This page contains information about Jake D[...], particularly about his efforts since March 2000 to harass me. It also serves to contradict information he may have spread about me in connection with this harassment.

New location. If you are looking for a document titled "On the Trail of Jake D[...]", it has moved. It is password-protected. If you want access to it, I will happily provide it if you email me. I have taken this measure for reasons described in the last three sections at the bottom of this page.

Purpose of this page. This page was created to discourage Jake from pursuing the activities described below. Ignoring him seems only to have encouraged him to make contact in various ways described. Publicly recording his actions at least guarantees that there is some consequence to them.

Secondary purpose. On the advice of friends, I recognize Jake's actions as not merely peculiar but potentially deranged. As such, this page is a record of a pattern of behavior over time, a resource which may later be of use to authorities.

How I know Jake. He went to my high school, but I never knew him there. He transferred to my college, where I met him during our junior year.

Background. In 1998-99 we interacted infrequently. In Fall 1999 we lost touch completely. In December 1999 it was revealed that Jake had dropped out of medical school in connection with some personal issues. These issues gave reason to think that Jake was emotionally/psychologically unstable in the following months.

Immediate circumstances. In January 2000, Jake solicited and I offered help in starting a web consulting company called Star76 (whois query: star76.com [seems to have lapsed now. -ed. 07/05/02]). I reluctantly suggested my friend, Jake accepted and hired him to work for several weeks on a project for Fenton Communications. He lied to Fenton about several commercial projects he had done, explicitly claiming responsibility for several that I had done through a previous company (Netatomic) to which he had no relation whatever. The project fell through and Jake left a debt of several thousand dollars with my then unemployed friend. Subsequently, he has been employed by Barnard College and Oven Digital, to which he may also have spread this false information.

The trigger. Expressing my disappointment with Jake's handling of the business relation involving my close friend, unfortunately, set of an escalating cascade of mutual recriminations and ended our relationship. The events since then are part of what I consider a campaign of harassment.

Friend/foe. Some quotations from the last few exchanges. They show the conclusion of our correspondence. Notation where edited for decency and brevity ("*"=people, "-"=expletives). Email me if you'd like to see full text.

From Jake D[...]	From Me
	Geez. What happened to you? I'm the same as I ever was.
That's the problem! Jake
	Well, then stop harassing me. Goodbye.
Dear [xxxxx]- You are such a [-]! If you can't be "bothered" by your friend's hurt feelings, then you are not much of a friend, or a human being. [...] Eventually you'll appreciate what you've lost. Or karma will find another way to get you. Your friend, Jake
	[...] I don't want anything to do with you [...] I've attached the email from me that started this out. I believe that I was diplomatic. I squarely blame you for taking this to the next level [...] And now, I am no longer willing to be diplomatic. [...] I am not interested in healing you through patience and good will. I am being completely honest. Let me continue: go away. [-] yourself. Stop emailing me. [...]
You and [*] deserve each other. You'll see. Jake
[separate email] PS I never expected you to apologize. You don't know how. PPS No, [-] you. PPPS I'm surprised it took us so long to come to this. [...] PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPS Watch out! Jake
End of correspondence; last message 3/22/2000.

The harassment. In the period since that time I have not attempted any communication with Jake, except for this webpage which was posted in March 2001 (details below). Jake has, however, continued to initiate contact with me, initially by means "cyberstalking". Here I should note that I live in San Francisco; Jake lives in New York City. The following table summarizes the contact.

