Richard Liebowtiz's Lawyer To Judge: Please Excuse His Lying To The Court Since He Doesn't Really Know How To Law

from the say-what-now? dept

Earlier this week we already covered infamous and oft-sanctioned copyright troll lawyer, Richard Liebowitz, showing up in court to explain to the judge why he lied about the timing of the death of his grandfather multiple times over the course of many months as he tried to explain away why he missed a discovery conference. As we noted, Liebowitz actually showed up in court this time (good call, considering that the judge made it clear she was considering sending him to jail), and brought a lawyer with him (also a good call). He did remain out of jail, though Judge Cathy Seibel noted that she had referred the matter to the Grievance Committee, which could lead to sanctions. She also warned that her various contempt rulings against Liebowitz will require him to disclose the sanctions both to other courts and to prospective clients.

At the hearing, it was mentioned that Liebowitz's newly found lawyers, had sent a letter to the judge, but that letter was not public yet. Late yesterday, the letter was finally added to the docket and I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like it. You can pretty much tell that the lawyer writing the letter, Richard Greenberg, admits, that he has just been brought into this shit show of a situation, and has decided the best strategy is to throw himself on the mercy of the court. And, apparently, Greenberg decided the best way to do this is to treat Liebowtiz as if he's a little kid who just didn't know any better that lying to a judge is a bad idea. It honestly does read like the kind of note a parent would write for a kid, so I have to admit that this little tidbit at the end of the letter puts much of the rest of it in context:

Counsel has known Richard and his family for years, even as long ago as Richard's Bar Mitzvah, and will always be available to render advice and guidance to Richard, and counsel will advise Richard to make use of this resource more often.

In other words, it sounds like Greenberg is a friend of Richard's family, and much of the letter then does read as if he's referring to a naughty kid, not an actual lawyer with years of experience. So much of the letter is quite insane, but it seems to focus on how little experience Richard actually has, such that he might not know that lying to a judge and making up excuses is a bad idea.

Richard's Background. Richard is an unmarried 31-year-old who resides with his parents in Hewlett, New York. He graduated with a BA degree in communications from the University of Pennsylvania in 2010, and with a J.D. degree from Hofstra University Law School in 2014. In 2015 he was admitted by the Second Department to the Bar of the State of New York, and in the same year he opened the Liebowitz Law Firm, located at 11 Sunrise Plaza, Valley Stream, New York, where he has practiced continuously ever since. Richard has had no other employment, experience or supervision as a lawyer.

Right. I get that Liebowitz may not know all the nuances and ins and outs of litigation and such, but the whole paragraph makes it sound like he's a dumb child, rather than a 31-year-old man with a law degree, who has been practicing before the court in a huge number of cases. And this wasn't about some sort of sophisticated nuanced issue. This was about lying to a judge. No offense, but you don't have to have a law degree to know that's a bad idea and he does have a law degree.

After first making it sound like Richard is a clueless, inexperienced idiot, he then immediately claims that Richard has a growing law firm, even employing experienced lawyers, and has filed approximately 2,000 cases. So, uh, which is it? Is he a clueless, inexperienced rube, or an experienced lawyer who employs other lawyers who actually know better?

Since its opening, Richard's law practice has grown exponentially, filing approximately 2000 law suits under the federal copyright statute in the four years of his firm's existence. Moreover, because of his burgeoning practice, Richard's firm has grown commensurately; he now employs a staff of 12, two of whom are lawyers, including an associate with large commercial firm experience.

So... he does know other lawyers and has lots of experience. So, the whole "don't lie to a judge" thing is the sort of thing that maybe he should have known about? But then Greenberg reverts back to Liebowitz being an inexperienced newbie... while also insisting that he "fills a need" by filing bullshit lawsuits to shake down people for money.

In short, while Richard is short on legal experience and training, he obviously fills a need in the ranks of freelance photographers who struggle to make ends meet financially...

Greenberg later admits that he, himself, is not very experienced or knowledgeable regarding copyright law, so perhaps he doesn't know the nature of copyright trolling and the problems that trolls like Liebowitz create for tons of people. Perhaps he also doesn't know the details of how frequently Liebowitz has been called out or sanctioned by judges. But all of that seems to matter here, and chalking up his lying to a judge multiple times over many months to his "inexperience" seems... questionable at best.

The letter is, at least, straightforward in admitting that Liebowitz lied to the judge, and tries to explain his possible reasons for lying, but they're not very good reasons. Hilariously, the letter says there are no excuses, but then tries to argue that Liebowitz's decision to lie is "understandable" even if (and I kid you not) he did it intentionally.

