Retired Telco PR Exec Who Sent XYZ Corp. Letter To FCC Insists He Wrote It

from the uh-huh... dept

We've already written about how a former PR exec from what became AT&T has been outed as the guy who sent a letter to the FCC where he forgot to take out the boilerplate XYZ Organization that was almost certainly left there by the AT&T lobbyists who wrote the letter for him. However, one of our commenters noted that MediaPost spoke to the guy, Bob Sells, who insists that he wrote the letter with the XYZ part included:

Sells, a 77-year-old retired public relations executive in Little Rock, tells MediaPost that he often writes letters with placeholders and fills in the correct text later, but overlooked the reference to XYZ in this case.

Really? I'm really trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but I can't come up with a single explanation for why he would write "XYZ Organization" when writing a letter himself from a group of people he supposedly represents. If you're the one writing the letter, on behalf of your supposed organization, why would you include "XYZ Organization"?

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Guy Who Signed 'XYZ Corp.' Astroturf Letter... Worked As Telco PR Person For Nearly 3 Decades?

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

So, remember last week when we wrote about how anti-net neutrality lobbyists from AT&T had crafted astroturf letters for various "special interest groups" to sign -- but someone forgot to remove the boilerplate "XYZ Organization" in the first paragraph? We also noted that there was little evidence that the group -- the Arkansas Retired Seniors -- actually existed. However, Matt Cutts did a bit of digging and found that the name of the guy who signed the letter -- Bob Sells -- appears to have worked in PR for Southwestern Bell for 28 years (there appears to be only one Bob Sells or Robert Sells in Little Rock). Southwestern Bell, of course, became better known as SBC. SBC, of course, became AT&T after it bought the old AT&T and took on its name. So, if you're an AT&T lobbyist and you want to convince the FCC that "seniors" are against net neutrality -- and you don't want it to appear to come from AT&T employees -- who better to go to than an ex-employee? Still, next time you get a former employee to shill for you, remember to replace the bogus XYZ Organization you left for him in the text of the letter you sent him.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Dear Lobbyists: When Crafting Astroturf Letters, Remember To Do A Search & Replace On XYZ Corp.

from the just-a-suggestion dept

We were just talking about how one of the worst tricks of DC lobbyists is to get various special interest groups to send letters on your behalf, even though those are really written by the lobbyists themselves. The quote in that original article that highlights the practice shows how it works:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

Indeed. Well, it looks like in the process of faxing and telling a senior citizen's group what they were in favor of, AT&T's anti-net neutrality lobbyists forgot to do a bit of searching and replacing. Karl Bode points us to a hilarious letter filed with the FCC about net neutrality (pdf), officially on behalf of the Arkansas Retired Seniors Coalition -- the exact type of group often used in these astroturfing campaigns -- which suggests that someone didn't proofread the letter first: Right in the first paragraph, it looks like the Arkansas Retired Seniors (or perhaps the lobbyist directly) forgot to change out the boilerplate statement: "XYZ organization shares this concern." XYZ organization, huh? Here's an editing tip for AT&T's lobbyists: when crafting such letters with boilerplate language that's supposed to get changed at a later date before being sent off to the FCC, you should highlight that text in a different color. Saves embarrassing mistakes like this one.

In researching this further, Karl also can't find any other evidence that the Arkansas Retired Seniors exist. Separately, he found another mistake by the lobbyists when it sent a different anti-net neutrality letter from Grumman Shipbuilding (ship builders against neutrality?). This one wasn't as egregious, but the lobbyists forgot to remove the header info that says "Governor/PUC Letters to FCC on Net Neutrality" with the neat little classification system the lobbyists use: "Letter 2: Specific to Investment and Employment." Wonder what the original header for XYZ organization was?

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Court Attacks Cut-And-Paste Boilerplate Lawyering

from the legal-documents-shouldnt'-be-cut-and-pasted dept

One of the results of the word processing era is just how easy it is to simply cut-and-paste things, and perhaps no profession has made more use of this than lawyers. We've seen it where lawyers include the name of the wrong defendant in a lawsuit, for example. Now, a court in the UK has slammed some lawyers for practicing boilerplate cut & paste lawyering, noting that a drafted contract was so meaningless at points that it's clear the lawyer who drafted it had no idea what parts of it were talking about. The court noted "malapropisms, poor uses of terms and drafting errors" all of which "made interpretation of the agreement difficult."

In fact, it was so extreme that the judge actually looked to figure out what was most likely meant between the two original parties, rather than what the actual contract says. This is pretty rare, as most courts tend to default to the actual text of a contract, rather trying to get into what was meant, as that opens up all sorts of questions. Yet, in this case, what was actually in the contract was apparently so terribly written that the court decided to go in the other direction.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Expensive Patent Attorneys Know How To Cut & Paste, But Not Search & Replace

from the get-your-money's-worth dept

Well, it's a mistake plenty of folks are bound to make eventually, but that doesn't make it any less amusing. Joe Mullin has a short post about a big time patent law firm that has launched two recent patent lawsuits over the same basic patents held by a patent holding firm. The only problem? In filing the second lawsuit, it appears that the patent attorneys used cut & paste from the first lawsuit, but didn't use search & replace to get rid of the name of the original defendant. Hopefully, the patent holder didn't pay too much for the cost of filing that second lawsuit.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..