Our Response To Arthur Alan Wolk's Threat To Sue Us

from the we-will-not-be-bullied dept

As you may have seen, two days ago, we put up a post discussing a lawsuit filed by well-known aviation attorney Arthur Alan Wolk, making a variety of claims against (mostly) a bunch of bloggers, mostly focused on the claim of defamation. I will not rehash the details of that post, but you can read it yourself. In writing that post, I took care not to say anything defamatory about Mr. Wolk, and before posting it even asked a lawyer to review it to make sure that nothing I wrote put me at risk of a valid defamation claim. Since writing that post, a few important things related to this story have happened.
  1. Wolk dismissed the specific lawsuit we wrote about and immediately refiled it, on August 1st, adding Paul Alan Levy and the organization he works for, Public Citizen, to the lawsuit for Levy's blog post on Wolk's suit. Levy was served on August 2nd.

  2. Wolk has filed two more lawsuits over this matter, one in New York, against Ted Frank and the Manhattan Institute, and another in California against Reason and its authors and bloggers over these same issues.

  3. Wolk's Rule 60 Motion was denied. As you may recall, Wolk had filed this motion in an attempt to effectively reopen his original defamation case against Overlawyered, which had been dismissed on the judge's determination that the filing was "time-barred when he commenced it" and that the case was dismissed "on statute of limitations grounds." However, on Tuesday, the judge rejected the Rule 60 Motion and the original ruling stands. I will quote the new court ruling from Tuesday:
    The plaintiff has not convinced the Court that the defendants’ change in blogging software, which effectively renamed the files associated with the defendants’ online content, constitutes newly discovered evidence that warrants extraordinary relief or that the defendants engaged in fraud or misconduct by not disclosing the change. The Court is skeptical that renaming a computer file and adding additional features to a website would constitute republication of the underlying article where the actual content of the article remained the same and the content was displayed on the same domain (here, Overlawyered.com). However, even assuming that such a change would restart the statute of limitations, the Court finds that the change in file names associated with the change in blogging platforms could have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence and that the extraordinary remedy of Rule 60(b) is not warranted in this case.

  4. On Wednesday morning, August 3rd (the day after the Rule 60 Motion was denied), we received the following email from Arthur Alan Wolk:
    I have read your article about my lawsuit and clearly you didn't read it or don't understand English. I suggest you review Courthouse News Service and then carefully rewrite and republish your article. I do not care what criticism you make but if you are going to defame me you better investigate the facts and be correct or you will be sued.

    You relied I believe on an equally erroneous posting by Paul Alan levy which is why he is now sued. Let me be very clear. I believe in the First Amendment but at the same time your abuse of it will not stand without a fight. I gave everyone including Mr. Levy and all the defendants in my lawsuit the opportunity to correctly report what they want and each declined. Fix this lying false and absurdly malicious article or I will sue you.

    I filed my original lawsuit on time. The judge was defrauded. The record is clear on that and if you had made even the slightest effort to read the complaint, read the Rule 60 Motion or anything else before running off at the mouth you would have known that. I am giving you the opportunity to correct your site without liability for your libel. Take or leave it ,your choice but suing you for libeling me is mine. Catchy title for your site. tech "dirt". You won't dirty my name without answering in court for it.
    Arthur Alan Wolk
Note that, in his email to us, Wolk points us to his Rule 60 Motion as proof, even though he sent us this email a day after that Motion was denied by the court.

We believe, quite strongly, in the First Amendment, and in our right to report factually on news, especially when it concerns public figures and lawsuits of public interest. Stating factual information about court rulings is not defamation. Stating our opinion on such lawsuits is not defamation. We have heard of multiple other bloggers who have decided that they simply will not write anything about Arthur Alan Wolk out of fear of being sued by him. This is, we believe, exactly what Wolk is seeking with these threats and lawsuits. We do not intend to be silenced via such threats.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

    Keep fighting the good fight!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:03pm

    File That Email

    Mike,

    Did you file that email in your Outlook...