There can be no excuse for Richard's lapse, whether he stated and maintained the erroneous date of death mistakenly or intentionally. Either would be understandable. For example, Richard may genuinely have misremembered the date of death, and continued to adhere to the April 12 date or, having taken the position that the date of death was April 12, he saw no reason to question his memory or why it should matter. On the other hand, Richard may have thought the Court would not understand his dysfunctional, grieving state originating three days before the conference, and decided to fix the date of death as the morning of the conference. If the latter explanation is the correct one, Richard not only misjudged the Court's knowledge, experience and decency, no doubt as an inexperienced young lawyer might, but he engaged inexcusable falsity, however immaterial.

And, apparently, the lawyer who has filed "approximately 2000 cases," many of them demanding insane sums of money from people over questionable claims of copyright infringement, is now claiming that the small amount the court has fined him is a "high price" to pay. Yeah right.

Of course, either way, Richard has paid a high price for his failure of memory or falsity concerning the true date his grandfather died. The incidence has been a financial disaster. Richard will have paid to the Clerk of the Court $3700 in financial penalties for his alleged contempt; he has paid adversary counsel for his adversary's wasted time at the conference which Richard failed to attend; and Richard has paid thousands of dollars in attorneys fees for counsel's representation in this contempt matter. Nor is financial loss the only adverse consequence. Richard has suffered horrible publicity as a result of being held in contempt and threatened with incarceration by this Court. And of course Richard, a young and inexperienced lawyer, is scared of the damage to his professional career as a result of his conduct in these proceedings. At the risk of appearing to minimize the seriousness of this matter, which counsel would not dare to do, counsel urges this Court to find that Richard has suffered or been penalized enough for his lapse or misconduct.

The fact that Greenberg keeps trying to suggest this may have been a "lapse" is pretty ridiculous -- as his unwillingness to recognize the whole reason why the judge was so concerned with Liebowitz's claims in the first place: that this is not the first or second time that Liebowitz has been called out by courts for some fairly basic failures. Greenberg then notes that he's "recommended that Richard seek psychotherapy to understand and ameliorate the anxieties, tensions and infrequent lapses of Richard's demanding practice" as well as that he "enroll in a CLE course addressing small law firm management." He also recommends that Liebowitz find an experienced copyright lawyer to advise him.

As noted, the letter is truly astounding in the way it talks about Liebowitz as if he's a small, clueless child, while at the same time trying to claim that he's an important lawyer with a huge and growing practice... but somehow too ignorant to recognize that lying to a judge at least ten times in court filings was a bad idea. As the judge noted at the hearing after this letter was sent:

[Judge Cathy] Seibel stated that Liebowitz knew he was lying about the date of his grandfather’s death, but “chose to repeat that lie six, eight, ten times” in court filings that the jurist said were part of a “long-term campaign of deception.” Liebowitz, Seibel remarked, “double-downed, triple-downed, quadrupled-downed, octupled-down, I don’t know what would come after that.”

“I question Mr. Liebowitz’s fitness to practice,” Seibel said at one point during the hearing.

I can recognize the tough position that Greenberg was put in, especially as it appears that this family friend was retained just days before the letter needed to be sent, but the entire premise of the letter is so ridiculous that it is difficult to believe there wasn't a better way to throw oneself on the mercy of the court.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright troll, lying to court, richard greenberg, richard liebowitz


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 15 Nov 2019 @ 6:46pm

    When it comes to covering up, one needs to know how to cover up.

    I don't doubt that Richard Greenberg is a competent lawyer, but I have little to go on for that. But when it comes to covering up someone else's actions I have a feeling that it would take a bunch of time and effort, and a lot of understanding about what was going on (lawyer/client privilege implied to not revealing the underhandedness of any 'goings on'). A couple of days, not nearly enough time.

    Then, to respond without actually knowing what is going on seems like a probie mistake. While Richard Greenberg probably isn't a baby lawyer, it does seem like Richard Liebowitz is acing like one. But don't get me started on what Scott Greenfield thinks about baby lawyers, it would get nasty.

    "...He graduated with a BA degree in communications from the University of Pennsylvania in 2010, and with a J.D. degree from Hofstra University Law School in 2014. In 2015 he was admitted by the Second Department to the Bar of the State of New York, and in the same year he opened the Liebowitz Law Firm..."

    How long does it take to get from being a baby lawyer to a full fledged advocate?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2019 @ 8:08pm

    I actually feel bad for the guy. Not getting the date right seems like a pretty minor thing in this specific circumstance.

