Perhaps The Marketeer Thought I Had Changed My Mind. I Haven't.
Back in January I told you the tale of a marketing cockroach. Let's continue to call him Mr. Feculent Q. Pus-Crust of the Society For Cornholing Unsuspecting Children, thought that is not quite his name, and his business also has a more generic title known to attorneys in the area.
Back in January, I expressed my opinion that an unsolicited email headed FELONY ARREST, containing a solicitation for the SFCUC's database of potential criminal cases, was deceptive and disreputable. I expressed disquiet with this practice, both here on the blog and in an email to Mr. Pus-Crust. He became quite angry and threatened me with suit. Among other things, he hotly denied that he had spammed me:
#1 Automated emails: I certainly don't do automated emails; frankly I don't even know how to do one and therefore have never done one in my life. Moreover my 6 day a week work schedule will attest to that fact as well. Further corroboration is in the literally dozens of meticulous hand written notes on legal pads for each territory that I get involved in. I maintain these for years.
And then I never heard from him again.
Imagine my surprise to receive an email from him with the title "FW: intent to distribute," which I believe is once again calculated to appear like an email from a potential client, one charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute.
As you can see, no one captures more pre-screened (for financial capability) criminal defense matters in Southern California.
If it looks like a fit, we can discuss the rights to this protected territory.
[Feculent Q. Pus-Crust, Cockroach Marketeer]
The rest of the email was a vomited-forth capture of a series of entries from their database of potential client inquiries, showing just titles like "accused of lewd and lucidious [sic] acts." I clicked on one of the cases to confirm that it led to a database, but did not review any cases, because I have no intention to use the "service." (Note: I have grave concerns about any model that solicits potential clients to post a description of their case on a website to solicit attorneys, because clients often admit things they shouldn't when they do so, which is a bad thing.. In this instance, I haven't looked at the web site in question, so I don't know if this company is taking steps to protect the interests of these potential clients from unwise disclosures. I sure hope they are.)
Anyway, I sent Mr. Pus-Crust a response:
Apparently you don’t remember that you threatened me with a lawsuit for criticizing your spamming a year ago.
Remove me from your spam list forthwith.
Oh that’s right. You’re the guy with so much time on his hands and skill in jumping to conclusions. Now I remember.
I responded back:
Gosh, since you so lovingly hand-craft each solicitation, instead of spamming, it must have required quite a collapse of memory for you to forget our prior exchange.
Have you tried Ginkgo Biloba?
So: I think it's fair to say that neither Mr. Pus-Crust nor I have experienced a change in our essential character since January.
So. This raises a question. In January, in angry denial of my suggestion that he had spammed me, Mr. Pus-Crust asserted "I certainly don't do automated emails; frankly I don't even know how to do one and therefore have never done one in my life." His latest email to me raises some questions:
1. Did Mr. Pus-Crust start sending automated emails after that exchange, explaining why he sent a solicitation to someone he had previously angrily accused of defamation and threatened to sue?
2. Or did Mr. Pus-Crust hand-craft this email, but forget that he was sending it to someone he had angrily threatened to sue 10 months before?
3. Or does Mr. Pus-Crust have an eccentric definition of "automated?"
4. Or is Mr. Pus-Crust lying about not sending automated emails?
I don't know, though I think an observer can draw inferences from the evidence. All I know is that ten months after I told Mr. Pus-Crust that his unsolicited email was unwelcome and I viewed it as deceptive, and ten months after he got very angry and complained about my "unprofessional, shrill and reckless email" and my "false and defamatory comments on [my] blog," Mr. Pus-Crust sent me another unsolicited marketing email with another title I view as deceptive.
You might be asking why I'm not naming names. It's for specific legal and strategic reasons. Stay tuned.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Follow-Up: U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Right This Time - September 12th, 2014
- The Quality of Mercy Is Not Strained, But It May Have A Litmus Test - September 11th, 2014
- [Rerun from 2011] Ten Things I Want My Kids To Learn From 9/11 - September 11th, 2014
- Yale Might Want To Look Into Some Sort of Basic Civic Literacy Course - September 10th, 2014
- U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Very Wrong - September 6th, 2014