whacked out after he did not listen to my advice, took his chances with a trial, and because of the facts and their animosity did not do well.
You have done nothing but impugn me on your site without ever a fair hearing. But this is better since its slightly less than being in front of a firing squad. You need to review your procedures, because they stink in what you portrayed me as. I am proud of all my actions with Conboy. Caught.net Note: Again, Caught had not made any changes to the title

Email 5 of 1-16-2008: Your revision is better, but I still wish you'd remove me since I do not feel it is merited. Think about it. Thanks. Nelson  Caught.net Note: Caught had not made any revisions to the this complaint at all.

Email 6 of 1-16-2008: Dear Oz, Did you get your board together? What was the general feeling of me, myself and I (you, yourself and you)? I hope you had an enlightening discussion. Judge not unless you wish to be judged, but I doubt you believe that, Oz. What did some lawyer do to you? You probably did not listen to him like Conboy. Likes attract. Nelson Brinckerhoff

Email 7 of 1-16-2008: To Oz, king of Caught.net Land: You know I was not caught doing anything I wouldn't do again, but I caught "Oz" acting like a fool. Look behind the curtain in Oz (Caught.net Land) and your find a charlatan who thinks he's been elected to judge (I.e., to "catch") people. Talk about self-deception, Mr. Oz. All hail the Great Oz. Nelson Brinckerhoff

Email 8 of 1-16-2008: To You, yourself and You: Judge not lest ye be judged, OZ..What did a lawyer do to you?

At this point caught.net became concerned that the possibility existed we were not dealing with Atty. Brinckerhoff at all but some prankster or unstable individual. Caught.net never publishes anything with email addresses alone. Secondary documentation is always requested. We had made an exception to expedite Atty. Brinckerhoff's demands. So Atty. Brinckerhoff's response was pulled and secondary confirmation was requested to verify all this was coming from Atty. Brinckerhoff. Now Atty. Brinckerhoff complains because his response was taken off the site. Here is his 8am response:

Email 1 of 1-17-2008: To OZ, "A review of your emails leads us to believe your response and everything that followed is from a mentally unstable person or a prankster." quoted from your response. You've shown yourself to be a liar by taking my response off the site. You are too much, all three of you. Who are you? Call me if you wish to verify who I am. I'm in the phone book. I won't dignify your request with the waste of a stamp. Who else would be concerned with your libel? Of course, you wouldn't bother to ever research anything. Who else would know the facts of Conboy. You obviously don't understand English. The are no "reported" "ethics" "violations" except to the Quackcity Herald by clients who won't listen to their client. I would do the same in the Conboy case today.

An hour and a half later caught.net receives this from Atty. Brinckerhoff: Email 2 of 1-17-2008: OZ, I will send you a letter since you do not deign to do any research whatsoever. You should talk to your policy and procedures directorate and also your quality control department. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't have any of those departments. And stop using the pronoun "We" unless you mean you, yourself and you.

Atty. Brinckerhoff sends caught.net a venomous, insulting letter of confirmation dated 1-17-2008 to insure his rebuttal would be put back on caught.net. In this letter, Atty Brinckerhoff says, in essence, that he hopes caught.net publishes 'ALL his responses' that are critical of the site and favorable to his stand. In the same letter he had in bold letters, "Take me off your website."  Dispite Atty. Brinckerhoff's continued bizarre behavior, Caught.net republished Atty. Brinckerhoff's rebuttal.

Threat Number One:

Atty. Brinckerhoff hires a detective to find out who is currently overseeing caught.net and continues with threats. Personal information has been deleted from his email. Email 1 of 1-18-2008: Mr. *DELETED*, I will no longer call you Oz, as the detective I hired has found all about you. I will give you until Sunday at noon to completely remove my name from the internet site you run, or I will prepare a flyer listing in large letters Caught.Net, proprietor *DELETED* residing at *DELETED*, phone number *DELETED*, and listing all the other wonderful things I've found out about you.
I will post this [private information] on a colored flyer in all the state courthouses and also mail it to all parties listed on your site as a public service. I might additionally post on the internet this information so that as a public service people can find out all about the proprietor of Caught.net. This way the public then can "consider the source." I will do this in the public interest and in defense of the Constitution if you continue to list me on your site. You will then be able to enter into a more balanced discourse with the public. I want nothing more than you leave me alone and I will do the same to you. Take my name off your site! You've been Caught. your friend, Nelson Brinckerhoff

Threat Number Two

At this point the currently active overseer of caught.net called Atty. Brinckerhoff and was met with a barrage of insults and vulgarities. Atty. Brinckerhoff said he was aware caught.net had been threatened and hoped "nothing would happen" as a result of his upcoming expose. Atty. Brinckerhoff also made clear to caught.net's current overseer that he knew the color and type of house that he lived in. This was followed by streams of more insults and vulgarities resulting in Atty. Brinckerhoff hanging up the phone mid-sentence. In the same conversation Atty. Brinckerhoff flip-flops and asks if caught.net had received his confirmation letter so his rebuttal to the Conboy complaint could be posted on caught.net.

