You remember Marc Stephens. I first wrote about his threats to critics of the Burzynski Clinic here. He wrote a very odd and threatening email, to which I responded here. I detailed a lengthy and tiresome correspondence with him here. Hitler reacted to is disaffiliation with the Burzynski Clinic here. And so on.

Yesterday, out of the blue, Marc sent me another email:

I see you are still obsessed…5 articles per month about me? Anyway, its been brought to my attention that you have multiple articles published on your website/blog stating false accusations about me. I am requesting that you immediately retract your false statements, or completely shutdown those articles.

In each article, mentioned below, you are stating that I am a liar, fraud, a twit, crazy, a con artist, impersonating/posing as an attorney, a thug, a criminal, threatening teens, bumptious & fake, and freakishly ignorant about fundamental issues of American Law. I also expect you to post a public apology.

The articles in question are as follow:

“Junk Science and Marketeers and Legal Threats, Oh My!”
“Tell Me About The Rabbit, Marc Stephens”
“Reason’s Superlative Prison Issue and a Note about Anonymity”
“Pro Bono Victory in a Junk-Science SLAPP Suit against a Science Blogger”
“My Marc Stephens Update, Or, Mr. Snarky Numbered Lists Visits Crazytown”
“Marc Stephens’ Downfall”
Vote for Popehat’s “Censorious Asshat of the Year”
“Andrew Wakefield Sues BMJ and Brian Deer: Time To Test Out the New Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute”
“Chris McGrath v. Vaughan Jones: An Unpleasant Peek into U.K. Libel Law”,
“Rhys Morgan's Experience Illustrates Importance of Protecting Student Speech”

Regards,
Marc

Note, in reading Marc's list, that he thinks that posts that merely mention him in passing are "about" him. Second, note the "it has been brought to my attention" language. This language is characteristic of people who either (1) like to use lawyer-letter-sounding language that has no actual meaning, and/or (2) people who like to imply that they have minions, or allies, or staff, or something. Marc's been reading for a long time, so clearly he brought it to his own attention. Also, note that Marc does not specify how any statement I made was false, and does not understand the legally significant difference between statements of opinion and provably true or false statements of fact.

I responded:

Dear Mr. Stephens:

I note that you still have not answered the question I have asked again and again: are you, in fact, an attorney? Was the Burzynski Clinic ever your client in your capacity as an attorney?

You have identified a series of characterizations. Many of them (twit, crazy, thug, bumptious, freakishly ignorant about fundamental issues of American law) are statements of pure opinion, and thus absolutely privileged under the First Amendment. Others might — might — be taken as statements of opinion based on facts (liar, fraud, con artist, impersonating/posing as an attorney, criminal, threatening teens, fake). Yet I have described, or linked to posts describing, the adequate (in fact, compelling) factual basis for each of those statements. For instance, your emails to Rhys Morgan — a teen — are inarguably threatening, even leaving aside the one where you included a Google picture. The emails where you imply that you are a lawyer are many and clear, and any reasonable person reading them would agree they suggest you are in fact an attorney. (If you would like to answer my question, and demonstrate that you ARE an attorney, I will be pleased to make that correction throughout).

If you would like to provide me with specific facts establishing that specific factual statements I have made were incorrect, I would be happy to review them carefully, and will make any appropriate corrections. But I will not be changing my commentary about you based upon vague and unsupported claims that complain about my protected opinions.

Please feel free to supplement your request.

Thank you,

Ken

This did not satisfy Marc.

Kenneth,

I am fully aware of your many insulting statements of opinion. It is your way of retaliating, and a clear attempt to damage my reputation, which you’ve already admitted. If you are so sure of your so-called “compelling facts”, then why are you asking me if I’m an attorney or not? Do you doubt your so-called facts..? I, and any reasonable person, would say that is kind of reckless. It is very clear your statements are based on fabrication, not facts. Also, assumptions are not facts. Because of your hatred and ill will towards me, which you have admitted, within two months you have written ten articles about me which contain multiple false statements.

Please keep in mind that you are a Blogger, not a journalist. In addition, you do not represent any party of the matter. So I have no obligation to communicate, or disclose my contractual relationships with an anonymous “Blogger” named Popehat.. and the photo image of your account profile is that of a 5 year old kid.

Please provide me with your compelling facts which prove that I am a liar, fraud, a twit, crazy, a con artist, impersonating/posing as an attorney, a thug, a criminal, threatening teens, bumptious & fake, and freakishly ignorant about fundamental issues of American Law. Again, I request for you to remove the articles, or retract your false statements.
Thanks,
Marc

Note that Marc is still refusing to answer the simple question of whether he is an attorney or not. That question is central to all of my posts about him, and I asked repeatedly during my correspondence with him, and he would never give a straight answer. Why not, do you suppose?

Here's my reply:

Marc:

That's not the way it works. You claim my posts have factual statements that are not correct. If you cite specific factual statements you believe to be untrue, and provide specific facts supporting your claim, I will review them carefully and, if warranted, make a correction. But I will not make changes based on insinuations or bluster.

Your continued evasive behavior speaks for itself.

This just made him angrier. But for the first time, he seemed to imply — without saying — that he's not a lawyer, suggesting that he didn't NEED to be to do the things he was doing:

Kenneth,

I clearly specified each false statement you have made in your multiple articles. All of the statements about me in your articles consist of false and libelous statements. It is completely irrelevant whether or not someone is a licensed attorney/lawyer because anyone can forward a cease and desist letter on behalf of a client. Based on this fact, it would not make someone a liar, a fraud, a twit, crazy, a con artist, impersonating a lawyer, posing as an attorney, a thug, a criminal, threatening teens, bumptious & fake, and freakishly ignorant about fundamental issues of American Law.

