[Bumped on breaking news: A federal court in New Hampshire has quashed the subpoena and ordered attorney Clifford Shoemaker to show cause why he should not be subjected to sanctions. Also: Orac. Earlier Monday post follows:]

Autism blogger Kathleen Seidel reports that the online free speech project at Public Citizen has agreed to provide her with legal assistance in responding to vaccine lawyer Clifford Shoemaker’s subpoena (see earlier coverage here, here, and here). One way to read this is as a fairly devastating commentary on just how weak Shoemaker’s position is, since there is ordinarily no more potent public presence on behalf of the plaintiff’s side in pharmaceutical litigation than Public Citizen. Seidel also has discovered that as a Shoemaker target she is in distinguished company:

I learned that on March 26, 2008 — the same afternoon that I was greeted at my doorstep with a demand for access to virtually the entire documentary record of my intellectual and financial life over the past four years — Dr. Marie McCormick, Sumner and Esther Feldberg Professor of Maternal and Child Health at the Harvard School of Public Health, and Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, was subjected to a similar experience at her Massachusetts home.

From 2001 to 2004, Dr. McCormick chaired the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), charged with analyzing and reporting on data regarding the safety of vaccination practices. …As a result of her voluntary work on the committee, Dr. McCormick has found herself a frequent target of suspicion by plaintiffs, their attorneys and advocates, and opponents of vaccines, who disagree with its conclusions, and whose legal and political positions are not supported by its reports.

McCormick’s lawyers are likewise seeking to quash the subpoena. Much more here (& Beck & Herrmann, Orac, Pharmalot).

I’ve often linked in the past to the work of New Hampshire blogger Kathleen Seidel, whose weblog Neurodiversity presents a fearless, systematically researched, and frequently brilliant ongoing critique of autism vaccine litigation. A prominent plaintiff’s lawyer in that litigation, Clifford Shoemaker of Vienna, Virginia, has just hit Seidel with an astoundingly broad and sweeping subpoena (PDF) demanding a wide range of documents and records relating to her publication of the blog. Seidel has been sharply critical of Shoemaker’s litigation, and indeed the subpoena arrived only hours after she posted a new Mar. 24 entry, “The Commerce in Causation“, critical of his legal efforts.

The subpoena contains no indication that Seidel herself is accused of defaming anyone or violating any other legal rights of any party. Instead it seems she is being dragged in as a third-party witness in Shoemaker’s suit on behalf of his clients, Rev. Lisa Sykes and Seth Sykes, against vaccine maker Bayer. Although Seidel has been a remarkably diligent blogger on autism-vaccine litigation, I can find no indication that she is in possession of specialized knowledge that Shoemaker would not be able to obtain for his clients through more ordinary means.

Instead, the first phrase that occurred to me on looking through the subpoena was “fishing expedition”, and the second was “intimidation”. Several clauses indicate that Shoemaker is hoping to turn up evidence that Seidel has accepted support from the federal government, or from vaccine makers, which she says she hasn’t. Also among the documents demanded: Seidel’s correspondence with other bloggers. As she puts it in her response:

The subpoena commands production of “all documents pertaining to the setup, financing, running, research, maintaining the website http://www.neurodiversity.com” - including but not limited to material mentioning the plaintiffs - and the names of all persons “helping, paying or facilitating in any fashion” my endeavors. The subpoena demands bank statements, cancelled checks, donation records, tax returns, Freedom of Information Act requests, LexisNexis® and PACER usage records. The subpoena demands copies of all of my communications concerning any issue which is included on my website, including communications with representatives of the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, advocacy groups, non-governmental organizations, political action groups, profit or non-profit entities, journals, editorial boards, scientific boards, academic boards, medical licensing boards, any “religious groups (Muslim or otherwise), or individuals with religious affiliations,” and any other “concerned individuals.”…

Plaintiffs and their counsel seek not only to rummage through records that they suspect pertain to themselves, but also through my family’s bank records, tax returns, autism-related medical and educational records, and every communication concerning all of the issues to which I have devoted my attention and energy in recent years.

Seidel has responded with a self-drafted motion to quash the subpoena, and expresses confidence that a judge will rule in her favor, and perhaps go so far as to agree with her contention that it constitutes sanctionable abuse. Should the subpoena somehow be upheld and its onerous demands enforced, it could signal chilly legal times ahead for bloggers who expose lawyers and their litigation to critical scrutiny (& welcome Instapundit, Pure Pedantry, P.Z. Myers, I Speak of Dreams, Law and More, Open Records, Matt Johnston readers. And Orac/Respectful Insolence, with what he terms an “important rant“. More reactions here and here).

