As I indicated before the new lawsuit attempts to do a few things, but the design of it is to shut the blog down. The theory behind the damages is that Mr. M has suffered emotional distress and has the potential challenge of a future employer finding this blog and more specifically the less than complimentary history that I allege I have outlined. I would remind the readers that Mr. M did prevail in the arbitration and the blog takes arbitration and emphasizes evidence the arbitrator intentionally ignored. Mr. M can write his own blog if he wishes.
The more interesting point I think is that the new attorney Joel is attempting to cast this lawsuit as not being defamation but rather retaliation to a former employee, one that has not worked for us in more than 12 years. The nature of the retaliation pleading is designed to provide some recovery of legal fees should they prevail.
In keeping with their current theory, they have sued every one of the corporate companies as well as my holding company and of course they have sued me. I think this is just one more example of the attorneys running the lawsuit game and perhaps using Mr. M for their own benefit.
I note that because we reached out to Mr. M’s attorney and asked how we could accommodate Mr. M on this identification question, but they have not responded. In fact I have requested a meeting now 4 times with no response. We did get this today. It was filed to make sure I was not representing the corporations. Why is that important? Because it is just designed to cost me money and lieu of that they want me to pay the unsecured debt of one of my corporations. R –  Objection
Naturally I welcome a defamation claim if they want to make it. The truth is a powerful thing. But as I have written many times the blog is not about Mr. M. It’s about the dishonest attorneys and judicial players around litigation that escalate the costs and engage in whatever is necessary to win.
This may well be a tactic to remove the references and challenges to the attorneys and other involved in this case historically. It certainly is not about the facts. The facts are frightening to them and I understand that. In so far as the complaint is public and easily find able via search, our efforts to bring some degree of anonymity for Mr. M pursuant to is conveyed interests appear to go away when he can try to garner some additional money at our…my expense. Here’s the complaint. 1-main
They must feel the US District Court is ready and willing to help. I need to write a Portlandia script about this.
Much of the consternation appears to be around the forensic reports. During the discovery stage of the arbitration one of my former attorneys entered into an agreement typical to these matters. I believe I have already addressed some of this but in essence if we were designate documents we provide and stamp it confidential the information may not be disclosed at any time by the other side. Never. The same is true if Mr. M’s team provided us confidential information and stamped in confidential, then we can not disclose it at any time. The point of this is that when we turn over my computer, for example, their forensic expert cannot generate a report that can be published by them at any time in the future. The key point is that it is our information, not theirs. But it does not mean that we are precluded from publishing our own confidential information. Linda Marshal provided a copy of the protective order which I have provided here.R – asp protective order So information like Mr. M Tax Returns were provided under that confidential seal and we did not retain those documents nor would we disclose that info even if we had.
But information we owned, even if we designate it as confidential, may be released at our discretion. So for example, our forensic reports even if designated confidential are on property we own and we can release it any time we want. Had Mr. M provided his personal computers and we did forensic evaluations on that computer we could not and would not disclose. But based on advice of counsel, we are in the right here.
And as far as we can tell our forensic reports were not designated as confidential. The reason for that is confidential information was not produced in the reports. Any information that could have been confidential, like the content of client files, was not the subject and not included in the report. Just that simple.
Attached is the letter Linda Marshall sent demanding I take the blog down. R – 15-10-3 letter (hasson) re sittingduck Now the agreement she referred to specifically provides for injunctive relief, which they have not chosen to do as yet. I presume that if they though they were in the right they would have done so months ago. Here’s the email from Joel on this. Joel’s Email
I have chosen to represent myself on this litigation. Worried that I may ask to do the same for the now inactive corporations, Joel filed the following today. R –  Objection The goal of this is simply to cost us money. It is an obvious ploy. Crazy.
Until next time.