Your theories and personal interpretations are not facts. Your false statements in each article are written as assertions of facts, not opinions. Please retract your false and defamatory statements to project your “Opinion”. You of all people should know that defamatory statements, a tort, are not protected by the First Amendment.

Thanks,
Marc

Note the continued level of evasiveness, coyness, and refusal to offer specific facts rebutting facts that I have offered. This is my final response to him to date:

Marc:

With each communication, you merely supply more evidence in support of everything I have been saying about you.

First of all, by just picking out a few words and phrases, you are not citing facts establishing why specific factual assertions are incorrect. Just as an example: on what factual basis do you deny that you threatened a teen? Are you saying that you did not send the widely publicized emails to Rhys Morgan? Or are you claiming those emails are not threats? Similarly, with respect to posing as an attorney: are you claiming that you ARE in fact an attorney, or that you did not pretend to be one? This most recent email suggests — rather coyly — the latter interpretation, but since you've refused to address the issue for so long, it's not particularly clear.

If you provided specific facts explaining why you think that specific factual statements I made were wrong, I could engage them. For instance, let's take this latest email. You seem to imply — without coming out and saying — that you are not an attorney, but never posed as one, because just sending cease and desist letters on behalf of a client does not make someone an attorney. To that I would respond that I have read many communications apparently from you that either state explicitly that you are an attorney ("I am an attorney if that helps you sleep at night" [http://whitecoatunderground.com/2011/12/01/when-did-the-burzynski-clinic-start-harassing-bloggers/]) to ones where you imply that you are an attorney ("So, when I present to the juror that my client and his cancer treatment has went up against 5 Grand Juries which involved the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Aetna Life Insurance, Emprise, Inc., Texas State Medical Board, and the United States Government, and was found not guilty in all 5 cases, you will wish you never wrote your article." [ http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/a_pr_flack_from_the_burzynski_clinic_thr.php ]) ("Once I obtain a subpoena for your personal information, I will not settle this case with you." [ http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2011/11/the-burzynski-clinic-threatens-my-family.html ]) ("I suggest you remove ALL references about my client on the internet in its entirety, and any other defamatory statement about my client immediately, or I will file suit against you" [http://rhysmorgan.co/2011/11/threats-from-the-burzynski-clinic/]). Marc, since you claim that you are not, in fact, "freakishly ignorant about fundamental issues of American Law [sic]", you know that a non-lawyer might represent himself in court, but cannot represent an entity, and generally cannot represent another person. Therefore, the only way you could be making a presentation to a juror about the Burzynski clinic, or obtaining a subpoena for the Burzynski clinic, or filing suit on behalf of the Burzynski clinic, would be if you were a lawyer. This leads to the ineluctable conclusion that (1) you are an attorney, and just won't confirm it one way or the other no matter how many times you are asked, (2) you are not an attorney, but deliberately posed as one, or (3) you are not an attorney, but are so ignorant of fundamental concepts of American law that you did not realize that you were saying things implying to any reasonable audience that you are an attorney. (Note that this last interpretation is difficult to reconcile with your statement "I am an attorney if that helps you sleep at night." Maybe you were . . . confused?)

Moreover, your selection of words to attack suggests that you do not understand the difference between constitutionally protected statements of opinion and statements of fact. As one California court summarized:

"To state a libel claim which is not defeated by the freedom of speech protections of the First Amendment, Ferlauto must allege a statement that is provably false. (Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., supra, 497 U.S. at p. 20, 110 S.Ct. 2695.) Statements do not imply a provably false factual assertion and thus cannot form the basis of a defamation action if they cannot “ ‘reasonably [be] interpreted as stating actual facts' about an individual.” (Ibid., citing Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S. 46, 50, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41.) Thus, “rhetorical hyperbole,” “vigorous epithet [s],” “lusty and imaginative expression[s] of [ ] contempt,” and language used “in a loose, figurative sense” have all been accorded constitutional protection. (Greenbelt Pub. Assn. v. Bresler (1970) 398 U.S. 6, 14, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6; Letter Carriers v. Austin (1974) 418 U.S. 264, 284, 286, 94 S.Ct. 2770, 41 L.Ed.2d 745.)"

Ferlauto v. Hamsher (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1401, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 849

Words like "twit" and "bumptious" and "thug" clearly fall within the category of statements that do not imply a provably false factual assertion, but constitute figurative language. Someone not freakishly ignorant of fundamental concepts of American law might or might not know that already. As to the rest, based in part on the citations above to your statements claiming to be a lawyer and directly implying you are a lawyer, and based on the correspondence by you to me and to others, I believe that any of my statements which imply fact are, in fact, firmly grounded in the adequate evidence of your own words. If you believe I am incorrect, I remain willing to review, carefully, any evidence or factual explanation you wish to provide that shows that any of my facts are false. If I determine that any of my facts are incorrect, I will make an appropriate correction. If, for instance, you would like to state that you are not an attorney and that your statement "I am an attorney if that helps you sleep at night" was not intended to be taken at face value and that you did not realize that you were implying that you were an attorney by saying you would file suit and argue to jurors and obtain subpoenas, then I would be happy to make that correction to all of my relevant posts, and let readers draw their own conclusions.

Finally, if you are (as your latest email suggests) contemplating a defamation action, I suggest that you research personal jurisdiction, anti-SLAPP statutes, and debtor exams.

If you do decide to provide more information, please cite where in the specific posts you find the allegedly false statements, as I believe you are misconstruing language in several cases.

Thank you,

Ken

We'll see what happens from there.

I am always willing to review evidence suggesting I have made a claim that is factually incorrect, and make a correction if warranted. However, I believe these emails to be part of a campaign of feckless intimidation.

Edit: Is that last email chopping off on the right for people? I've had one complaint.