    "Messages we fully expected to receive, written pretty much how we expected them to be"

    ...folder? Or did you just drop it in "Junk Email"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:05pm

    Have you tried an alternative approach?

    Beating the living snot of them works wonders, and if you just happen to cause a basilar skull fracture, the case would likely be moot. I know it's illegal, but it is highly effective.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:45pm

      Re: Have you tried an alternative approach?

      OB Shakespeare quote- "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Devil's Coachman (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:05pm

    Have you tried an alternative approach?

    Beating the living snot of them works wonders, and if you just happen to cause a basilar skull fracture, the case would likely be moot. I know it's illegal, but it is highly effective.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Robert Ring, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

    "Dirty" isn't a verb.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      fb39ca4, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

      Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

      It can be. I can dirty your window, for example.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Robert Ring, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:15pm

        Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

        I stand corrected. I thought it would have to be "dirty up" or "make dirty," but no, you're right.

        Apologies to Mr. Wolks.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Cowardly Anon, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:17pm

          Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

          You better find a way to edit your comment or he might try and sue you....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Robert Ring, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

            Lol. You know, honestly, I would love to go to court to defend myself over writing the sentence, "'Dirty' is not a verb."

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

              I'd be a cheerleader for your hearing

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                DOlz (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 4:21pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

                Just how effective is anonymous cheerleading?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  The Mighty Buzzard (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 4:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

                  I've always preferred it to the non-anonymous kind. It's much easier to objectify the chick whose body you're ogling when you don't her name.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 4:52am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

                  Just how effective is anonymous cheerleading?


                  Guy Fawkes in a cheerleading outfit. >.< Thanks for that mental image. /sarc

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Derek Kerton (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 10:53am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm

                  Stand up, sit down!
                  Fight, fight, fight!
                  Let's go play with all our might!
                  Kick that team into the sky so blue!
                  Come on now, let's go team BLUE!
                  ...or red. Or whatever. We're not saying.
                  Yay!!

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Vidiot (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:40pm

      Re:

      Let's make it easy for our friend... rename the site to "TechBesmirch".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jim L, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:10pm

    $100,000,000

    He should just pay you the $100,000,000 and silence you for a year

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      G Thompson (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 2:54am

      Re: $100,000,000

      Well according to his own comment to a blog post on Simple Justice, where again he threatens to sue using strange, fallacious, and obfuscated reasoning, he is already part of the way there ($89mill) so who knows.. maybe Mike will have to retire RICH... Rich I tells ya!


      [See Arthur, the above post YOU made is able to be linked ad infinitum in and out of context forever on the internet.. Welcome to your own induced hell]

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

    What did the five fingers say to Wolk's face?

    SLAPP!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Justin (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:12pm

    Post of the week?

    Can we tag this as funny and hope it shows up on Sunday in the comments of the week post?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Trails (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:15pm

    Techwho?!?

    I love it when people like Wolk appear to operate under the assumption Mike is some "punk kid" running this out of "his mom's basement".

    The stereotype acts as such amazing bait for this kind of nonsense.

    Can't wait to see how this ends. Either someone Wolk already trusts will explain to him the pasting he's likely to get or he'll actually try to bring all this in front of judge, and get pasted.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 3:51pm

      Re: Techwho?!?

      I hate hearing of these types of threats from lawyers. I've heard from a number of lawyers in different scenarios where they basically tell people they're lawyers as a means of getting what they want. It's like saying, "I'm a pig and we're both gonna get dirty if you don't give me what I want, but I'll like it."

      The fact that they don't have to pay another high-priced lawyer to file for them is a problem.

      I think lawyers should be required to get another lawyer to file for them and the other lawyer needs to have vetted the case and be personally liable for taking it so they can't just team up to file SLAPP cases for each other.

