Sent to Gawker by a lawyer who represents controversial Toronto mayor Rob Ford, it affords Ken at Popehat much delight: “First, nobody ever governed themselves accordingly based on a threat from a hotmail account.”
{ 0 comments }
Posts tagged as:
nastygrams
- “Robo-litigation”: ethical issues of the mass-foreclosure mess [Dustin Zachs, SSRN, via Legal Ethics Forum]
- Roger Parloff on Chevron counterclaims against Patton Boggs [Fortune] “Judge Grudgingly Lets Donziger’s Lawyers Out Of Chevron Case” [Daniel Fisher; Reuters]
- Should Australia dilute or abolish the “cab rank” rule? [John Flood via LEF]
- “Ethical Limits on Civil Litigation Advocacy: A Historical Perspective” [Carol Andrews (Alabama), SSRN; Legal Ethics Forum]
- “When Is a Demand Letter (Arguably) Extortion?” [John Steele, more, ABA Journal (Martin Singer demand letter threatening to expose target's sexual indiscretions]
- Fifth Circuit denies Dickie Scruggs’s latest appeal [YallPolitics]
- When crowdfunding meets litigation finance, watch out world [Richard Painter]
- “Judge Orders Prenda Law Group Beamed Out Into Space” [Lowering the Bar, TechDirt]
{ 0 comments }
Ken at Popehat to the rescue, with a pledge to “do everything in my power to find pro bono representation for the Buckleys to (1) prevent you from extorting and retaliating against them through the cost of defense, and (2) empower them to cockroach-stomp you righteously.”
How to be gentlemanly in a cease-and-desist. [Mashable, Popehat]
{ 4 comments }
- Courtesy Stanley Fish, Prof. Jeremy Waldron gets a long, favorable hearing in the New York Times for his let’s-suppress-hate-speech proposals [Opinionator]
- On the other hand, free speech scores huge victory in Canada as parliament mostly along party lines votes to repeal notorious Section 13 of Canadian Human Rights Act, authorizing private federal complaints over alleged hate speech [Jonathan Kay]
- “Christian Nation” historical writer and Texas curriculum reshaper David Barton sues critics; don’t let him find out what Ed Brayton keeps writing [Reason]
- Pennsylvania bill: “Crime for Minor to Post or Send Messages That ‘Emotional[ly] Distress’ Another Minor?” [Volokh]
- Norfolk, Va. business puts up a big sign protesting eminent domain scheme to seize its property; guess what happens next [Marc Scribner, Open Market]
- Chris Evans nastygram to Lipstick Alley: Has Hollywood already forgotten about the Streisand effect? [Paul Alan Levy, Mike Masnick/TechDirt] Also at Public Citizen, the dispute over a boilermaker union official’s effort to unmask an online critic has now been settled (earlier);
- Interesting bank case: “Employer SLAPPed for Suing Ex-Employee” [Shaw Valenza]
{ 3 comments }
And Matthew Inman’s retort to attorney Charles Carreon is already assuming mythical Internet status. [Popehat, BoingBoing and more, Kennerly, Ars Technica, Lowering the Bar]
{ 3 comments }
From Ken at Popehat, a righteous response to a bumptious cease and desist letter [Regretsy]
{ 3 comments }
Scam pretend-lawyers pose as real Hollywood lawyers firing off nastygrams to shake cash out of illicit downloaders. [Above the Law]
{ 1 comment }
A student organization at Penn Law created a poster for a fashion-law event playing off the well-known design of luggage-and-handbag purveyor Louis Vuitton. Lawyers for the luxury firm fired off a cease-and-desist letter, but the Penn law department declined to comply, a stance that Eugene Volokh finds persuasive: ” I think the use of the marks can’t qualify as dilution, is unlikely to confuse, and is likely to be a fair use in any event.” Another view: Ron Coleman (dilution a possibility).
{ 2 comments }
North Carolina’s Peace College sends a nastygram to critics [Peter Bonilla, FIRE] More: Popehat.
- Per Chevron, Kerry Kennedy getting undisclosed percentage of the take, potentially in millions, to side with plaintiffs in Ecuador suit [NY Post] Long New Yorker take-out on case [Patrick Radden Keefe]
- Freetail Brewing fields a nastygram: “How to Comply With a Cease-and-Desist Letter But Still Win” [Lowering the Bar]
- I.e. boycotts illegal? Odd Minnesota law bans economic “reprisals” based on “political activity.” [Volokh]
- “Chris McGrath v. Vaughan Jones: An Unpleasant Peek Into U.K. Libel Law” [Popehat; suit over science-and-theology book review] Related: “You Can’t Read This Book: why libel tourists love London” [Nick Cohen, Guardian, on his new book]
- Business experience isn’t be-all or end-all for presidential qualifications, but might avert some policy howlers [Kling]
- “Arbitration Is Here to Stay and One Lawyer Says That Is Good for Consumers” [Alan Kaplinsky interview, Mickey Meese/Forbes, PoL]
- Off-topic random thought: “Iranian nuclear scientist who moonlights in Broadway Spider-Man cast” must be world’s most uninsurable job description;
- “D.C. Lawmakers Propose Requiring Students to Apply to College” [Fox]
{ 2 comments }
At RedState, Leon Wolf has been parodying the work of Senatorial daughter and talk-show personality Meghan McCain. McCain’s lawyer, Albin Gess of Snell & Wilmer, wrote RedState editor Erich Erichson to threaten litigation over the posts, which prompted this magnificent letter in response (PDF) from Georgia attorney Christopher Scott Badeaux, representing Wolf. It also guaranteed more critical attention to McCain herself and her work, including this cruel entry by Ken at Popehat.
What Ken calls “the use of money and power to achieve censorship” — particularly in jurisdictions where judges are averse to awarding sanctions and anti-SLAPP protections are weak — is a continuing problem long overdue for open public discussion.
{ 28 comments }
Should they be nastygrams, or adopt a more measured tone? [Ron Miller]
{ 1 comment }
Attorney, for intimidation purposes only, no followup required [Elie Mystal, Above the Law]
{ 1 comment }
Patrick at Popehat has compiled “A Small Businessman’s Guide To Dealing With Obnoxious Letters From Lawyers.”
The law firm in question had sent a nastygram over a blog post that wasn’t even about their client, but merely combined the phrase “academic advantage” with (in comments) the word “scam.” Academic Advantage now says it has “severed its relationship” with the L.A. law firm involved. [California Watch, BoingBoing, earlier]
{ 3 comments }
Behind the menacing letter in question, apparently: a baffling failure to grasp the context in which the phrase “Academic Advantage” appeared on the popular blog.
{ 3 comments }