UPDATE: He responded:

Those cases are irrelevant…you are relying on hearsay, and your actions are negligent. Enjoy your weekend.

I don't think Marc Stephens understands what "hearsay" or "negligent" means. Note that he does not say "I didn't send those emails; they are fake!" He does not say "they altered what I said!" No, he says (as I understand it) that is is "irrelevant," in discussing whether I have a factual basis to say he has been posing as an attorney, to cite emails to other people in which he has posed as an attorney. Note, also, the learned-it-from-watching-law-and-order-reruns use of "hearsay." Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted — in court. It has nothing to do with whether, in the course of exercising my constitutional right to free expression, I have sufficient facts to support a belief that a proposition is true. Only someone freakishly ignorant of fundamental principles of American law would say otherwise.

Edited again on February 6, 2011 And he wrote back yet again:

I am trying to resolve this matter with you professionally. Yet, you continue with the insults and name calling in your articles. As I mentioned, the information below, as well as the cases, are irrelevant. Now you want me to say, “I didn’t write it”? Hilarious, read your first emails back in November. You are relying on another blogger’s info for your so-called facts. It will amount to hearsay unless that person testifies in court. Some of your statements are Rhetorical Hyperbole, others are mentioned as fact, “compelling facts” per popehat. But as you know its all based on context.

Jurisdiction..?
I am very well aware of Jurisdiction Ken. [lengthy discussion of my contact information and ties to Los Angeles redacted.] Do I reside in the beautiful state of California, County of Los Angeles..? We will see.

Anti-Slapp..?
You have to state your case. Then I will present the real facts. You will not be granted a slapp even if you were a California pimp.

Ken, Is Marc Stephens a licensed attorney, or lawyer? Yes or No?

So far your investigation is based on hearsay, misinformation, lack of knowledge, lies, and people inside your network. So please stop telling the public that I am a criminal, etc. You are being extremely negligent. Hey, I will check back in a few weeks for the retraction or deletion. Hopefully by then you will stop using your son’s pic as your profile image. Come get some sun light and stop hiding. I also noticed a few weeks ago you guys shut down meetings, articles, websites, abandoned your first amendment rights and ran like hell when the Muslims came after you Skeptics. Hilarious.

Thanks,
Marc

To which I replied:

Marc:

I take all of that as a statement you will be suing me in California. See you in court, then.

I note that you still refuse to provide facts or evidence explaining what I supposedly got wrong.

If you provide facts and evidence — instead of threats and bluster — I am still very happy to evaluate them and, if appropriate, make any warranted correction.

Thank you,

Ken

California has a very robust anti-SLAPP statute which I have used successfully before. I look forward to using it against Marc if he sues here.

Marc's grasp of law continues to be comical — assuming that he's not straight-up trolling. He seems to think that "hearsay" is a rule that means that, in writing about something, I can't rely upon what other people have written, unless I call them as witnesses first or something. He also seems to think that in order to prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion I would have to call as witnesses the array of bloggers I linked and quoted and relied upon. This, of course, is ridiculous. All I would have to do to prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion is to submit a declaration attaching the blog posts I read and linked and relied upon, and then attack the history of correspondence with Marc, which corroborates everything I have written.

Note that Marc still refuses to explain exactly how or why I am wrong about anything. That's characteristic of bogus legal threats. I was quite sincere in my message to him, which I have sent over and over and over: if he specifies a fact that he thinks I got wrong, and explains why he thinks it is wrong, I will review his facts and evidence carefully and, if warranted, make a correction. But I think his trolling, bullying approach requires him to be coy and mysterious.

Marc also seems obsessed with the notion that I have called him "a criminal." I've reviewed my posts, and I don't believe I ever used that term. I did say — accurately — that practicing law without a license is a crime in some jurisdictions, including California. I believe it is revealing that Marc refuses, no matter how many times he is asked, to say whether or not he is a licensed attorney in any jurisdiction. Marc seems to think that because I cannot prove that he is not a licensed attorney in some jurisdiction somewhere (though he is clearly not, at least under the name he is using, in California), then I must be committing defamation in making my observations about him. Such bizarre semantic games are typical of the deranged, but will find no traction in court. If some law school DID permit him to graduate, that school ought to face an angry mob with torches and pitchforks.

… of how we do the Popehat Signal:

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7639/is-a-spotlight-like-the-bat-signal-possible

Last week I offered some thoughts on the Megaupload indictment from my perspective as a federal criminal practitioner. I have a couple more — one legal, one practical.

Continue Reading »

Wow.  This will merit some further analysis, so I'll try and tear my self away from The Old Republic long enough to write something more substantial.  But the short narrative:  MidClassMitt had every advantage but attacked the expansion with the wrong unit mix (especially since AggiesFanWWJD unexpectedly dropped.  He gave TheGrinch the sad remnants of his stuff, but who gives a shit).   TheGrinch, already in full on "eff you" mode, countered him perfectly.

It's all econ, and MidClassMitt is still hands down the guy to beat, especially now we're out of the Early Game and into the Mid.  You can't win on early rush cheese anymore.  Now you actually need to play.  And MidClassMitt has by far the most cohesive strategy.  TheGrinch (the closest challenger at this point) has clearly been slapping his shit together with spit and wishes.  We'll see if he can pull it together; you can't just select all your units and attack-move them to some random expansion anymore.  But this game has suddenly become very interesting.

Last week I sent out the Popehat Signal asking for pro bono help from a Maryland attorney in support of a political blogger who was seeking to preserve his anonymity in a SLAPP suit.

Many people kindly retweeted it and blogged it and passed it along, and several stand-up attorneys inquired to see if they might be able to help. Eventually we found the right match. Now, more can be told.