Here is caught.net's currently active overseer's final 1-19-2008 email to Atty. Brinckerhoff: "Someone that read about your harassment of caught.net gave me the name of a Detective today that specializes in these sorts of things. I am to tell you the following: You are forbidden from giving out ALL personal information about me in ANY form whatsoever. You are only authorized by me to give out the web address of caught.net and this must be without and completely unconnected to any personal information about me in any direct or indirect way. All further communications will be through the appropriate agencies. This is my final email."

Threat Number Three

After seeing caught.net was following thru with publishing the communications between Atty. Brinckerhoff and caught.net, Atty. Brinckerhoff repeats his threats. Email 1 of 1-19-2008: If you wish to stand by what you said you would do, I guess I have to stand by what I said I would do. This is my last communication also. You don't like your own medicine, hypocrite.

Threat Number Four

But it was NOT the last communication from Atty. Brinckerhoff. Email 1 of 1-21-2008:  First Atty. Brinckerhoff AGAIN listed all sorts of private information on Caught.net's currently active overseer and followed it with this:
A correspondence to many attorneys listing how they can contact you to try to correct the allegations in your articles about them, as per our many emails, will be sent out early tomorrow morning unless when I Google my name in the morning your listing for me is removed, as your allegations are untrue, biased and I was never consulted before your prejudicial article went on the internet libeling me. I have already entered their addresses and your contact information so it is ready to go.
I do this in the public service, maybe in your professed same spirit in recognition of free speech to give the public information about the quality of the disinformation on your site and your lack of ethics, and a real chance for your victims to respond in a meaningful manner on a level playing field: You know who they are. They know who you are. You could then more fairly discuss the issues as the RI Disciplinary Counsel does. Right now you are some insipid self-appointed pompous ass cowardly calling people names from the anonymity of the internet, just because originally you had a judge rule against you. Obviously to you, this is a sure sign of moral decay for all those who don't agree with you.
I realize that once I send this you have no incentive to remove my name. I have printed out the current January 20, 2008 entire Conboy file on Caught.net for my records in case you should try to change anything. However, you ought to add in all of your emails, and cut out your editorial comments which are symptomatic of your God-complex in withholding info, and in unilaterally concluding the meaning of everything from beginning to end.

---

Caught.net response:
Atty. Brinckerhoff seems mentally, intellectually and emotionally incapable of understanding the following:

• Mr. Conboy published a complaint about Atty. Brinckerhoff - NOT anyone directly or indirectly involved with caught.net
• Caught.net took the following action after receiving Atty. Brinckerhoff's rebuttal
  • published the rebuttal in its entirety on Citizen Conboy's page
  • put a link to the rebuttal at the top of Conboy's page so it is the first link one sees and one of the first things people see when accessing the page
  • put a special notice at the top of Atty. Brinckerhoff's page [see top of page] using special code so search engines would index Atty. Brinckerhoff's rebuttal against Mr. Conboy AND Atty. Brinckerhoff's criticism of caught.net before anything else. This would also insure that Atty. Brinckerhoff's rebuttal and criticism of caught.net would be the first thing read when accessing Atty. Brinckerhoff's page.
  • Notified Atty. Brinckerhoff that the rebuttal that he submitted to caught.net for publication was published.
  • Assured Atty. Brinckerhoff caught.net would revisit the issue in a month or so and try contacting Citizen Conboy to see if he wanted to remove his complaint.
• Caught.net never did and never would publish any personal information about Atty. Brinckerhoff. It is against caught.net's policy to publish any personal information of judges, lawyers or prosecutors. It is unnecessary and could expose or endanger them.
• Before Atty. Brinckerhoff's harassment, threats and attacks against caught.net his page was one of the least accessed on the entire site. In fact, it was left out of recent page upgrades due to it's low access rate. Since Atty. Brinckerhoff's shenanigans, he has had over 300 hits in a week.
• Atty. Brinckerhoff is well informed that caught.net is a COLLABORATIVE website. Any Citizen of the United States could be the current caught.net overseer and much of the time more than one person is handling the various tasks of the website. ANYONE wishing to publish a rebuttal on caught.net can do so by clicking the multitude of email links that will be automatically forwarded to the appropriate person(s) for handling. The public release of all sorts of personal information regarding caught.net's founder is completely unnecessary since anyone can get a rebuttal on the website using the plentiful links on the site. It has been this way for 13 years. Atty. Brinckerhoff's clear intent is to harass, threaten and intimidate one individual and compromise an already ongoing investigation into serious threats already made against one individual who was the founder of caught.net 13 years ago
• Atty. Brinckerhoff is schizophrenic regarding his demands. He submits both an email and personal letter of rebuttal to caught.net for publication and then demands complete removal from the website. Now he threatens to contact countless people on the site so they may also submit rebuttals for publication. Ignoring for a moment the dangerous release of personal information repeatedly threatened by Atty. Brinckerhoff, having lawyers submit rebuttals would be a tremendous help to caught.net as caught.net has no budget at all and is a 100% volunteer effort with a serious backlog of unpublished complaints. Caught.net has tried to get rebuttals for years and received nothing but threats, hang-ups and vulgarities when contacting lawyers about complaints on caught.net
• The fact Atty. Brinckerhoff could just tell people about caught.net and the fact they can publish rebuttals by submitting them through the plethora of links on the site isn't enough for Atty. Brinckerhoff. Atty. Brinckerhoff seeks to publish home addresses, phone numbers and other totally unrelated personal information to damage, threaten and endanger caught.net's founder.
• Also note in this latest communication from Atty. Brinckerhoff that he now demands that, with one exception, caught.net change NOTHING on Conboy's page and suggests that caught.net actually ADD MATERIAL TO THE PAGE!
• Atty. Brinckerhoff ignorantly demands overnight removal from all internet search engines. No one controls the robots that index the internet. Search engines are a law unto themselves. Even if one deletes a page entirely, it could take months or longer to be removed from the multi-level, extremely complicated internet search engine networks.
• Atty. Brinckerhoff in his communications and his phone conversation continuously attacks Caught.net's founder's religious beliefs with a plethora of religious insults and innuendo.