      Non-lawyers and poor people shouldn't be bullied into giving lawyers what they want just because the lawyers can make their lives hell. A court isn't necessarily the place to determine if a lawsuit is valid because getting sued is already punishment for someone who can't afford it.

      There needs to be some kind of way to get lawsuits dismissed without having to be a lawyer or retain one or drain your time and effort to defend yourself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        dwg, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 5:04pm

        Re: Re: Techwho?!?

        word up on the "i'm a lawyer" front. want to see something really funny? next time you're pulled over for speeding or running a red light, try telling the cop "i'll have you know i'm an attorney!" 'cause that's how that line SHOULD go over in the rest of the world.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Gabriel Tane (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 6:13am

        Re: Re: Techwho?!?

        Case in point... I got dinged in a small accident while backing out of my driveway (yeah, my bad). The woman who I 'backed into' starts ranting and raving about how I'm not supposed to back into the right-of-way (which is kind of correct) and that I should drive into my front yard to turn around to enter the ROW. She KNOWS these things because she's... wait for it...

        A LAWYER [ominous music here]
        Well, after the claim played out, her 'occupation' changed from lawyer to teacher, down to Special Education assistant. She has tried to claim (CLEARLY) past injuries to my (veeeery) low speed collision, and in my opinion, is towing the line of insurance fraud.

        But take a wild guess on how far back my eyes rolled when she said "I know this because I'm a lawyer".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        andrews (profile), Aug 6th, 2011 @ 2:48pm

        Re: Re: Techwho?!?

        I'm afraid your rule does not work. Anyone, whether or not a lawyer, can bring their own suit. We call that filing pro se, and some of those pleadings are rather imaginative.

        With that in mind, however, I must admit that Mr. Wolk's position appears weak, and his judgment in the litigation appears questionable. However, I am not his lawyer, and in fact am not even licensed in his state.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        andrews (profile), Aug 6th, 2011 @ 3:46pm

        Re: Re: Techwho?!?

        I'm afraid your rule does not work. Anyone, whether or not a lawyer, can bring their own suit. We call that filing pro se, and some of those pleadings are rather imaginative.

        With that in mind, however, I must admit that Mr. Wolk's position appears weak, and his judgment in the litigation appears questionable. However, I am not his lawyer, and in fact am not even licensed in his state.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:18pm

    a contender for Jack Thompsons post of lead doofus, My personal opinion and not a site one, so go ahead and sue me too.

    I wouldn't trust him to open an envelope for me let alone a legal case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:20pm

    ultimatum

    Maybe it's the rudeness and belligerence, maybe it's the disingenuity regarding the Rule 60 motion, maybe it's the questionable use of legal terms (the judge was defrauded? not just deceived?), maybe it's the repetitive and overwrought prose style, but something tells me he won't actually make good on his explicit threats to sue.

    Wouldn't it be interesting if one could take some kind of binding oath to take a certain action, not a contract but something unilateral, but with serious legal consequences for non-fulfillment...

    "Retract that article or I'll sue you!"
    "You didn't say 'cross my heart and give $500,000 to charity'."
    "Well, I still mean it. Take it down!"
    "Say the 'cross my heart' part."
    "I don't have to! Take it down or I'll see you in court."
    [chicken sounds]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jollygreengiant (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:21pm

    Just how _do_ you pronounce his surname?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

    Rhymes with joke?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nicedoggy, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

    The punk called Arthur Alan Wolks is just a bully that have nothing better to do.

    He deserves to loose, more he deserves to be sanctioned by the courts for abusing the justice system, even though it is a rare fact I'm sure the justice system will end up sanctioning him eventually because he is trully abusing justice already.

    http://overlawyered.com/2007/04/arthur-alan-wolk-v-teledyne-industries-inc/
    http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Alan_Wolk

    The idiot Arthur Alan Wolk should sue Wikipedia too LoL

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hephaestus (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 11:42pm

      Re:

      READ ME

      Arthur Alan Wolk
      Arthur Alan Wolk

      READ ME



      you might learn something by reading the links included ......