The blogger is "Aaron Worthing," who currently blogs at Allergic to Bull. You can read about the case at his blog, and read about the motion he has just filed here. I will refrain from discussing the specifics; discover them for yourselves. Suffice it to say that I find the plaintiff in the SLAPP suit quite evil.

Aaron was caught in a ridiculous Catch-22: he was capable of drafting an opposition to the plaintiff's motion seeking to unmask him, but he could not file it without unmasking himself. The dilemma was solved when Elizabeth Kingsley of Harmon, Curran, Spielberg + Eisenberg, LLP in Washington, D.C. answered the Popehat Signal and stepped in for the limited purpose, as I understand it, of petitioning the court to allow Aaron Worthing to file his papers seeking to preserve his anonymity without breaching that anonymity. (Aaron drafted, and is responsible for, the substantive motion to quash subpoenas linked above.) Aaron may post more specifics about that soon. [Edit: here is his post about resolving the Catch-22.]

Beth specializes in representing non-profits and political campaigns, but quickly offered to step in here, to Aaron's gratitude and satisfaction. Beth and Harmon Curran acted in the best tradition of attorney pro bono work. As I've frequently argued, such generosity and civic spirit is essential to protecting freedom of expression in America from threats of all sorts. Beth has my admiration and thanks for helping, as does her firm.

So. What can you do for free speech?

By the way, Aaron is to the right of me, and has written for blogs even more firmly to the right of me. We undoubtedly disagree vigorously about many subjects. I don't have the privilege of knowing Beth well enough to know her political stances, but it would not surprise me in the least if she differs from Aaron as well. But that doesn't matter. You know why.

[Ed. note: This post represents Derrick's latest attempt to explain American politics through Starcraft. It is not to be confused with his attempts to explain American politics through Dawn of War, or Patrick's attempt to explain it through World of Warcraft.)

It doesn't take a genius to know what the hell is going on with the [GOP] clain. One faction is (reluctantly) pleased enough with its prohibitive frontrunner, MidClassMitt. They feel that while he may be somewhat flawed as a person and as a player, he has the skills and drive to represent them and beat Obama. And god damn it, that's good enough. Another faction though, somewhat led by a small but loud group of disruptive assholes (who don't even post on [GOP]'s forums, choosing instead to congregate on the #GOP IRC channel and just bitch bitch bitch all day long), has been going fishing for anybody, anybody, who can provide a challenge (credible or not). But why? Who gives a shit? Clan Tag is Clan Tag right? INCORRECT.  

PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW

Continue Reading »

For some time, I've been thinking and writing about this question: is it "fair," and "right," that if I act like a sufficiently notable choad on the internet, I may become instantly famous for it, and the consequences of that fame may follow me and have profound social implications?

I keep coming back to two answers: (1) yes, and (2) to quote Clint, deserve's got nothing to do with it.

For the last hundred years, people who care about such things have been complaining about the anonymity of modern life. People who used to live in small towns live in big cities, and people are turned towards television and globalized, homogenized culture rather than towards their neighborhood. One consequence is the ability to treat people badly — even in serial fashion — with relative impunity. It used to be that you'd get the reputation as the town drunk or the town letch, or the village idiot, and that reputation would follow you until you move on to another town. But now many people don't even know their neighbors, let alone their whole "town."

With respect to certain bad behavior, the internet can change that — it can transform you into the resident of an insular town of 300 million people. This week notable jackass Paul Christoforo is finding that out. Try Googling his name to see what I mean.

Some people worry that the result is unduly harsh or unfair — that anyone can become a pariah because of "one mistake." I'm all for the concept of mercy, but I think that concern is misguided for a number of reasons. First and most importantly, the internet is manic and has a short attention span. You have to do something truly epic to go viral. One angry email won't do it unless it is so extreme that it reflects a disturbed mind. If you "just have a bad day," you'll slip into obscurity quickly. It takes talent, or sustained effort, to become internet famous. Consider the case of Jose Martinez of Brandlink Communications. Like Christoforo, he acted like an ass, and won a day or two, tops, of internet fame — but now he's slipping inexorably into deserved oblivion. And he's still employed. And it's only been six months, but if you say Hermon Raju, people will say "who?"

No, the sort of people who become instant-internet-famous are the ones who double down when called out on their bad behavior. In other words, it's not enough that you "have a bad day" — you have to refuse to acknowledge that you're having a bad day.

Finally, some argue that internet infamy can be "out of proportion" to the offense. Perhaps. But isn't that the call of every person who reads about your actions? People don't win instant internet notoriety based on third-hard accounts of conduct. They win it because they do something on video, or in writing, that's notable. If what they did really isn't that bad — if it's truly been blown out of proportion — then can't future readers determine that for themselves? There's more than a whiff of paternalism to the "blown out of proportion" concern — it seems to suggest that we ought not write about someone's misdeeds because future readers can't be trusted to assess their significance themselves. I disagree. Paul Christoforo's future employers, employees, associates, and friends are perfectly capable of reading up on the situation and making up their own minds.

Therefore, though I acknowledge the persistence of human frailty — most especially my own — I don't think that there is something inherently bad about occasional instances of that frailty becoming famous.

Moreover, there are good things about the prospect of internet infamy. It empowers individuals to respond to maltreatment. It provides the prospect of consequences to bullies. It deters bad behavior among those capable of being deterred. It allows investigations that may prevent new victims of bad behavior.

That said, though I support investigating and writing about bad behavior, I absolutely oppose harassing phone calls, harassment of relatives of bad actors, or other tactics designed to terrify rather than to illuminate. I encourage and approve of using internet methodology to track people down and expose them for doing such things.

Speaking of illuminating, let's discuss Paul Christoforo's latest "apology."