Notes	Communication
4/30/2000, Email This email was entirely unprovoked by me. I interpreted it to be that pattern I should expect in the future.	dear [xxxx]- i happened to run into one of your [*] up on the old green, and we both agreed that you are definitely a [-]. also, [*] mentioned to me that people have reported that your hair has begun to thin on top. you know me, though, i won't hold that against you. i'll drop you a line from the promised land in a few months. jake
Intermittently, Instant Messenger The relentless attempt to use IM to track me and send messages struck me as unsettling. It did not diminish for several months.	Intermittently over a period of months, Jake sent unsolicited messages to me via Yahoo Instant Messenger. He also tried on many occasions to add me to his "Buddy List", a process which allows him to monitor when I am online. I "blocked" these requests, but he signed on under different login names repeatedly, trying to "add" me on various occasions. I made no response other than denying these requests.
10/16/2000, Email This apology was in several ways backhanded. I did not reply, expecting that any contact whatever would be misinterpreted. Indeed, I did not in any way desire reconciliation.	Dear [xxxx]- I apologize for calling you a [-], speculating on the state of your hair line, and passing judgment on your utter lack of character. I was angry with the abrupt way you ended our friendship- it bruised my ego and hurt my feelings for a time. I'm a simple man, I guess. I also apologize for talking shit about you all over town during the last ten months- it was a Brooklyn thing to do and I feel bad about it now. I thought I was exempt from the cavalier way you sometimes treat people, and I was surprised how quickly you turned on me. Still, after nursing a grudge all the way to the Middle East and back, and contemplating attacking you on the street where you live during one of my visits to California, my feelings have mellowed and I'm no longer as angry. It is disappointing to me that you chose to bail out during such a tumultuous time in my life and run tail-between-the-legs back westward with [-][*]. It seemed at the time to be such a cowardly move. I felt bad that you excluded yourself from these eventful times in NYC, and that you never even got to see my apartment on Orchard Street before you took off. I felt bad that you gave me a way out of Brooklyn and into the $150k/yr set and didn't even bother to stick around to see the results. That's all. I may get angry again. I'd still love to punch you in the face, really hard. At 170 pounds I think I could probably crush your nose in before you managed to get the upper hand. So I guess my apology is not without strings. Jake
January, 2001 [Not a precise date] I interpreted this as a veiled threat. The mention in the note, "indeed", as referring to the title of the book is vaguely menacing. There isn't any neutral interpretation of this that I can think of. (Jake's family is from Brooklyn.)	I received a book from my Amazon.com wishlist from Jake, Last Exit To Brooklyn by Hubert Selby, Jr. The included notecard said, "Indeed. --J." (presumably referring to the book's title).
January, 2001 [Not a precise date] I took this to be consistent with the previous message, and perhaps the start of a long campaign. At this time, I posted the original version of this page at the present location. To view the original weblog, click here.	I received a second book from my Amazon.com wishlist from Jake, The Logic of Failure by Dietrich Dorner. I do not recall included message, but there was one.
February, 2001 [Not a precise date] I understood from this that he had found and was monitoring the webpage.	In response to the weblog, I received an email with a link to http://www.bluejake.com/... I do not recall the precise address, however "thebluejake" was the username he had used on Instant Messenger on several occasions. I visited this webpage once. It was a nearly identical replica of my weblog, with several remarks like "[xxxx] is so-and-so".
March, 2001 [Not a precise date] After several weeks passed, I posted a note on my weblog that the books appeared to have stopped. In response to this, I received a CD.	I received a CD, also from my Amazon wishlist, from Jake. Included was a message to the effect of "you're not scared, are you?" with an additional webpage address which I did not visit.

Worrisome escalation. Some time in May 2001, I noticed some 6-8 stickers on various parking and traffic signs on my street. The stickers were silver with a black image of Jake's face on them. These stickers were familiar to me; I had seen Jake stick them on many public surfaces during college. Clearly, Jake had visited the neighborhood around my home secretly and left these stickers for me to see as some sort of signal that I was not 'out of his reach'.

One of the effected street signs; notice the small silver square. This is the last remaining sticker (some competing teenage hooligans must have removed his other work).

Now you know the curse of the [d...] genes. (Word is, the kingdom comes indeed...and prematurely.)

One more threat. At about this time, I received an email titled "Word to the Wise" and saying only, "I think it's time you took that web page down. I'll give you until Wednesday, and then I'm going to get very angry."

A miscue. Annoyed by these threats, I made a false move and responded directly to Jake's actions. This was the very first communication I directed to him after a very long gap. I did this by posting a recriminating and mean-spirited diatribe on the weblog at this web address, knowing he would read it (there is no indication that anyone else has visited this page, though the traffic data shows that he visits it frequently). I made irresponsible mention of some people Jake and I knew in common. Jake emailed this page to one of these people, and then forwarded her reply to me. I removed the new material from the page.

Further escalation. In late May, a few days after this miscue, Jake emailed several administrators at my place of employ, appealing to the web hosting policy, saying:

• "harassing me via e-mail and a web page",
• "concerned that his escalating rhetoric is going to lead to something like violence", and
• "Besides the web page and e-mail, [xxxx] has also repeatedly called me at work. I'm very interested in stopping any contact between the two of us before things go any further- I've e-mailed him in the past asking him to stop bothering me, but it does not seem to be working. "

I consider this an outrageous and bizarre step beyond the previously private forum of the interaction. The information I have provided on this page is as complete as my records and memory allow. As such, the accusations he makes in these messages are clearly false.