Now this could crimp the business plans of quite a few attorneys:

A Manchester lawyer who threatened to sue a Concord salon for pricing haircuts differently for men and women and then took money to settle the matter was found guilty of theft by extortion.

A jury took about 1½ hours to convict Daniel Hynes, 27, on Wednesday. Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Baker said Hynes sent letters to at least 19 salons in the state.

One arrived Dec. 20, 2006, at Claudia’s, the North Main Street hair salon owned by Claudia Lambert. In the letter, Hynes said prices should be based on the time a cut takes or on the length of hair, instead of on gender. He wrote: “I demand payment in the amount of $1,000 in order to avoid litigation,” according to court documents. …

Hynes said yesterday that he plans to appeal.

“The conviction goes against the First Amendment,” he said. “People have a right to petition the courts. In my case, I wanted to address my concern with the Human Rights Commission.”

Asked why he sent letters to salons instead of contacting the commission directly, Hynes said lawyers often settle out of court.

“I believe it’s more appropriate to attempt as amicable a resolution as possible,” he said.

… In one court document, he argued that the price structure that he saw as discriminatory had caused him stress and mental anguish, despite the fact that prices for men were less than those for women. He said he was being denied an “inherent benefit in being treated equally.”

(Chelsea Conaboy, “Lawyer guilty of salon extortion”, Concord Monitor, Mar. 21; Greenfield, Mar. 23; Above the Law, Mar. 25; Pasquale, Concurring Opinions, Mar. 24).

Prof. Bainbridge (Mar. 25) cites California’s experience with the now somewhat reformed s. 17200 unfair business practices law, which empowered freelancing lawyers to send out demand letters to businesses over a wide variety of alleged infractions. He concludes that the answer is to amend underlying laws which sweep too broadly in banning business practices, authorize damage claims unrelated to actual injury, and so forth. Although I much appreciate the kind suggestions for further reading he offers in his post, I can’t say I entirely go along with the idea that the scope for possible abuse would vanish if only the underlying laws were written properly. At Concurring Opinions, incidentally, one commenter draws a connection to RIAA’s mass production of demand letters against file-sharers, while another warns that for a target to complain to the authorities of extortion, as did the New Hampshire salon owner, might itself be construed by many courts as “retaliation” against the filer of a discrimination claim and thus as grounds for penalties on its own.

All-New England edition:

• Massachusetts bar-exam flunker drops suit over gay-marriage question [Boston Herald, OnPointNews; see Jul. 7]
• “We cannot get rail service between Nashua and Boston because a cap on liability may be unconstitutional in New Hampshire thanks to the trial lawyers” [letter in Nashua Telegraph; earlier news story]
• Whodunit? Everyone, as in a certain Christie novel: Rhode Island nightclub fire lawsuits name 93 different defendants [New York Times; see Feb. 16, 2006]
• Update: skull-fragment-keeping officer Callahan departs the Norwalk, Ct. police force [Created Things; earlier Jan. 23 and Jun. 21]

• Judge Ramos disallows settlement of Citigroup directors derivative suit: deal had met defendants’ needs, plaintiff’s lawyers’ too, but not shareholders’ [PDF of decision courtesy NY Lawyer]


• Drove a golf cart into the path of his car as it was being repossessed, jury decides he deserves $56,837 [MC Record]


• Per ACOG, 92 percent of NY ob/gyns say they’ve been sued at least once [NY Post edit; more]


• New British online-gambling law could trip up some virtual-world/massively multiplayer online games [GamesIndustry.biz]


• Good news for bloggers: Iowa-based site can’t be sued in New York just because it answered questions from NY reader and accepted NY donations [Best Van Lines v. Walker, Second Circuit; McLaughlin]


• Another great idea from Public Citizen: let’s not use new drugs till they’ve been on the market for seven years [Pharmalot via KevinMD]


• After conviction of Mississippi trial lawyer Paul Minor in judicial corruption scandal, squabbling drags on over sentencing [Jackson Clarion-Ledger]


• Conservative public interest law firms “can win some big cases [but] are notorious for lacking follow-through” [Tushnet, L.A. Times]