Christoforo has offered a string of what he views as "apologies" and what I view as proffered justifications for bad behavior. They are illuminating. Consider first his apology to Mike of Penny Arcade:

I just wanted to apologize for the way our emails progressed I didn’t know how big your site was and I really didn’t believe you ran Pax , So for what’s its worth I am very sorry.

This is not an apology for being a dick; it's an apology for being a dick to someone with more power and a bigger soapbox than you. It's saying, in effect, "I'm sorry for mistaking you for someone I could get away with abusing."

Paul Christoforo's statement to the In-Game column at MSNBC is even worse. It's not clear whether Kyle Orland refrained from asking him tough questions (for instance, about the wholesale plagiarism on his website) or whether he just elected not to print the answers. But the column amounts to an evasive apologia, not an apology.

A chastened Christoforo is now looking for forgiveness from the Internet community he unwittingly antagonized, saying in an interview with msnbc.com's In-Game he was "caught on a bad day" and that he hopes they will "let sleeping dogs lie."

Here's the thing: it's clear that Christoforo wasn't just "caught on a bad day." He's acted like that to customers before. Plus, the issue isn't merely temperament, it's honesty. Christoforo's Ocean Marketing site is largely plagiarized. Moreover, he dishonestly assumed the identity of another marketer, Brandon Leidel, in a buffoonish attempt to defuse the situation.

Christoforo is still attempting defiance:

Yet despite all the drama, Christoforo said he hasn't lost any of his other accounts, aside from Avenger. "It hasn't affected my business yet," he said. "Clients have brought it up, but they've mainly laughed about it. I haven't lost any clients."

The "lol thanks for the free publicity" gambit is typical of sociopaths caught out.

Referring to the email thread that started the whole mess, Christoforo said that he didn't know who he was talking to in his initial, flippant response to Penny Arcade's Mike Krahulik.

"I didn't know who that guy at Penny Arcade was," he admitted. "If I had known, I would have treated the situation a little better. PAX is a great show. What he does is what I've been idolizing since I was a kid. It's admirable he's put that together. He has a lot of connections, ones I want too."

Once again, Christoforo makes it clear that only powerful people — people who can hurt him or help him — are people who deserve decent treatment. Christoforo is not a marketer who is remorseful for treating a customer badly. He's more like a career purse-snatcher who is remorseful (and terrified) because he snatched a purse from the elderly mother of a local mafioso.

Christoforo also said his response was driven in part by what he saw as the disrespectful tone of the messages that came before it.

Also typical of sociopaths and narcissists: a swollen sense of entitlement to respect, utterly uncoupled to any history of showing respect to others.

Regarding the litany of names Christoforo's e-mail called up as potential supporters — a list that included everyone from Epic Games' Cliff Bleszinski to the mayor of Boston — he said the tactic was meant to "impress, not to threaten" and didn't come through correctly because "you can't see tone of voice in email."

Another hallmark of sociopaths and narcissists: the "do you know who I am/who I know" syndrome. [Lawyer protip: if a prospective client insists on showing you pictures of himself or herself with famous people before discussing the case, the representation will be miserable.]

"[Legal action] is something I'm not interested in doing because the community would be more pissed at me," he said. "Regardless of money [possibly won in a settlement], it would really ruin my name. Am I saying I care more about my reputation than money? Yes."

Note the lack of awareness that if he tries legal action, we (the collective we, but also this blog) will stomp him like a cockroach. Note also the utter lack of insight — typical of narcissists — about the connection between his actions and his reputation.

"At the end of the day, I'm a human being, and it feels like the entire world was bullying me," he said. "I want people to like me, I don't want people to think I'm a bad person. … I made a mistake. … I hope I can make something positive out of it."

At the end of the day, Paul Christoforo is a human being. But so are his customers, who were the target of his scorn and ridicule. So were the industry figures whose support he falsely claimed and who won his abuse by disclaiming him. So was the marketing expert whose identity he appropriated. So were the writers whose content Ocean Marketing stole for its website. So are the people who hired him, whose business plan has been substantially complicated by his douchbaggery. Paul — in a manner typical of narcissists — would like you to focus on his humanity to the exclusion of theirs. No, Paul. No.

Paul likes the word "bully" — it's a popular one among people who feel that they should be able to act the way they want without social consequences. I leave it to the good judgment of the reader whether the bullies are the ones quoting Paul and pointing to his conduct, or Paul himself. I'll say only this: the more Paul talks, the worse he looks.

Edited December 29 to Add: Forbes, through its writer Daniel Nye Griffiths, has a new interview with Paul Christoforo up. I update to make two points about it.

First, Christoforo continues to be Christoforo, and has reached the point where he is impossible to satirize. Yesterday, attempting to make fun of Christoforo's concept of an apology, I wrote this:

Sorry, I never would have punched you in the face if I had known you were a black belt. Can you please stop spin-kicking me now?

Today, in the interview, Christoforo says this:

Basically, what Mike [Krahulik] did is this: If you were in a bar, drinking and hanging out with a bunch of people, and in that group of people was one guy that you didn’t know was a mixed martial arts champion. He knows he can kick the **** out of anyone in that bar, and you happen to pick a fight with him. He doesn’t tell you what he is, you take a swing at him and the next thing you know you have a broken jaw and you’re on the way to the hospital.

In short, it's not wrong to throw punches — it's wrong not to warn the guy prone to throwing punches that you are better at it than he is. That, right there, is a sociopath.

Second, I have to say this: I really hated the interview. I would go so far as to say that it offended me, because it came off as a softball, rehabilitation-on-the-interview-couch, friendly chat with a guy who is just awful. It seemed like something that a PR professional much more competent than Christoforo would have arranged. Griffiths didn't challenge any of Christoforo's statements — he didn't probe his "just a bad day" narrative with references to prior documented communications, or posing as another marketer, or plagiarism on his web site.