More accusations. Perhaps on the same day or on the next, I received email from my webhosting provider where Jake:

• accuses me of "posting harassing and libelous material about me to a website", "offensive material", where "it seems to have to [sic] other purpose but to harass me";
• claims that he has "already contacted the authorities in California".

Up until this time, still late May, he had not contacted me directly with any request to remove the posted material (aside from the "word to the wise" threat). Significantly, the claims of this email differ from those made in the previous emails, which were also directed toward a web hosting policy (in that case, of my employer). In that email, there are claims about phone calls, threats, and emails; here there are none.

Another victim? On May 31st, I received an email from a person claiming that Jake was "trying to get my host to remove pages on my server that make fun of him." Looking at those pages, it appears there is a patter. I do not provide a link to that site here, but I will provide one by email if requested.

Direct contact. Also on May 31st, I received the following email, the first direct message since the flurry of activity directed at my work colleagues, web host, and perhaps other third parties still unknown to me. Once again, I interpret it to be a threat.

CC: [one of the mutual friends mentioned in the miscue] Subject: Let's Behave Dear [xxxx]- It seems that this is poised to escalate way out of hand. I hate to be a voice of reason, but in the interest of preserving both of our reputations and allowing [*] and [**] to live together in peace, I offer the following truce: Point 1. You will remove the pages you have put up, on each of your servers. I will remove the pages I have put up about you. We will both agree not to put up any pages in the future, for any reason. I will transfer www.[..my name...].org back to you. Point 2. I will withdraw my complaint at [***]. You will agree never to call OVEN again, on any pretext, or any other place where I work. Same goes for your places of business. Point 3. We will agree not to contact each other, or eachother's friends or relatives, or anyone else regarding this stuff. That includes all matters of contact, be it in person, via telephone, letter, email, messaging, or other insane and yet to be devised strategies. Point 4. We will apologize for the inconvenience we have caused to each other, and everyone else, and let it go. If you would like to add anything, that's fine. I think that we both know that there will be no end to this craziness if we don't stop it now. If you're more interested in punishing me or acting crazy or whatever, you'll probably turn me down- but think about it- what do you have to lose? You can convey your agreement through [*], or in whatever fashion you like. Yours, Jake

Several points in particular are salient. First is the mention of escalation. I committed the miscue described above, and then replaced it with this page. I do not understand this to be escalation; I do understand his sequence of actions to be escalating. As such, I interpret this first point to be a threat of further, unilateral escalation. Also note the point about "preserving both our reputations"; I know presently know nothing about any page he has put up about me, though I imagine it must be offensive if he includes it in this "deal". Second, he specifically introduces the matter of the persons we knew in common (mentioned in the miscue). I take this also as a threat. They are unrelated to this matter, yet he suggests that my actions may have implications for their relationship. Third, he offers a tit-for-tat: he will withdraw his complaint from my employer ("[***]"). I have made no similar complaint at "OVEN", nor have I had any contact with them that relates to him at all. I have had contact with a person there, but in an entirely unrelated matter with no mention whatsoever of Jake D[...]. Fourth, he includes a tit-for-tat promising no future introduction of new parties to this dispute. But he has already done so (contacting his own friends about this as well as my professional colleagues), while I have done nothing.

Threat of further public harassment. Here is a link to the Network Solutions whois engine, [...].org. I was not aware that he had registered this domain name. I am unaware what he plans to do with this domain name. I never owned it, so I do not know what he means by "transfer back" in the above. Oddly, he chose to register it through this relatively overpriced registrar. Ignorance?

More. Another one today. I suppose he is monitoring this webpage closely; but who else could possibly be looking at it? Clearly the only source of 'harassment' he has in mind is this webpage and its effect on its sole reader. I expect it speaks for itself.

CC: [one of the mutual friends mentioned in the miscue] Subject: So Much For That Dear [xxxx]- It appears you have once again chosen to continue harassing me. [*] and [**] both requested that I settle this with you. I tried, but it appears you are more interested in your own selfish insanity than allowing us to live in peace without you haunting us like a spectre. How do you expect [**] and [*] to live together if two of their closest friends are involved in this sort of fight? It's ugly and it's stupid, and I'm beginning to think that you have completely lost it. Your webpage is ridiculous- it has obviously taken you many hours to construct, hours that could have better been spent working on something productive (some endeavor, as you like to say). I am flattered by your obvious and serious obsession with me and things related to me- but you have wasted too much time already. It's beginning to seem a little gay. Anyway- I suppose we'll just move along. I'm not sure why you removed my last name from the page- it seems an empty gesture considering you have left the meta tags in (but that is the whole point, isn't it- to embarrass me on Google?). Other ideas: remove the description of the whole situation with [**] I don't think he sees it that way, and it involves him in this ugly mess. Leave out mention of all the confidences that were passed between us while we were close friends- it is dishonorable to expose and distort them. I have never revealed any of the things that you told me. Confine your meditations to the horrible relationship we have now- that should be enough for you. I'll expect to see this on the page later today. The two of us seem to be writing some sort of tragic comedy- perhaps this is the work of staggering genius that you have been talking about all of these years. Very truly yours, Jake