    If I knew if he was suing people who couldn't afford to pay over a photograph or filed lawsuits over fair use or noncommercial conduct then I would not feel bad for him at all but I don't actually want to read through his stuff to find out.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 Nov 2019 @ 9:51pm

      Re:

      I actually feel bad for the guy. Not getting the date right seems like a pretty minor thing in this specific circumstance.

      It would have been if he didn't have a history of dishonesty in courts(TD's coverage of this particular slimebag is anything but positive), it didn't involve missing a previously scheduled court appearance, and rather than double-down for months by lying time and time again he'd simply owned up to his actions before he was facing jail time.

      What could have been a minor hiccup involving a simple, honest apology became a roaring dumpster fire that he now finds himself in, and it was entirely due to Liebowtiz' actions and refusal to accept responsibility for them.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2019 @ 4:49am

      Re:

      If he did it once, and then when called out immediately corrected himself it could well have been an excusable error.

      That he did it again and again and again and again and again and again and again is the issue here

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Nov 2019 @ 9:00pm

    I wouldn't be surprised if Lindsey Graham files a copyright infringement suit against Greenberg since his defense is obviously cribbed from Graham's own defense of Trump.

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

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 15 Nov 2019 @ 9:45pm

    I don't get it. Since when does it impress a judge when you're a lawyer adding to the problem by filing 2000+ cases?

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 15 Nov 2019 @ 10:21pm

      Re:

      The best part of that attempt to impress the judge(assuming that was the intent, but given the language I don't see how it could have been anything but that honestly) is that it destroys the argument laid out elsewhere about how he's just so inexperienced that the whole thing was an honest mistake.

      That would be a hard enough sell if they were talking about someone just recently graduated who's only got a few cases under their belt, but two thousand? It's just beyond believable that he wouldn't have known better at that point, all the more so as the boasting talks about how there are two other lawyers working with him.

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

    • identicon
      Michael, 18 Nov 2019 @ 7:38am

      Re:

      When your job is dependent on enough cases being filed for you to be needed, the quantity of cases an individual brings to the table becomes significant to you.

      As taxpayers and people that might, at some point, need to traverse the US legal system, we see thousands of useless cases as a problem. Judges and attorneys see this as job security and as an indicator of their importance.

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 15 Nov 2019 @ 10:12pm

    'Sure I shot my own foot, but won't you feel sorry for me?'

    Of course, either way, Richard has paid a high price for his failure of memory or falsity concerning the true date his grandfather died. The incidence has been a financial disaster. Richard will have paid to the Clerk of the Court $3700 in financial penalties for his alleged contempt; he has paid adversary counsel for his adversary's wasted time at the conference which Richard failed to attend; and Richard has paid thousands of dollars in attorneys fees for counsel's representation in this contempt matter.

    Well, it's a good thing 'young' Richard has never engaged in legal activity that might have caused other people to be forced to spend thousands of dollars in legal fines and attorney's fees, otherwise that whole screed would sound rather like a bully whining that someone else pushed them down for once...

    Richard has suffered horrible publicity as a result of being held in contempt and threatened with incarceration by this Court.

    Oh noes, being caught lying to a judge multiple times has caused negative publicity, if only he could have done something to prevent that...

    And of course Richard, a young and inexperienced lawyer, is scared of the damage to his professional career as a result of his conduct in these proceedings.

    And therein lies the crux: his conduct. He was the one who chose to lie to a judge, he gets to enjoy the punishment, because turns out judges aren't too thrilled to be lied to and given the runaround, and who could have ever known that?

    As defenses go I gotta say, that was almost as pathetic as the person it was trying to defend. Between trying to argue both that he was an experienced lawyer and that he was so monumentally stupid that he couldn't have possibly known that lying to a judge was something to avoid and garner sympathy for the poor young lawyer for having to face some of his own medicine for once if the judge got this before the hearing it's no wonder she didn't seem to give it much if any weight.

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

  • identicon
    David, 16 Nov 2019 @ 2:37am

    What kind of attorney is that?

    For example, Richard may genuinely have misremembered the date of death,

    Uh, it is not the job of an attorney to speculate about his client's motivations as though he were dead. He represents him in court. It's ok to have to guess in a cross-examination (though why would attorneys be cross-examined?) about things you have not thought to ask your client, but in a pleading?

    Maybe talk to "Richard", you know? I actually doubt that the attorney is doing his client a favor by first-naming him here and keeping to slap the judge in the face with the information that his relation to him is not primarily a professional one. Even though he does not talk to him.

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

  • icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Nov 2019 @ 3:00am

    Dear Judge:

    Richard is very, very sorry for what he did. Please forgive him instead of punishing him. Even though he knew what he was doing was wrong, he still didn’t know any better. I promise he will never do it to you again.