Daniel Nye Griffiths is the journalist; I'm not. In a correspondence on Twitter about the interview, he suggested that all of that contradictory information was already known and out there (including in his own prior post) and that the point of the interview wasn't to revisit it. He also suggested that his point was to let Christoforo hang himself — as he says, "[s]ometimes just letting people say things is a better way to convey an idea to readers than editorialising about it. QED." I find that unconvincing, or at least unappealing, here. Christoforo has already repeatedly offered the narrative he offered to Griffiths. Asking him questions about inconsistent facts — which has not been called upon to do before, apparently — would not be "editorializing." I submit that it would be interviewing. Christoforo has already hanged himself quite thoroughly; I fail to see the purpose of an interview that simply hands him more rope. In addition, I find the tone of the coda to Griffith's piece difficult to reconcile with the idea that he was simply letting Christoforo be Christoforo:

At heart, Christoforo clearly feels that he is more sinned against than sinning – and that he was suckered into taking a swing at Mike Krahulik without understanding the consequences. Personally, I suspect that Krahulik simply did not imagine that, in the context, he would not be immediately recognised.

In either case, it is certainly the case that it was terrible luck to be the person whose Internet argument caught the eye of a superfan. Whether the moral of that is always to behave as if your communications could be shared with an audience of millions, or to play the percentages and hope to avoid this kind of blow-up through sheer probability is probably a matter for the individual conscience.

Griffiths' work suggests he is perfectly capable of an interview that is tough but fair. Indeed, he felt free to challenge me, suggesting that my initial tweet on his column (suggesting he needed a handi-wipe and a breath mint after that interview) employed a homophobic metaphor. For what it's worth, I would have used the same metaphor with a female journalist, thus offending an entirely different segment of the audience: I meant to make the vivid point that the interview struck me as obsequious. But whether I'm a homophobic douchebag like Christoforo is not the point. The point is that through that chide, and through his Twitter correspondence with me, Griffiths was more inquisitive than he was in his interview with Christoforo.

But perhaps such things are a matter of taste. You can read Griffiths' debate with me on his account.

Cleaning off the office desk and doing small make-everything-stay-calm-until-next week tasks this morning, and listening to a superlative version of Handel's Messiah on my iPad speaker set. It's the McCreesh version, justifiably highly recommended by the Penguin Guide.

(Is there anything better than having some iTunes gift cards and paging through the Penguin Guide, choosing the optimal versions of stuff you want to add to your collection, appropriate beverage in hand? Perhaps. Or perhaps not.)

But challenges remain in listening in the presence of people who are not well versed in oratorios. Just as it is prudent, for maintaining good reputation, to ensure that passers-by hear the entire verse beginning in "All We Like Sheep," it is also sometimes necessary to explain to confused listeners that He gave His Back to the smiters, not to spiders. Nor, for that matter, did He give His back to the spiters, though I think technically the smiters were also spiters, and probably also spitters.

Best wishes to all. See you next week.

Have you seen the movie "84 Charring Cross Road"? You know, the slow-paced but touching story of how a book-lover played by Anne Bancroft and a bookseller played by Anthony Hopkins develop a meaningful and thoughtful relationship in the course of cross-Atlantic correspondence over the course of decades, illuminating the nature of friendship, the possibilities of written communications, and the power of shared love for great things?

Yeah, my relationship with Marc Stephens is exactly unlike that.

Continue Reading »

The communists believed in the creation of a New Soviet Man: a strain of human beings who would be altered memetically, not genetically (remember: Lysenko proved that genes don't control the phenotype of descendants – social conditioning of their ancestors does!) to be more docile slaves of the state: hard working, uncomplaining, willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the party leadership The People &tm;.

(The digression where we talk about a socialist government funding, teaching and enforcing ideological conformity to a fictional theory that – wait for it! – gives government greater power over people is a fun one, but I don't really have the time to talk about AGW right now. [ ed: "oh, snap!" ])

Human nature is pretty darned fixed. People are the same around the world.

…which is not to say that beliefs and societies are the same around the world. They're not.

Continue Reading »

I've said it before, I'll say it again: only a fool looks for a lawyer on Google unless there is no other option. Rational people look for lawyers based on referrals from people they trust, or other reliable sources with a basis for knowledge.

But the nation is choked with lawyers, and not all of those lawyers generate enough satisfied clients to lead to referrals. Increasingly, just as we all rely on the internet for information and entertainment, lawyers rely on the internet to market, and clients rely on the internet (foolishly) to look for lawyers.

As a consequence, there is a thriving industry of people who will teach lawyers how to attract clients not by doing top-notch work and satisfying clients but by optimizing their web sites to achieve superior positions in search results. These "internet professionals" could be teaching people to sell porn or off-brand viagra or widgets or anything else — they offer search engine optimizing (often dubious), not practice optimizing.

The result is, to be blunt, crap, unless you are running a high-volume low-quality legal practice — a law mill. Hits based on search results — like hits based on buying overpriced listing services from dinosaurs like Martindale-Hubbel — are often an utter waste of time for both lawyer and potential client.

But many lawyers don't grasp that, and many marketeers are still eager to make money, and so the steady hum of demeaning marketing bullshit continues. Sometimes it leads to worst practices like lawyer comment spam. Other times it leads to more personal grotesque behavior.

Eric Turkewitz — one of the most important critics of bad legal marketing on the internet — has an excellent recent example. He updated a recent "why I blog" post with commentary about some truly jaw-dropping marketeer advice. He points us to this terrifyingly awful advice at Avvo's "Lawyernomics" blog by Aaron Kelly. I really don't expect Avvo to improve the quality of legal services in America — in fact, I expect them to degrade that quality — but even I was stunned by this.

Here's Aaaron's lawyer marketing premise:

“Content is King!”