      Nicedoggy ... here is a cookie :)

      Many lawyers are not techno savvy, they come from an earlier age. They know nothing of Anonymous, the Streisand effect, Human flesh search engines, or the true power of social media. They do not understand that people have a shorter fuse online. People also tend to over react online due to the anonymity. All in all, not a good situation to be on the receiving side of. There is always a tipping point. This man is not near it, but he might piss of the wrong person soon.

      The really huge problem with being a dick online, you are up against 2 billion people. You never know if they are going to HBGary you and destroy your future.

      It is human nature online, the more this guy fights an unjust fight the more people will talk about him. And much like HBGary, if this guy is doing this to promote himself, it will back fire.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Thanatossassin (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:23pm

    Abuse of the First Amendment?!? How about Abuse of Process, or Abuse of the Judicial System?

    Wouldn't calling the judge that heard his case "defrauded" merit a case of defamation against him? heh heh

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      KJ, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:35pm

      Re:

      Mike-

      Although it would be (more) work for you, I think that filing this e-mail as a "friend of the court" may be worth your consideration.

      It is one thing for Mr. Wolk to disagree with a judicial officer's ruling, but to directly state or imply that the Judge has been "defrauded" may be a violation of the rules of professional conduct for that jurisdiction.

      This may be a bit of an over-reaction, but I am so very angry due to Mr. Wolk's disrespect not only for the judicial process and the Constitution, but also for officers of the court. Judge > Mr. Wolk.

      Keep up the good fight.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      doughless (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 6:00pm

      Re:

      The way I read that is that Wolk is claiming that fraud was committed against the judge rather than the judge committed fraud. Still, that could possibly be defamation against the other party that he claims defrauded the judge.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:25pm

    As I have finished writing my PhD thesis recently, I can tell you, I really want to correct or change the grammar in his e-mail.

    This has been happening a lot lately.

    *Dramatic* What horrors has my thesis corrections left upon my soul!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:27pm

    heh, what a dumbass. Typical.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jollygreengiant (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:29pm

    @nicedoggy

    Obviously this idiot you're referring to is a completely different Arthur Alan Wolk to the one being referred to in the article above; This Arthur Alan Wolk is surely a shrewd guy and no fool at all. Most certainly. Yessireebob.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Nicedoggy, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:37pm

      Re:

      I am paralyzed in horror to imagine that there are 2 idiots on this world that have the same name, same profession and doing the same dumb shite.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Charles, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:31pm

    Here is how i see it. Wolk should just stick to chasing ambulances....Oops sorry hes a aviation lawyer. Yea, my point is mr. wolk if you are reading this.. Is to simply say that you are the one who is actually destroying your own name and making yourself like like a horses @$$. My point is just shut up and move on or you really will be the butt of everyone's joke.

    Seriously keep in mind that in this day and age if you open your mouth and attempt to swallow your own foot then this is exactly what you get. Now i am sure techdirt may not let this out onto their comments section and if so then i completely understand but if they do... Come attempt to sue me and i promise i will make sure you are written all over the damn place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:34pm

    If I am not mistaken, I do believe that this Alan Wolk is the same person who allegedly raped Adolf Hitler with a solid gold frying pan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    aperson (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:35pm

    @mike- have you considered putting up a specific fan mail section, a la TPB?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jollygreengiant (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:43pm

    @nicedoggy

    But not paralysed enough not to type? :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:47pm

    Old saying: First thing done in law school is remove your conscience.