• Contestants in Australian business dispute probably wound up spending more on the litigation than had been at stake in the first place [Sydney Morning Herald]


• New at Point of Law: New Hampshire governor vetoes trial lawyers’ bill; global warming litigation to be bigger than tobacco?; the Times notices HIPAA;


• It’s my emotional-support dog, and my lawyer says you have to let it into your store [eight years ago on Overlawyered, before these stories started getting common]

I smell class action:

Frequent N.H. Speeder Wants Limit Raised

DOVER, N.H. - A man with a penchant for speedy driving has come up with an unusual tactic for beating speeding tickets — raise the limit. So far this year, Larry Lemay has been ticketed four times for speeding.

Rather than slow down, Lemay is suing the state Department of Transportation to study traffic and speed limits across New Hampshire, to see whether limits could be raised. Lemay’s lawsuit, filed in Strafford County Superior Court, also asks a judge to order the Transportation Department to pay for his legal fees and the cost of the study, an estimated $1,853.

Lemay said he believes many speed limits are set intentionally low so the state can cash in on drivers.

“The state is making a lot of money doing this, and I want it stopped,” he said. “It’s wrong.”

Dave Hilts, the assistant attorney general representing the state, said Lemay’s view that higher speed limits would lead to safer driving is shared on the Internet by many speed limit abolitionists, but is misguided.

“Common sense will tell you that going too slow is only a hazard when other people are going much faster,” said Hilts. “It’s kind of a weird case.”

As for Lemay’s suggestion that the state sets low speed limits just to catch people with tickets:

“It seems ridiculous to me. I don’t know what incentive the state would have to do that,” Hilts said. “I’ve not seen any evidence that that occurs. I don’t believe it.”

I’m not sure exactly what this lawsuit is meant to accomplish. So he wins, and a judge orders the state to do a “study” that it doesn’t want to do? Want three guesses as to what the study is going to say?

On the other hand, I might have to give him a call to see if I can file an amicus brief. I have a lot of parking tickets that I think violate my right to park on the sidewalk.

Is it, or isn’t it?

• It is: “Hopefully this means a better life,” says the energy company employee who won a $40 million judgment (almost half of it punitives) against Qwest Communications after the telephone pole he was working on collapsed and injured him. He was lucky; had he worked for the phone company, he likely would have been barred from suing by worker’s comp laws.
  

  “I could hear my heart pounding, pulsing faster and faster, and I tried keeping calm, but when they started reading the verdict I was in a state of shock,” he said. “It’s justice.”

• It isn’t: “The lawsuit wasn’t about money, he said.” That’s New Hampshire resident Joseph Hewett, the rejected applicant for The Apprentice who settled his age discrimination lawsuit against Donald Trump and the producers of the show.
  

  “This was never about a disgruntled applicant trying to get back at (Trump’s) organization, it just gave me an opportunity to advocate on behalf of a protected class,” he said. “This was about the fact that I believe an entire class was aggrieved.”

  His evidence that age was what kept him off the show was a slam dunk; after all, he “claimed he was qualified for the show because he graduated magna cum laude from college and because of his ‘many years of experience maintaining large commercial properties.’”

• Well, maybe it is: Human rights advocacy groups have been (mis)using the Alien Tort Claims Act for years to litigate foreign events in American courts, but those advocacy groups were motivated primarily by ideology. Now class action law firms, sensing an opportunity, are getting in on the action. Overlawyered repeat offender Motley Rice (many links) is suing officials of the United Arab Emirates on behalf of boys from South Asia and Africa who claim to have been kidnapped and enslaved as camel jockeys in the UAE; the case has no connection whatsoever to the U.S.

  The human rights movement isn’t thrilled because they figure that these lawyers are really in it for the money and not the cause; conservative tort reformers aren’t thrilled because they see it as just another example of entrepreneurial lawyering by trial lawyers.
  

  John M. Eubanks, a lawyer with Motley Rice who represents the former jockeys, disputed both points.

  “We’re trying to right wrongs that have been committed,” Mr. Eubanks said. “It’s not about money. It’s about exacting some form of justice.”

  Uh, yeah:
  

  Pressed, Mr. Eubanks conceded that the case was at least partly about money. “There is a contingency fee,” he said. “These cases do cost a lot of money. We don’t get paid unless we collect.”