Believe it or not, that three-letter phrase is the most important thing to remember about marketing your law firm online – because publishing quality web content can lead to higher search rankings, which usually translates into a longer client roster.

This starts out as bad advice, because it presumes that higher search rankings lead to more and higher quality clients. Once again, this isn't true, unless you run a mill churning out generic, low-complexity, low-quality work.

But it gets worse. So, so much worse.

Check out the best of the rest:

Web content should be SEO optimized, meaning each article or blog post should have a keyword focus. For example, if your practice focuses on bankruptcy law, all the Web content you publish should use keyword phrases related to bankruptcy law.

…

When it comes to web content speed and volume are important. As such, it’s important to temper your literary expectations and sacrifice some elegance in favor of volume.

…

Since a premium is placed on speed, many web content articles may not be as polished as print-journalism pieces, as there’s often very little time for editing or research. But on the upside, since web content takes less time, it often costs less than freelance print articles.

…

At this point you may be thinking, “there’s no way I can afford to have a writer provide tons of content for me!” Don’t worry, web content writer rates are usually a lot less than a traditional freelance writers’ rates. Moreover, there are several established content mills where you can purchase articles for pennies on the word.

…

Considering Google’s new-found love for quality web content, it’s important that everything you publish is at least of “good” quality.

Notice how I didn’t say “great.”

That’s right, not everything you publish has to be perfect; sometimes it can be “just good enough” so long as it’s readable and contains the right amount of keywords. Be sure, however, to publish at least two or three great pieces a week, as it improves your online credibility. Besides, you’re a law firm; do you really want sub-par content floating around online, under your moniker?

If you got whiplash with the abrupt change of direction in that last line, you are not alone.

Allow me to be blunt: unless you are running a high-volume low-quality law mill, this is a recipe for a crap sandwich. Yes, high-volume low-quality posts might lead to a higher volume of questionably-suitable clients — though my experience, linked above, is that search results yield twenty to thirty times more wasted time than clients. But even mildly sophisticated consumers will see your web content and think "this person publishes banal crap. Looks like a SEO-based approach. Next lawyer candidate, please." Opposing counsel of any sophistication will scorn you. Mildly sophisticated judges will roll their eyes at you. The only people who hire you based on this approach are people who don't know any better and are susceptible to the lowest forms of legal marketing. If you follow Aaron Kelly's advice, congratulations: you are the Monster Cable of lawyers.

Building a good client base is not something you can do by tweaking your keywords. It's a career-long effort based on building relationships, building credibility, doing good work for clients, getting good results, treating clients fairly, and answering their phone calls. Building a quality client base is not plug-and-play, and if you pay someone to tell you that it is, you're a damned fool with entitlement issues.

I'd like to get Aaron Kelly, and all the other marketeers pushing SEO out there, into a room and look them in the eye and ask them this question: if someone you loved had a serious legal problem, would you tell them to go pick a lawyer from the first page of a Google search result?

It's time for the Road to Popehat, the feature in which we check out the traffic logs, see what searches brought you here, and wonder whether mass forcible institutionalization would really be that bad in the long run.

So, Popehat was dark for almost a month. We wondered — during that time, did the searches get any more — normal?

Judge for yourself.

Casey federal charges imminent/will the feds charge casey for the murder of Caylee: Oh, Caylee's Mob. Will you ever stop being stupid?

Objectivist Thanksgiving: "Gravy is Gravy! Now excuse me, I'm going Galt on the dishes and watching some football."

TSA sexually assaults my mother: My heart sank when I realized this is probably a new Rule 34 thing.

images of Darth Vader with Chewbacca: STOP COMING HERE FOR YOUR FETISH PORN. STOP.

phenomenal foreskins: DAMMIT

what to do when a fat kid bullies you: This is totally the setup line for a joke.

what if superman and batman had a baby: Imagine "rock-a-bye baby" sung in Christian Bale's gin-and-cigarettes Batman voice. There. Now you're never getting that out of your head. You're welcome.

racist food products I'd prefer to think this is about environmental racism or lack of fresh food in poor neighborhoods or archaic nicknames for Brazil nuts, but I'm pretty sure this guy's food screams epithets at him.

what hope is there for the world: I really, really feel awful about a person asking that question winding up at Popehat.

Yesterday I shared with our readers the story of Marc Stephens, a bumptious non-lawyer whose fatuous threats dramatically magnified and multiplied the bad press of his putative client, the Burzynski Clinic.

This morning I awoke to a friendly note from Marc Stephens — using the same email address he has when threatening other bloggers, the same address I used to seek comment from him before posting. The note contained what I would characterize as a decent effort, given his apparent abilities, to intimidate me. He sent it to my Popehat address and to my real-world big-boy-pants Ken's-sekrit-identity law firm address. Here's what he had to say:

Hello Kenneth, or Ken @ Popehat,

Please confirm your information below. Please note that the case of Skeptics Society/JREF is under federal investigation for identity theft. I suggest you remove all articles on your website in relation to this email address and/or individuals immediately. Please confirm, at this email address, when you have removed the articles.

Are you associated, or a member of The Skeptic Society / James Randi Educational Foundation? We have noticed on your twitter account that you requested an individual to investigate this email account. All of your actions have been recorded.

If we do not hear from you, your information will be forwarded for further investigation, and a associate will contact you. Please confirm if you are Ken@popehat/Kenneth [SektritIdentity] immediately.

[Ken's sekrit work phone and IP address.]

Marc Stephens also included what appears to me a screen shot of some back and forth tweets from the Popehat Twitter account with another Twitter user.

I've decided to make my response public. Here it is.

Dear Marc Stephens:

Congratulations on figuring out my top-secret identity! Only about a dozen people — falling into the elect group of "those who have tried" — have ever managed to do that. I think the last one was a law student at Tulane who was too drunk to study for Real Property.