    Manifestly, sometimes they accidentally remove necessary and desirable parts, such as common sense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tom Landry (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:52pm

    Does Arthur Wolk download tranny porn?

    just curious.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    qhartman (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:53pm

    Hilarious

    That is a hilarious threat letter. The funniest part though is towards the end when he starts confusing defamation with libel. I'm not even a lawyer and I know the difference between the two...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 3:15pm

      Re: Hilarious

      > That is a hilarious threat letter. The funniest part though
      > is towards the end when he starts confusing defamation
      > with libel. I'm not even a lawyer and I know the difference
      > between the two...

      Libel *is* a type of defamation. Defamation is a broad category of the law which includes both libel and slander.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Matt (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 3:03pm

    Good reason for judicial reform

    We have a policy in the US that the courts should be open to everyone. This is a stupid policy. As good as it makes folks feel to say otherwise, the fact is that most lawsuits are little more than legalized extortion. The threat of them moreso. They cost too much to defend, so people settle rather than doing so.

    To counteract this, we need a wave of judicial reform. First and foremost, we need to put more teeth into Rule 11 (the rule that provides that attorneys who sign pleadings that lack a good faith factual basis and legal foundation may themselves be sanctioned). It is seldom enforced, and not because pleadings are so well-founded.

    Next, Rules 12 and 56 need to be implemented with some intellectual honesty. Complaints that are so implausible as to sound like fantasy should be dismissed immediately absent compelling evidence. The SCOTUS took a step in the right direction with Twombly and its progeny, but the lower courts have not yet pushed their newly reemphasized authority far enough.

    Finally, plaintiffs should be made to post a bond equal to the likely defense cost of the case, and forfeit it if they lose. This probably will not result in denying access - even the very poor will likely be able to post the bond, provided they can convince an attorney or an insurer that their case is merited. But ridiculous plaintiffs will not be able to fund these sorts of serial lawsuits. (Note that sanctions alone will not ever do the trick - many strategic lawsuits are filed by impecunious "judgment-proof" plaintiffs.)

    Here, however, there may be additional protection. Mr. Wolk is a member of the Pennsylvania bar. As such, he is sworn to follow its rules of professional conduct. That includes an obligation not to file unmeritorious claims, lie in communications to non-clients, say anything that he knows or should know will be publicized and could affect the outcome of litigation, make false claims about judges, request a party other than his client to refrain from giving information about a cause, etc. Rule 3.1 has been interpreted to mean that a lawyer may not threaten legal action. To all appearances, Mr. Wolk is an effective and experienced litigator, and I am sure that he knows and has internalized his professional obligations. But it looks to me like he is warming right up to the line with these throw-down challenges.

    http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s3.1.html
    http://www.pacode.com/secu re/data/204/chapter81/s4.1.html
    http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s3.6.html
    http://w ww.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s8.2.html
    http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s 3.4.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btr1701 (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 3:17pm

      Re: Good reason for judicial reform

      > That includes an obligation not to... lie in communications
      > to non-clients

      But it's okay to lie in communications to clients?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      BearGriz72 (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 9:50pm

      Re: Good reason for judicial reform

      +10 insightful?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 6:59am

      Re: Good reason for judicial reform

      Finally, plaintiffs should be made to post a bond equal to the likely defense cost of the case, and forfeit it if they lose. This probably will not result in denying access - even the very poor will likely be able to post the bond, provided they can convince an attorney or an insurer that their case is merited.

      They would only post the bond for slam-dunk cases, if there even is such a thing. If you ran a law firm, would you rather post the bond for someone who can't do it themselves and maybe lose it, or take a client who can post the bond themselves and thus take all the risk? This would basically just tilt the court system even more in favor of the rich.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nick Anon (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 3:16pm

    I'm sure I've seen it here before, but the correct response would surely be to refer the gentleman concerned to "Arkell vs Pressdram (1971)"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ben in TX (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 3:23pm

    Is name-calling defamation?

    I only ask because I would LOVE to call Mr. Wolk a small-minded, petulant, ignorant, Streisand-Effect-Generating PRICK... but I'm a little worried he might sue me if I did go so far as to actually call him anything like that. So I won't.