Threat Number Five

Caught.net received another diatribe from Atty. Brinckerhoff on 1-21-08 too repetitive and venomous to reproduce here. Atty. Brinckerhoff intensified his threats above and beyond his present threats by stating, "I will soon also seek other forms of exposure and feedback."

Threat Number Six

Caught.net received ANOTHER diatribe from Atty. Brinckerhoff now DEMANDING that we publish his emails.  Email 1 of 1-22-2008 titled "The Point Of No Return":  Good job editing my last response. You know the arguments were clear and succinct, and you chose to not print them. It was my best post and you know it stung. Why don't you print it, coward? You know why. The arguments were convincing.
You've lost your last chance. You're stupid and stubborn and have a God-complex. You are, as you would call yourself, the "overseer" of a site that isn't worth the electricity that causes your trash to go over the internet. All hail Oz. You remind me of a Nazi propaganda minister. I believe Goebbels was a bigot who controlled the media.   I hope you get a a lot of fan mail.  Print my last response.   Your identity will be on the internet soon in pursuit of free speech and accountability, ideals you hypocritically espouse.
Email 2 of 1-22-2008: Atty. Brinckerhoff states, "At 2 PM EST my public service notice goes out."
Email 3 of 1-22-2008 titled, "Away They Go": Attorney Brinckerhoff emails AGAIN that he wants more of his emails published.
Email 4 of 1-22-2008 Atty. Brinckerhoff sends another diatribe and persists that caught.net publish his emails. In the same email he states, "I hope you remember that these are all private communications between you and I that you choose to post."  [Note: caught.net had alerted Atty. Brinckerhoff days ago that all his emails would be published]  Atty. Brinckerhoff then states he hopes caught.net's founder enjoys his new notoriety since Atty. Brinckerhoff mass published his personal and private information in the afternoon of 1-22-2008.

On 1-22-2008 a complaint against Atty. Brinckerhoff was sent to the Rhode Island Supreme Court Disciplinary Council.  Other actions are being taken that can not be published at this time. Despite Atty Brinckerhoff being notified of the disciplinary board complaint, his threats and harassment continue.

Email 1 of 1-23-2008 Another venomous email received from Atty. Brinckerhoff with more demands to have his emails published.
Email 2 of 1-23-2008 titled: Reported Editorial & Ethical Misconduct Atty. Brinckerhoff writes: How's that for a title to the site that I can have come up when someone Googles Caught.net with your name on it? I bet you like it no more than what you put out there for all your lawyer friends who will be calling you soon.

