If you’ve read my grand fisking (the real thing, that is, not just the Cliff Notes) you might find it hard to imagine what new kind of dirt there could possibly be on someone as serially mendacious as he. Ace and Patterico have the goods. And if anyone other than Glenn Greenwald has recently posted a comment about Glenn Greenwald on your blog using the IP address 201.37.43.117 or 201.17.101.161, so do you.

UPDATE: Slightly shorter Greenwald: Them’s not sock puppets, them’s my roommates. All of ‘em. Even Ryan Allen, the guy who emailed me from across the house to confirm my C.V., rather than leave his precious computer for five whole minutes to talk to me face to face. I sure got him back, though, by sending him a perfectly sterile, coulda-been-written-to-a-perfect-stranger email response that didn’t even acknolwedge any of our gazillion past conversations when I’ve bragged to him about my time at Wachtell before. That’ll teach him to email me from the living room, the big geek.

If you haven’t been following Dick Cabeza’s efforts to one-up Patterico and me on the law, you should be. Here’s the logic you’ll need to get up to speed:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court typically grants certiorari (i.e., decides to hear a case brought to its attention) when at least four Justices vote in favor of ruling on the decision. This is the so-called “rule of four.”
2. Therefore, when the Supreme Court grants cert, you can assume that at least four Justices voted to take the case, and when it does not, you can assume that at least six either voted not to or did not participate in the decision to grant or deny cert.
3. Unless, of course, the case in question involved Terri Schiavo, in which case denial of cert means all nine Justices agreed unanimously not to hear the case.
4. The Supreme Court denies cert in the overwhelming majority of the cases brought to its attention, usually for reasons having nothing to do with the Justices’ opinions on the merits of the underlying case.
5. Therefore, denial of certiorari does not set any precedent, and is cited only to show that a case has been fully litigated, not that any or all members of the Supreme Court agree with the lower court ruling.
6. Unless, of course, the case in question involves Terri Schiavo, in which case denial of cert means all nine Justices believe the lower court ruling was 100% correct, and are just too lazy to issue a quick per curiam affirming that case on the merits.

Does that make sense to you? If so, you’re ready to explore Cabeza-land. Go.

UPDATE: It’s beginning to look like Patterico may have finally managed to shut him down.

In response to this, this and his insistence on calling himself an “Esquire,” I hereby declare “Kip Esquire” a troll.

Patterico must have left his front door open, because his pet troll “m. croche,” a.k.a. Clod a.k.a. Der Mann Ohne Eier, just found my site. That was a helpful reminder to declare this coming Friday Troll Day. Participating bloggers are encouraged to mimic their “favorite” trolls throughout the day. As this site has generally been relatively troll-free, I was thinking of spoofing DMOE anyway, as he’s an easy enough target. Usually pompous, often pretentious, and always misses the point. I recommend him/her/it as a target for anyone who isn’t sure which troll to pick on. Hell, why even call it Troll Day? Call it Croche Day instead, or name it after whatever other troll you feel like extracting the urine from.

Go on, join in. You know you want to.