Anyway, please rest assured that I am totally all terrified here that you identified me. Really. I have goose bumps. I'd take a pic and post it but my iPhone is dead again.

I'd like to address some of your questions and comments, Marc.

Please note that the case of Skeptics Society/JREF is under federal investigation for identity theft.

Under federal investigation! Fascinating. That's all very foreign and scary-sounding and likely to deter me. I mean, it would be, except that I've practiced federal criminal law for seventeen years, one as a clerk for a federal judge, five as a federal prosecutor, and the rest as a federal defense attorney, not counting various internships. I'm actually kind of familiar with federal agencies and federal investigations. I've both run them and thwarted them. So, Marc, would you like to tell me the federal agency you're dealing with, and let me know the name of the case agent? I'd love to call them and answer any questions they have about the investigation.

Also, your reference to "identity theft" fascinates me, because previously it seems you've been complaining that everyone you're angry at is guilty of defamation and mean-scientist-fraud and stuff. I think the identity theft is new. Can you explain? Is it — could I hope — are you going with the "I've been caught being a total douche to dozens of strangers by email, and have fraudulently posed as an attorney, and now I've been publicly humiliated, so I'd like to get a mulligan here, so I'm going to go with 'oh noes my email was hacked and the hacker did nasty things?'" Would that be the same email account you're now using to email me? So I guess you regained control of it? Yeah, Marc, you've got to let me know how that works out, because I've frankly sent some regrettable emails in my life that I'd like to walk back, and I'm eager to hear if this approach works. The "when you get an email like that from me, a wizard did it" approach hasn't been working for me.

I suggest you remove all articles on your website in relation to this email address and/or individuals immediately. Please confirm, at this email address, when you have removed the articles.

Marc, kindly take this post — the link to which I will email to you — as a formal, legally binding, 100% certified style invitation to snort my taint.

Are you associated, or a member of The Skeptic Society / James Randi Educational Foundation? We have noticed on your twitter account that you requested an individual to investigate this email account. All of your actions have been recorded.

Well, Marc, I'm not sure the Skeptic Society or the Randi Education Foundation would let a former Presbyterian deacon in. Also, I'm not really a scientist. I'm just a humble lawyer and blogger. I'm a loner, Marc. A rebel. So, no.

Also, can you tell me who the "we" is in "we have noticed"? You're correct that I used Twitter to discuss, with another Twitter user, investigating your email account. Oh. Is that what you mean by identity theft? Are you using "theft" in the "casually peruse public records of" sense? Am I breaking some sort of federal law that I've never heard of in 17 years as a federal criminal lawyer by Googling your email address? Wow. I must have missed that one.

Also, when you say "all your actions have been recorded," could you elaborate? Because, I mean, my Twitter actions are still on Twitter. And my blog posts are still up here. Are you talking about nifty screenshots, like the one you sent me in your email? Screenshots rock. I've been trying to figure out how to post pics of my Skyrim character when he's put, like, twelve arrows into a Forsaken's head and the guy is still blundering around like a post-apocalyptic hedgehog. It's hilarious. But I might be straying a bit from my point. Did you record me on videotape? Or audio? Do you still use audio? Did you record me on 8-track? God I loved 8-track. I had a girlfriend in college who had 8-track in this ancient station wagon of hers and we would . . . you know, never mind. Anyway, if you have me recorded on 8-track, could I get a copy?

If we do not hear from you, your information will be forwarded for further investigation, and a associate will contact you.

There's "we" again. Honestly, Marc, you're starting to freak me out. How many of you are there? Is this the same "we" as above, or a different "we"? Also, is the associate part of the "we" or not? Are you talking about, like, a law firm associate? Because if you have a lawyer, Marc, I'd be totes happy to call him right now. Or do you mean an "associate" in the sense of "Wayne, who lets me sleep on his futon when I can't pick up enough shifts at Arby's?" Or is it more malevolent, like in mob movies: "my associate, [name with 'the' in the middle], will discuss this with you"? Or . . . wait a minute, Marc. Can . . . can anyone other than you see and hear this associate? Because if this associate is a giant goddam invisible rabbit, Marc, that's a deal-breaker. I hate rabbits, and a six-foot invisible rabbit would freak me right the fuck out. Are you siccing your invisible rabbit on me, Marc? Because if that's what you're saying, I think we have a problem here and there SHOULD be a federal investigation. Threatening people with giant rabbits through the electronic mails is almost certain a violation of several federal statutes, possibly including wire fraud depending on the existence or non-existence of the rabbit. But a sharp legal guy like you already knew that, right Marc? My God. You're already, like, three steps ahead of me.

Anyway, Marc, I notice that you haven't specified any factual statements in my post that you think are incorrect. Can you? I'd be happy to hear you out. Are you a lawyer, Marc? Is it your intention to convey to people that you are a lawyer? People want to know, Marc.

Must run, have to berate an associate;

Ken

Edited to add: If you liked this tale of an exchange with someone who tries to threaten skeptics, you might like this recent pro bono success.

Bloggers love it when themes collide — when a story reflects one of their pet topics intersecting with an entirely unrelated but equally important pet topic. It's like Sad Keanu or Rebecca Black getting into a fistfight with an ungrammatical kitten or one of those YA RLY owls.

That's why this story delights me. It's got everything we love at Popehat. It's got free speech, legal threats, SLAPP issues, junk science, bad marketing, and proves the familiar catchphrase "outsource your marketing, outsource your reputation and ethics." If someone in the story could just get their junk touched by the TSA and draw a disapproving comment from a blimp-riding Ron Paul, I think I would have either a stroke or an inappropriate orgasm.

So, without further ado, I'd like you to meet Marc Stephens, who wants you to think he is an attorney.

Continue Reading »