• Whoops! Insurer’s lawyer backtracks and scrambles for cover after saying some Miami/Dade judges “are being paid off” [Daily Business Review; possibly related, scroll to mention of Miami near end]
• Climate’s different up there: Google and Wikipedia sued for libel in Canada over user-generated content [Rob Hyndman]
• Lawyers implicated in Ky. fen-phen scandal are owners of Curlin, horse that placed third in Kentucky Derby [Courier-Journal, Sun-Times, Sports Network, WSJ law blog]
• “As a lawyer, I hear stories about lawsuit abuse all the time,” but Judge Pearson’s pants suit takes the cake [Nasty Brutish & Short; also lively discussion at Digg]
• Ramps of gold: serial ADA-suit filers George Louie, David Gunther and others launch wave of sidewalk suits against Northern California towns [Contra Costa Times]
• $250 fine for releasing a balloon into the air in New Hampshire? Criminalizing nearly everything [National Law Journal; also Ayn Rand]
• Helpful, if scary: “12 Important U.S. Laws Every Blogger Needs To Know” [Aviva Directory]
• U.K. lawyers ordered to pay back tens of millions of pounds in excessive fees earned for representing sick miners [Times Online Apr. 16, Apr. 25, Apr. 10; Telegraph]
• Did Rosie O’Donnell come out for loser-pays on ABC’s “The View”? Someone please get a transcript [Bill Boushka]
• Japan doesn’t furnish us with much material, but here’s one about magicians suing TV broadcasters for revealing secrets behind coin tricks [Above the Law]
• Sensitivity vs. sensitivity: female drummers allowed to sue over their (culturally authentic) exclusion from ritual drumming at Native American powwow [five years ago on Overlawyered]

Peter Lattman at WSJ law blog (Apr. 10) discusses political maneuvering in the two early-Presidential-deciding states. It turns out that both states have (in the persons of Bill Shaheen and Jerry Crawford, respectively) Democratic kingmakers who happen to be trial lawyers. Not that this makes them so different from other states from coast to coast….

Multi-billion dollar (and down) extortion edition:

• Merrill Lynch and CSFB appeal extortionate Enron class-action certification. [Point of Law; AEI (Feb. 9); WLF brief]
• More on the extortionate and lawless $500 billion Wal-Mart class certification. [Point of Law]
• Mississippi Supreme Court rejects extortionate medical monitoring class actions. [Behrens @ WLF]
• Lawyer Daniel Hynes tries to extort $2000 from New Hampshire bar holding Ladies’ Night. [Foster's Daily Democrat (h/t B.C.)]
• Colorado Civil Justice League stops legislative attempt at giveaway to local trial lawyers. [Point of Law]
• Wisconsin court: family can be sued for babysitter’s car accident when returning home from dropping off child. [AP/Insurance Journal]
• Fox seeks to dismiss Borat suit on anti-SLAPP grounds. [Hollywood Reporter Esq. via WSJ Law Blog]

• Passaic County jury: $28M for “wrongful birth.” [NorthJersey.com]
• Former AG (and Dem) Griffin Bell: “Judicial Leadership Emerging In Asbestos And Silica Mass Torts” [WLF]

• Utah legislature considering med-mal reform for ERs. “Neurosurgeons in this town have to pay over $90,000 a year just for the privilege of getting out of bed on a Friday night to drain the blood from the brain of a victim of a drunk driver crash. And they say, I’m not gonna do it. Because the patients are sicker. The procedures are sometimes more invasive and more risky with more complications. Why take that risk if they don’t have to?” [KCPW via Kevin MD; Provo Herald]

• A little-read blog promoting a soon-to-be-pulped fictional account of tort reform is really begging for a link from us, what with three out of the last five posts making amateurish (and often false) personal attacks on this site’s authors or soliciting others to also fling poo. No dice.

Dr. Terry Bennett of New Hampshire, last seen in this space Aug. 25, 2005 facing disciplinary action from his state medical board for allegedly saying rude and insensitive things to a patient, has won a ruling from a judge ordering the board to stop those proceedings. The New Hampshire attorney general’s office represented the board before the court. Dr. Bennett says he won’t let the matter drop and plans to sue all concerned — not a surprise, somehow. (David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Court Says Stop Case Against Rude Doctor”, AP/RedOrbit, Jul. 7). GruntDoc comments (Jul. 11) and a website defending Dr. Bennett is here.