    All apologies,

    Mr. Greenberg

    That is literally what the letter boils down to. (And yes, every bit of the wording there is intentional.)

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

    • identicon
      David, 16 Nov 2019 @ 3:17am

      Re:

      That is literally what the letter boils down to.

      For this use of "literally", you are ordered to correctly place five semicola within the course of one month. If you do not accept this penalty, a case in grammar court will be opened against you.

      It is common knowledge that any grammar flame will contain at least one awful blunder of its own. That does not entitle you to relief from your obligations.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2019 @ 5:25am

        Re: Re:

        Readers also love grammar flames that contain split infinitives.

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 17 Nov 2019 @ 1:43am

        Oh, you think pedantry is your ally? But you merely adopted the pedantry. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't learn how to break grammar rules until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but irritating!

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

        • icon
          Orchaster (profile), 19 Nov 2019 @ 12:36pm

          Re:

          Oh, you think pedantry is your ally? But you merely adopted the pedantry. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't learn how to break grammar rules until I was already a man; by then, it was nothing to me but irritating!

          Imagine reading this with a Jar Jar Binks accent.
          A.K.A. Jar Jar Bane.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2019 @ 5:14am

    Re: Nice

    Can I get better quality bots please.

    SPAM is bad enough, but being (extra) ugly on top of being SPAM is worse.

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

  • icon
    R1V37H34D (profile), 16 Nov 2019 @ 5:16am

    Liars gonna lie

    Dear Mr. Greenberg, LAW HARDER!!! Regards your reality

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2019 @ 6:43am

    what mr greenberg has done -- and quite elegantly -- is make the case for why richard liebowitz should not hold a law license.

    passing grades in x-number of courses does not a practitioner in any field make. successful schooling in any pursuit simply lays the groundwork for the real education at the feet of those who know how and why. richard liebowitz has done none of that and, beyond that, has shown that he almost surely lacks the judgment to be a practicing attorney.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2019 @ 6:50am

    i mean, i look at what we know of liebowitz and see one face: jethro bodine holding a scalpel.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2019 @ 7:20am

    Copyright law's best and brightest, ladies and gentlemen!

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Nov 2019 @ 8:15am

    "for his alleged contempt"
    And that ladies and gentlemen is what we call polishing a turd.
    There is nothing alleged about it, it is all clearly shown on the record & only the most mentally challenged (here is your opening blue) could look at his behavior in this case & imagine it wasn't really contempt.

    I'm a guy on the interwebs & I have been way more honest in court proceedings that this schmuck. I don't have a dead sheep skin to hide behind & expect a pass for. All I had was being truthful & my ethics to not sink to the level of the actual extortionist lawyers. I was held to to a much higher level than the lawyers were & I am shocked that even with 1000's of troll cases filed there are still Judges willing to overlook "irregularities" & ethical lapses.

    When weird dude on the internet, who claims to be an immortal sociopath, is seen as more trustworthy... perhaps the profession is in need of an enema to clean that sh... out.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2019 @ 10:54am

      Re:

      I admit I am a bit ignorant about court proceedings. However is there any appeal process to 'contempt'? I was under the impression that if the presiding judge said it's contempt, then it was (which seems a bit like a stripping of due processes).

      Anyhow point being: is there any way that it makes sense to call it 'alleged contempt'?

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

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Nov 2019 @ 11:23am

        Re: Re:

        Using alleged opens the door for sparky the newly minted wonder lawyer just didn't know the rules or how things worked. He didn't mean to bald face lie & file briefs telling the court to fsck right off, b/c they had no right to demand he prove his claims with evidence beyond he said so.

        There are ways to fight back against contempt, but other Judges are loathe to deal with it... it has to be really outrageous.
        Nothing the Judge in this case did is anywhere near being out of line, he was given every chance to not screw up (way more than we'd ever get) and his actions showed a lack of respect & candor.

        He claimed fact A, when asked to prove fact A ignored that multiple times & suggested the court didn't have the right to ask for proof of fact, he then allowed contempt fines pile up & did nothing... then the fines were increased even higher... and he STILL didn't file anything. He showed up in court b/c he finally realized that the Judge was done & would have him arrested to appear. He brought it another lawyer to plead his case that he's just a poor misguided caveman lawyer (Google it) who didn't understand our strange modern world... and most likely pissed the Judge off a bit more from her response to the bullshit they tried to feed her. The other opening they could be looking to create is she is biased against him, he's just a young lawyer who made a booboo and she was extra mean to poor him.

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

  • identicon
    AlexisR200, 16 Nov 2019 @ 2:55pm

    The good old throwing everything at the wall...