    In any case, I hardly need to go so far as to call Mr. Wolk anything. He's apparently doing his best to call down the power of all the interwebs upon his own tiny head. One has to wonder what sort of rose-colored lens he looks through when viewing his own actions because, as the readers of this site are well aware, he will likely soon start to suffer the ill effects of his own actions, and I suspect he may regret them very soon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      dwg, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 5:14pm

      Re: Is name-calling defamation?

      Again: both true and opinion. You're safe. Keep it up.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Atkray (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 5:44pm

      Re: Is name-calling defamation?

      INAL but I believe if you state it as an opinion such as:

      I think that perhaps Mr. Wolk is a small minded, petulant, ignorant, Streisand-Effect-Generating PRICK...

      you would be ok, but like yourself I don't want his lawsuits raining down on my lawn.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        dwg, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 1:28pm

        Re: Re: Is name-calling defamation?

        What you can't couch as "opinion" is that he's a thief, a liar or a lousy lawyer, without expecting some kind of reprisal. You can't do this because you probably mean these statements to be taken as true, despite your attempted disclaimer. In addition to straight defamation, he could also, as a lawyer, claim trade libel, which sucks for a defendant.

        If, on the other hand, you have demonstrable proof that they're true, you can say them all you want. You can sing them loud, and to the hills, as it were. So, if anyone has proof of these things...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Scam, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 3:25pm

    Stupid Stupid Man

    I love how he has managed to ruin his reputation while trying so hard to save it.

    Also, while lying about someone might defamation, calling them names is very legal. So Mr. Wolk, you are a stupid, insecure, pompous, cunt nosed fuck face dickhead, with cockroach piss for brains you dirty jerkoff piece of shit asshole.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 3:28pm

    Is his name Alan Cartman?

    Douchebag Alan is like: "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH"

    Cool Mike is like: "Come at me bro!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 3:35pm

    he must be having a bad day hey Wolk just take your shite elsewhere best you get back to aviation law you may know what your doing there though i doubt even that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 4:26pm

    I love the fact that he is doing so much more demage to his reputation then the original "defaming" blog post ever did to him, and the more he sues the worse it gets. It's kind of like an insane mutation of the Streisand Effect.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jim_G, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 4:33pm

    I think some folks in this thread might be underestimating the illusion Volk is under regarding his level of victimization. When a person or agency feels like they have been wronged somehow a whole series of reactions get triggered. Unfortunately a common one is “I am a hero who is standing up for my rights!”

    Consider Mike’s comment on Righthaven, ““What amazes me is how incredibly tone deaf Righthaven appears to be to the repeated smackdowns it is getting from judges and how weak its legal position is. . . It seems like Righthaven still thinks that these rulings aren't that big of a deal.” Look at the FBI’s accusation that Apple is acting “Big-Brother-ish” because people would have the ability to delete information from their own phones.

    These people are sure that THEY are the good guys. And they will any interpret any criticisms, reactions, or reasonable disagreement as further evidence that they are correct.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 4:44pm

    Arthur Alan Wolk is clearly an egomaniac that needs to be leashed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Avatar28 (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 4:48pm

    Wow. It's been three hours and nobody has yet posted "Arthur Alan Wolks is a pedophile / zoophile who rapes children / pets." Raping Adolph Hitler with a frying pan is the closest I've seen. Usually there are at least two or three such comments after a few hours. I guess his campaign of legal tyranny was successful.