By popular demand: the New Hampshire Board of Medicine is asking the attorney general’s office to investigate a complaint by a woman that Dr. Terry Bennett told her she was obese. Because the complaint is confidential, and news coverage has only told Bennett’s version of the story, there may be more to this tale than the seemingly absurd situation of possible government sanction for providing truthfully blunt and important health information to a patient suffering from a potentially life-threatening condition. But if the reporting is accurate, it would seem to be another piece of evidence that contradicts the frequent excuse of tort-reform opponents that aggressive medical malpractice lawsuits are needed to compensate for under-vigilant medical boards. (AP/MSNBC, Aug. 24).

At trial, New Hampshire preacher Terry Karr used a cane, saying he could no longer stand for long periods after his slip-fall at a California motor inn. But the jury found against him after the defense produced a videotape “of Karr at the pulpit, shaking both fists in the air and moving about excitedly throughout a sermon.” (Julie O’Shea, “Candid camera”, The Recorder, Jul. 5).

…is raising questions about another sex abuse conviction, this time of a Catholic priest in New Hampshire named Gordon MacRae. (”A Priest’s Story”, Wall Street Journal/ OpinionJournal.com, Apr. 30). One detail worth recording: a would-be “sting” phone call to the priest, which it was hoped would get him on record making incriminating statements, was made not from police headquarters but from the office of the personal injury lawyer representing an accuser. The New Hampshire press, reporting on Rabinowitz’s articles, relays the views of many involved in the legal proceedings against MacRae who consider the accusations against him well-founded (Daniel Barrick, “Writer takes up convicted priest’s case”, Concord Monitor, Apr. 29; “A radical claim” (editorial), Apr. 29; Denis Paiste, “Judge stands by priest’s sex abuse sentence”, Manchester Union Leader, Apr. 29). Amy Welborn has a thread. More: Mar. 22, 2004, and links from there; earlier posts.

We get mail:

You mention in your “District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A.” post that other commentators, such as Mr. Healy and Mr. Levy, have argued that individual states, not the federal government, should be initiating legislation preventing lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The idea is that businesses can “withdraw from doing business in a state that has an oppressive tort regime.” Your counter-argument, however, is that the latter idea “doesn’t help gun manufacturers who don’t do business in the District of Columbia to begin with.”

But, in fact, can’t businesses withdraw from states to the point where these businesses no longer have the “minimum contacts” necessary for the state courts to assert personal jurisdiction over the businesses? Then the businesses would be avoiding the oppressive tort laws of those states, but the states would not have personal jurisdiction for any lawsuits against these businesses.

Chris Schmitthenner

It is correct that gun manufacturers will, in litigation, attempt to get themselves out of the case by arguing lack of personal jurisdiction via such precedents as Asahi Metal Industry Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court of California. However, there are two separate issues that prevent Asahi from providing complete relief.

First, plaintiffs will argue that there are minimum contacts that suffice for personal jurisdiction. They’ll argue that the manufacturers placed ads in magazines that would be seen by residents of the state. They’ll argue purposeful availment under the same factual theories that underlie the “nuisance” claims in the Weinstein litigation. Cf. GTE New Media Services v. BellSouth Corp. (D.C. 2000) (plaintiff entitled to discovery whether defendant, while not physically present in District, intended for District residents to do business with it and caused injury within District); LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co. (N.Y. 2000) (distinguishing Asahi to find personal jurisdiction). In the case of the D.C. city council law, the manufacturers may even have problems to the extent they have lobbyists in the area. A particular judge may well decide that it’s a jury issue, and many manufacturers won’t want to take that risk.

Second, even if D.C. courts do not have personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer, little stops a D.C. plaintiff from suing a gun manufacturer in a state where there is personal jurisdiction. For example, in Peterson v. BASF, Minnesota state courts applied the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to a nationwide class; in Ysbrand v. DaimlerChrysler, Oklahoma state courts applied Michigan law. One can easily imagine a D.C. plaintiff and a well-funded attorney filing suit in Los Angeles County against a California manufacturer asking for application of D.C. law. I think, in such a circumstance, gun manufacturers have strong arguments under the principles behind Phillips Petroleum v. Shutts that, if D.C. has no personal jurisdiction over a defendant, choice-of-law principles cannot be used to apply D.C. law to the defendant in a manner consistent with due process. But the question, to my knowledge, has not yet been resolved definitively; the defendants in Peterson and Ysbrand certainly were within the personal jurisdiction of the forum whose law was applied. Cf. also the different case of Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., where a New York plaintiff was allowed to sue an Ohio/California defendant using New Hampshire courts and laws, solely for the purpose of taking advantage of a favorable statute of limitations.