    This might piss of the judge further as it esentially asks for unearned special treatment for a lawyer that doesn't show even proper respect for that judge's time. Looking forward to seeing if the judge falls for any of it.

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

    • icon
      That Anonymous Coward (profile), 16 Nov 2019 @ 9:38pm

      Re: The good old throwing everything at the wall...

      The Smoking Gun attended the hearing & posted what happened as she went off on him & his lawyer,

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

  • icon
    Samuel Abram (profile), 16 Nov 2019 @ 3:13pm

    wut

    Counsel has known Richard and his family for years, even as long ago as Richard's Bar Mitzvah, and will always be available to render advice and guidance to Richard, and counsel will advise Richard to make use of this resource more often.

    [Emphasis Mine]

    I literally yelled out a "WHAT!?!" during this part. If I had a lawyer who said that they were representing me because they knew me at my Bar Mitzvah, I'd get a different lawyer. There are lots of them in NYC, so I'm good.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2019 @ 3:28pm

      Re: wut

      One of my old lawyers got me out of most of a speeding ticket and said he represented me because we were associated through boy scouts. My experience is it's a positive if your lawyer can also be your character witness.

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

      • icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), 16 Nov 2019 @ 3:43pm

        Re: Re: wut

        Ah, thanks. It's just that from that context Greenberg's pleas seemed, um, infantile.

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 16 Nov 2019 @ 7:58pm

        Character witnesses usually try to at least paint the person they’re defending in a positive light. Liebowitz’s lawyer did quite the opposite of that.

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

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 17 Nov 2019 @ 12:19am

          Re:

          To be fair he was kinda in a lose-lose situation, as he either portrays Liebowitz as competent and knowledgeable, in which case the idea that he couldn't know that lying to a judge repeatedly is wrong becomes even more absurd and unbelievable, or he tries to argue that not knowing that basic fact is totally believable because Liebowitz is so incredibly stupid that years of college and literally thousands of cases was not enough for that little bit of information to sink in.

          Given a choice between the two I'd say 'incredibly stupid' actually would be the better 'argument' to go with, even if it ends up leaving Liebowitz looking worse and even if it's still unbelievable and has almost no chance of actually working, because even with odds that low they're still higher than with the alternative.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 20 Nov 2019 @ 7:53am

      Re: wut

      "I literally yelled out a "WHAT!?!" during this part. If I had a lawyer who said that they were representing me because they knew me at my Bar Mitzvah, I'd get a different lawyer."

      The sad part, looking at the ham-fisted sad-faced farce run by the lawyer in question, is that we should just all be grateful one of his defenses wasn't just "I understand your honour is just biased against my client's semitic background"...

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Nov 2019 @ 8:01pm

    tldr version of the letter

    Dear Judge,

    While Richard has done terrible things, we know that there are two sets of punishments in this country. Richard is a good kid from a good family. Please punish Richard with a wrist slap, as is customary for the privileged 0.1%.

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

    • icon
      Federico (profile), 18 Nov 2019 @ 7:29am

      Re: White privilege

      My thought exactly. If a black kid, after speeding on their newly bought bicycle, had been just one tenth as arrogant as Liebowitz here, they would have been sent to jail with no second thoughts, and if they cried too loudly about it they might also happen to be shot.

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

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Nov 2019 @ 5:23am

        Re: Re: White privilege

        "If a black kid, after speeding on their newly bought bicycle, had been just one tenth as arrogant as Liebowitz here, they would have been sent to jail with no second thoughts..."

        Given that only 3% of US lawyers are black the odds that a black kid will ever find itself in Liebowitz position to begin with is slim.
        Those who do manage to survive trigger-happy cops and the odd spot of endemic racism are probably rather in a position where their first thought isn't "Hey, let's make the rest of my life a farce catering to the worst possible stereotype of what a crooked lawyer could be!"

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

  • identicon
    Mortimer Brewster, 18 Nov 2019 @ 5:26pm

    This jewish lawyer sounds like a sock and sandal wearing baby who needs to grow up and stop milking his mother's tits.

    He was so offended by the Judge inquiring into his Grandfather's death. Asinine!

    He get's a bull shit degree and then another bullshit degree from a bullshit university, Asinine!

    Don't care if you have been fucking his mother since his Bah Mitvah. Asinine!

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

  • identicon
    Garvey, 22 Nov 2019 @ 2:20pm

    Masnick = Liebowitz

    I love the irony of Masonic calling the guy a troll. Masnick is the blog equivalent of Liebowitz. Both crank out lots of garbage, appear to be disingenuous, do little research, care very little about fairness or the process, and make lots of mistakes.

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.