    If only someone would give him a reason to make legal threats against 4chan, the internet could rid itself of another pestilence.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 4:55pm

    All I am gonna say on this one is:

    I laugh in your general direction, Mr. Wolk.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    AnonymousBliss, Aug 4th, 2011 @ 5:28pm

    Shark in the dark

    I think Bliss N Eso sum it up pretty well in their song Family Affair

    My grandma told me never never never take no shit
    especially that shark in the dark
    cause that shark in the dark can suck my (watch yo mouth)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 4th, 2011 @ 11:30pm

    Reading this, and actually having read all of the original lawsuit (though it took time, a lot of coffee, and a fair amount of grains of salt... and with the awful need to wash my hands afterwards) and then this denial of the rule 60, not to mention his responses to the blog post written by Eugene Volokh That comments were made on by Mr Wolk himself and the replies to his comments that say it all.. (especially M. Gross's query about an attorney speaking about an ongoing case. Any Ethical probs there Mr Wolk? Even whilst Pro Se ? hmmmm)

    This emphasises, reinforces and unequivocally supports my original comment on the supposedly defamatory TechDirt Article that I will now republish (yes republish) in full!
    To paraphrase Marcus Tullius Cicero [106-43 BCE]

    There is no opinion so stupid that it can’t be expressed by some dumbass attorney.
    Also I would like to add to this with a quote by Lawrence Sterne
    Your head be likened to a smokejack, the funnel unswept, and the ideas whirling round and round about in it, all obfuscated and darkened over with fuliginous matter.
    and draw Mr Wolks attention to a fascinating article about The Basic Laws of Stupidity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    KGWagner (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 4:19am

    Clueless people

    I'm not sure why, but this reminds me of the Jerry Taylor/Tuttle, AZ/CentOS debacle. That was an incident completely unrelated to this, but you saw the same sort of thing happen where a supposed professional thought he was the "injured" party and was so far off base you could see it unaided from outer space, but was so unaware of the fact that it became a widespread joke.

    I suspect what happens is at some point the "injured" party becomes so invested in the fiction of their idea that there's simply no reasoning with them. In their mind, they have to hold their ground or risk being labelled a fool.

    Sad part is, it's the Streisand Effect at full-tilt boogie. The more they fight, the more foolish they look and the more people are looking. It becomes a train-wreck spectacle you can't look away from.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 6:26am

    Mr. Wolk

    After reading descriptions of your actions, I am of the opinions that you are an idiot and are abusing the legal system for your own ego-stroking/wound-licking. I personally believe you should be disbarred for your actions and taken out back behind a woodshed and beaten with a razor strop.

    I truly hope you career is ruined and ended over this because it will have been by your own actions and you'll have that wonderful opportunity to see the outcome of your choices and actions.

    So in closing, you're a dick.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wayne (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 7:01am

    dumba55

    A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client and you, Mr Wolk, are a fool.

    If you would like to sue me please do because I think you are a complete and total waste of space although thank god you decided to be a lawyer and not something useful or important that people actually need like an underarm deodorant sniff tester, or a bubble gum pre-chewer even those idiots from Westboro Baptist church have more value than you do. I don't understand how this guy can win an 89 million trial award and be this clueless. I mean does he really think anyone is all that concerned about being sued by him? Lawyers, Politicians and used car salesmen are all people that this world would be better off without. We can f**k up the world without their expert help.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    trish, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 9:49am

    tsk tsk

    One who cannot take criticism has low self-esteem. And too much free time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), Aug 5th, 2011 @ 11:26am

    Wolk

    Good for you! If you are sued, count on me to contribute to a defense fund; and if, as I am sure will happen, the Courts award you all costs, you can keep my contribution anyway.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    aikiwolfie (profile), Aug 7th, 2011 @ 3:47pm

    Ah yes. The very poor who can't even afford proper medical insurance, if any, will be able to stump up a bond if they ever need to sue anybody.

    Eat today or sue tomorrow? It's a question of priorities really.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Sherlock, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 6:39am

    Bravo!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Paul Keating, Aug 8th, 2011 @ 10:40am

    DId he libel youi?

    Although I agree that your article was clearly stated as opinion, his statements seem to be more "factual" statements. I wonder if you could sue HIM?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Steve, Sep 20th, 2011 @ 4:23pm

    I love you

    I wish there was a way to buy you guys a drink.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This