In short, gun manufacturers have strong arguments for application of the Healy/Levy federalism theory should such a suit actually happen. But plaintiffs get to choose their forum, and a large part of forum-shopping is finding a forum where the courts are less likely to resolve issues of law in favor of the defendant. The advantage of an immunity law is that it removes that uncertainty.

I’ve opened comments on the narrow question of the interrelationship between personal jurisdiction and choice of law. Please keep discussion civil and limited to this issue.

Update:David Hardy provides another example.

To settle litigation filed by the attorneys general of 47 states, the Blockbuster video chain

has agreed to take down the “No Late Fees” signs in its video stores. Customers will continue to pay extra to rent movies for longer than a week — but Blockbuster won’t call that a late fee.

It will be a “restocking” fee or something similar.

The company also agreed to make refunds available for some customers who paid under the earlier policy, and to pay $630,000 to the state AGs for their pains. New Hampshire and Vermont declined to join the action, with the head of consumer protection in New Hampshire explaining that there hadn’t been complaints from his state’s customers; New Jersey continues to pursue its own suit (see Mar. 10). (Michael D. Sorkin, “Blockbuster settles case over signs advertising no late fees”, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 30; Peter Lewis, “State settles Blockbuster late-fee allegations”, Seattle Times, Mar. 30; “N.H. opts out of Blockbuster late fees settlement”, Portsmouth Herald News, Mar. 31).

71-year-old Doris Christous had just left a Wal-Mart in New Hampshire when she decided that she was waiting too long for a red light to change–so, rather than waiting for a safe right turn, she darted out across five lanes of traffic against the light. Unfortunately, David DeBenedetto was driving through a green light at the time, hit Christous’s Bonneville and flipped, killing him at the scene when his pickup truck landed on him while he was being ejected out of the passenger-side window.

DeBenedetto’s family sued CLD Engineering Consultants, the engineering firm that redesigned the expansion of the intersection–not the road into or out of the Wal-Mart. The police officer who investigated the accident testified in defense of CLD, but a jury found them 49% liable, even though they were just following the dictates of the state Department of Transportation (2% liable). So CLD is on the hook for $2.6 million of a $5.2 million damages award. (John Basilesco, “Jury awards $2.6 million to family”, The Eagle-Tribune, Feb. 3; John Basilesco, “Officer: Sensors not to blame in traffic death”, The Eagle-Tribune, Feb. 1; Chris Markuns, “Widow’s work helps keep dangerous drivers in check”, The Eagle-Tribune, Jun. 7, 2000, John Basilesco, “Another senior who caused fatal crash may get only ticket”, The Eagle-Tribune, Nov. 11, 1999, John Basilesco, “Death caused by ill-timed traffic signal?”, The Eagle-Tribune, Jun. 2, 1999). It’s unclear whether the jury was permitted to consider the percentage fault of the settling parties. Or why, if the engineering firm was so at fault, other drivers stuck at the light over the previous years managed not to kill anybody.

The plaintiff’s expert, Ronald A. Morra, blamed CLD at trial. According to the press account, he had previously provided a sworn statement that the accident was the fault of the company that installed the signal control system, but changed his story–perhaps after that defendant settled with the plaintiff. (John Basilesco, “Traffic light timing focus of lawsuit”, The Eagle-Tribune, Jan. 28).

“A man is being sued by a New Hampshire company for labeling it a spammer and reporting its actions to ISPs, after two years of allegedly receiving unsolicited emails from it. Atriks alleges that Jay Stuler caused financial damage to the firm, resulting in a number of lost contracts. The suit also says that Stuler made defamatory statements against the company, calling it ‘a notorious spam gang,’ and CEO Brian Haberstroh a ‘criminal,’ which the suit denies.” (”Company Sues over Spam Claims”, TheWhir/Article Central, Jan. 20; Jo Best, “Spammed man sued by alleged spammer wants cash”, Silicon.com/The Spam Report, Jan. 18)(via KipEsquire who got it from Privacy Spot).