Email 3 of 1-23-2008 Atty. Brinckerhoff writes: Do you know my kids get to see your stupid unprincipled trash about me. I tell them its posted by a kook and they believe me, because you are obviously one, and I explain about the case, which you never bothered to investigate. They think you're a kook, too.
I bet you don't care what your filth does, since you're probably a very lonely man. Your site really doesn't bother me all that much since I know no one goes there, but I don't like crap like that said about me for anyone to see, just because you hate lawyers.
Why don't you post the missing email if you're posting all my email as you profess, or do you like the position of only allowing your propaganda to be disseminated, like Dr. Goebbels?

---

Atty. Brinckerhoff continues to demand one of his emails be published that was edited for brevity and due to repetition. In this email Atty. Brinckerhoff is flip-flopping and again demanding to be removed from the site or else. So, due to Atty. Brinckerhoff's insistence, caught.net will publish Atty. Brinckerhoff's threats and demand for removal from the site.  This is the email Atty. Brinckerhoff insists everyone see:

Email of 1-23-2008 Atty. Brinckerhoff writes: If you tell me that I am being removed from your site and give me some sort of confirmation, that is the last you will hear from me or any public exposure from me, unless my name continues to be posted after an appreciable amount of time of whatever is necessary. I will delay my correspondence [Note: his expose of personal and private information on caught.net's founder] and won't send it ever as long as you keep your side of the deal. The faster the better for both of us. Otherwise, my correspondence to others goes out tomorrow telling others how to contact you to discuss your site's representations about them and I will soon also seek other forms of exposure and feedback. [Note: caught.net can be contacted via the hundreds of email links on the site]
Your last response is so idiotic. Don't you get it? I don't care about caught.net, OZ. I care about my good name. You can't see that because you're a crusading fanatic. In Shakespeare's Othello is the line "Reputation, Reputation, Reputation: the only immortal part of ourselves." In the age of the internet and Google, your site is a reckless endangerment to anyone's reputation controlled by an angered zealot who hates lawyers and has no respect for their integrity. You said earlier, you thought my comment that lawyering is an honorable profession was "laughable." Get a grip. You are a bigot by your own words. [Note: See caught.net's words]
I am proud of everything I did in the Conboy case and disgusted by you and caught.net. The world doesn't need caught.net. We have a disciplinary counsel that actually fields complaints and protects reputations at the same time. Your caught.net is nothing more than an unprincipled site to throw mud at lawyers as I said in my first post in this series. You never ask the accused for their side before the mud is thrown and then put up a damning title that most people won't bother reading past.
You and your site can go to hell for all I care. If you take me off and tell me you have, we're done. If not, lets see where this goes?
By the way, most of those hits [to my page] were probably me checking the status of my deletion or your additions. No one else is really interested in what you write, unless you have been passing my name around to other people who having nothing else to do. You have no other audience but me for the most part. Caught.net performs no worthwhile service.

At this point, caught.net wants to remind the reader Atty. Brinckerhoff is upset about a complaint filed by Citizen Conboy who was dissatisfied with Atty. Brinckerhoff's service. Also note that Conboy's compliant asserts Atty. Brinckerhoff was inept in the courtroom and lied to him. It is important for the public to know that Conboy's complaint involves 2 areas that the Supreme Court Disciplinary Council has a history of viewing as NOT falling within the boundaries of conduct they would consider actionable.

A cease and desist order was faxed to Atty. Brinckerhoff on 1-24-2008 and a second complaint is being filed with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Council. Other actions being taken can not be discussed at this time.

Atty. Brinckerhoff responds below. Note the repetitive bizarre confusion. AGAIN there is 'take me off your site' and 'please publish this' in the same email. Also notice how Atty. Brinckerhoff speaks of his rights yet denies the rest of the public the exact same right. Lastly note how he refuses to recognize that complaints are posted on caught.net by aggrieved Citizens, not anyone involved with caught.net. Imagine someone going to the Better Business Bureau and attacking an office worker because of complaints filed with the bureau. That, in essence is what Atty. Brinckerhoff is doing.

Email 1 of 1-24-2008 To Chief Judge (alias Overseer Oz Goebbels): Attention is brought to the fact that your "Cease & Desist Order" was not issued by a court, but by you.  Therefore, it is of no legal effect.
However as a concession, I will only continue to contact caught.net,as it is a public forum, I thought. If that happens to be your address, [PO Box 1355, Coventry, RI 02816] I can't help it. Also, I don't think you have the power to take away my constitutional right to free speech in a public forum, a right you seem to only like when it is you anonymously throwing mud from behind your curtain. Take me off your site. Please post this if you wish so that the public can see you for the charlatan that I previously said you were. I will be looking to see if you post this, Overseer.

Caught.net considers Atty. Brinckerhoff's behavior as dismissive of the Constitution, showing complete disregard for the public's right of free speech and redress, unethical and an embarrassment to the legal profession.

Check back - more is coming!