Drifting in and out of sanity. Not that I am anything of an expert on mental disorder, but I take it to be paradigmatic that the affected individual drifts in and out of apparently sane states. In some moods, he pleads and begs forgiveness, putting on his best "I'm recovered; I'm fine" voice. In other moods, he flies into wild rages, etc. Today I received an envelope without a return address postmarked from Santa Ana, CA on June 6th. My address was typed on the face, with my employer bizarrely included in the address line. Inside was a page from a magazine with a note attached. The page was an advertisement (on both sides) torn from a glossy magazine, the type that's made to look like editorial copy. This particular ad is for some seminar series for organized executives. The attached post-it note included the message "[xxxx], Try this It's really good! J." written in ridiculous, exaggerated feminine script in blue ink. The "J." is more or less identical to previous "spooky" and "mysterious" notes I've received from Jake so I presume that it's from him. Overall, the communication is absolute nonsense. I can make no sense of it whatever. (Though sent from CA, it's likely to be Jake as he does occasionally visit Los Angeles with a girl from college. He enjoys reporting on the great wealth of her parents and his exclusive and unconditional access to both their wealth and her intimacy.)

Links to other sites. Here are some links regarding Jake D. from an apparent opponent: number one, number two, number three. Information about the sexual harassment incidents at Stuyvesant, where Jake was a high school chemistry teacher. Precedents for a site like this as a defense against harassment: Psycho Ex Girlfriend, New York Times article on such items.

Blogger. A note from a Blogger administrator. Jake is supposedly a web designer? Yet he did not notice, though there is a blogger logo below, that this page is simply hand coded and not at all automatic. Hmm.

j[*] (Wed May 30 17:29:35 2001): [xxxxx] this is Jason [*] w/ Pyra/Blogger, just a heads up that Jake has struck again and contacted us to 'have you blocked from the Blogger service' . Um... we don't do that so no worries. Just a heads up.

Veracity? Jake denies sending the piece of mail. But who knows if multiple personalities talk to each other? There is also an email from the girl. She suggests that this page is childish and that she " must at least ask you to remove the reference to [her] -- it is vulgar and disgusting." I hope you don't figure out who she is from that revealing comment! I think it is interesting that someone else may indeed be involved. I wonder who from LA would parody Jake? It is of course interesting that Jake is "concerned" about references to his employer on this page, after he has directly contacted my own employer with direct messages and fanciful accusations. Note though that he confirms being in California around the time that his stickers appeared in my neighborhood. To me, this rules out the possibility that he put a friend up to the job.

Subject: Stop It Dear [xxxxxx]- Late this afternoon, our friends at Intellisync notified me that your page had changed. The latest mail was not, as you must surely already know, from me. The last time I was in California was for the trip to SF, more than four weeks ago. Since that time, I have not left New York. I imagine that one of our other common friends, or perhaps some idiot as yet unknown to both of us, has joined this stupid little game. To avoid any miscommunications, I propose the following precaution: all further correspondence from me to you will include the given name of certain whale known to both of us. If this is too obvious, and the mail continues, we will choose another cipher. This latest, Austerish coincidence is of no matter to me. What is cause for concern and escalation is your repeated mention of the place where I work, and the absurd and unmanly references/allusions to [*]. I don't mind your fascination with me- but extending it to the people I care about was something I thought we had settled. I hope that it doesn't take an email from her to bring you to your senses. Also, as always, your use of meta tags is cause for alarm. Why take out our names if you leave in the other references (Bluejake Main)? I swear, you need to grow up. Anyway- I really don't want this to continue. Your page is only going to add fuel to the fire, and possibly attract more players like the mysterious mailer of June 6. Got to run, Jake

---

Time elapses. Maybe a year or so.

---

Resurfaced. Well, it's been a while but the fellow has turned up. Perhaps this means he's going crazy again. If you know him, maybe it's time to gently suggest that Les Medecins Sans Frontiers increase the dosage or the voltage or whatever.

