Sunday, 27 November 2011

Some libel silliness

Connoisseurs of badly written, illiberal, misconceived, and generally rather gormless libel threats will enjoy what the estimable science blogger Dr Andy Lewis is kindly providing for us - see here and here.

The author of the threatening letters even insists "You and your supporters can stop asking if I am an attorney".

But there is no need for him to say this.

The letters speak for themselves.

The important post which the "attorney" is trying to have taken down is here.

It is well worth a read.

(By the way, any threatening letters about this blogpost may be published in full and the author referred to the leading case of Arkell v Pressdram.)


No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.


Tom said...

I suppose that I should confess that my dream is to be a claimant libel/privacy guy, but seeing this sort of stuff going on really is a turn-off.

Different jurisdiction, I know, but seeing the modus operandi of certain British firms, who see themselves as an extension of their clients' PR arms rather than lawyers (threatening letters, playing hard and fast with the truth etc.), one wonders whether the Barbra Streisand effect is actually going to kill this lot off before long.

Given that A. This post concerns something which happened in the US and that B. None of the firms I'm whining about are actually involved in this story in the slightest bit whatsoever, my entire comment's a bit pointless, really...

andreasmoser said...

Publishing these threats is the best way to react!

Penglish said...

This is not the first or only time that Marc Stephens has attempted to use threats and legalese to silence a critic, according to where he threatens a cancer survivor for "libal" and for giving "medical advise".

He would appear to be a rather pathetic and very nasty bully.

Doctor Zorro said...

Bugger, I was going to refer to "Arkell v Pressdram" and you beat me to it.

Alice said...

Plainly, dear Mr Burzynski needs to get $200,000 out of a poor sick child in order to be able to hire himself a proper lawyer.

phoenixwoman said...

By the way, Burzynski is a convicted fraudster:

He was indeed found guilty of fraud in 1994, and the judgement was upheld by the court of appeals, fifth circuit.


One of the claims was “…that Dr. Burzynski defrauded the Fund by, inter alia, materially misrepresenting the legality of his antineoplastons treatment.” (page 6)

The court of appeals judgement on that charge was:
“…we uphold the district court’s judgment on the
Fund’s claim of fraud…” (page 13)