I'm somewhat remiss since I didn't post the first suspected communication, a post on one of my blogs' comment engines. I just deleted it because it was stupid. But here's another one.

jake d[...] : [From IP (141.155.64.34)] Dear Expat in Paris, Concerning the effect sunlight might have on beard growth here are some facts which may interest you. Perhaps the sectionon Vitamin D may have pertinence: Growth rates. Hair growth varies depending on body region. For example, average eyelash/brow growth rates have been reported at 0.16 millimeters (mm) per day, scalp hair at 0.34 to 0.36 mm/day, and beard hair at 0.38 mm/day. Growth rates also are affected by age, gender, hair color, and ethnicity. For example, scalp hair in a prepubescent, adolescent, adult, and older adult have been reported at 0.41, 0.30, 0.34, and 0.32 mm/day, respectively (Myers and Hamilton 1951). Substances affecting hair growth. A great number of substances can affect hair growth. For example, some drugs, such as alkalating agents, are cytotoxic and can make hair fall out (e.g., cancer chemotherapeutic agents). Other agents drive hair into telogen (e.g., heparin, Vitamin A, ß-blockers, L-dopa, lithium, and some of the non-steroidals). Drugs that inhibit hair growth include parathyroid hormone (PTH) and PTH-related proteins. Variable agents also exist, such as Vitamin D. At low concentrations, Vitamin D may simulate hair growth, but at high concentrations hair growth is inhibited. - Bayard Beardsley @ 12:05AM [Jul 5th 2002]

Ripples. So I guess JD keeps tabs on this page, as he has 'posted' a denial (not clear which acts in particular he's denying; see long list above).

Who cares, I suppose. But of course, annoyingly enough, he has decided to put my name on his website. (Note that you won't find the contents of *this* particular page in Google, since it's polite enough not to mention his name. But one wonders why one bothers.)

Link to his site Tuesday, July 23, 2002 Old Friends This week a number of people have noted that if you enter the words Jake [d...] into Google, the second or third result that is returned is [xxxx]'s extremely long and sometimes very amusing account of the breakup of our friendship. [xxxx] created the page a couple of years ago, during a period of post-friendship recrimation and ill-will. It records some very stupid behavior on both of our parts, and paints a rather vulgar picture of me in particular. Boy did I act like a jackass- no denying it. Back when [xxxx] first put up the page, I was pretty upset. After all, [xxx] had already explained to me how Google could be used to embarass or get even with almost anyone (it doesn't work on the John Smiths of the world- there are too many results). To a certain extent, [xxxxx] is correct- after all, I'm not sure I'd hire the Jake [d...] he describes in his prose. Going back and looking at the page today, I noticed something interesting: although I haven't tried to contact [xxxx] since last May, his account does not end there. It appears that someone, or a number of other people, have continued to reach out and touch him, and perhaps justifiably, [xxxx] has assumed that these messages are coming from me. This, as he points out, is something straight out of Paul Auster. It's as if the bad blood between us created a phantom Jake [d...], who continues to haunt [xxxxx] even as the real Jake [d...] has moved on to other things. For the rest of [xxxxx]'s life, any time he receives an anonymous email or strange phone call, I can see him recording an entry in his log- until the point that the log is so long and detailed that this other Jake [d...] is almost real. Strange, isn't it? I'm not sure who is worse off- me or him. I'm surprised more people haven't written about this sinister side of Google- how it can be used to create a "Permenant Record" to follow someone around forever. A friend pointed out to me that given enough time, most people will have thousands of search returns tied to their name- a lot of baggage from the past. I suppose with that many entries, strategies like [xxxx]'s will be hard to execute. Until that point, however, I'm pretty much stuck with him. I can only wish him well and offer my assurances that I no longer bear him any ill will. .: posted by jake [d...] 7:33 PM

Reasons for concern. Several factors suggest reason for concern: (a)Jake is demonstrably unstable psychologically, (b)he probably has not shared this very emotional affair with his mental health counselor, (c)his most recent actions reveal a suprising willingness to make a heretofore private matter completely public, with no regard for propriety, and (d)he has taken a game of words to a 'physical' level by visiting my home and sending packages there. I have opened discussion with anti-stalking authorities, but I continue to believe that this webpage remains my best defense. If Jake is seeking a reaction, one hopes this webpage will convince him it will not be the sort of "attention" he has sought.

If you have information. If you have any information that you think I should know (especially with regard to my or Jake's safety), please email jakemail@scarydog.com.