A formal response to the Whirled

Man, that rocks. I'll bet the newspaper never imagined that you would fight back, and with legal representation. Ronald Coleman deserves a kudo for helping out.

I hope you realize that the entire blogosphere (most of it anyway) is with you. I'm glad to see you have secured legal counsel and that the World will not be able to continue trying to bully you...unless they are complete idiots (beyond what they have shown, that is). Keep up the fight. When the World backs down I'm sure the news will be blogged by a multitude of us. Maybe we'll even start providing hyperlinks to the World's site just to rub their nose in it ;)

Constitutional rights... use 'em or lose 'em. Regarding the Tulsa World... I say screw those losers. I'm hitting your tip jar right now.

It’s a bummer that you had to go through all of this, but there is a bright point to your situation, it's getting the word out to people like me; letting me know what my rights are and helping me to set my own boundaries in the posts I write (I now feel like I have more room to work with).

Here's to you for fighting the good fight so others like me will know our rights!

I'd drink a toast in your honor, but it's too damn early, so I'll salute you with an espresso shot and say thank you!

It is passing strange that the left-leaning blogs and ACLU aren't all over this, given their complaints about the suppression of free speech since Bush became President. Maybe that only applies to Hollywood types, though.

If this had been the WSJ suing Oliver Willis, you can bet the screams would be loud enough to break glass.

Is that what they call a smack-down?

It is passing strange that the left-leaning blogs and ACLU aren't all over this, given their complaints about the suppression of free speech since Bush became President.

It's good that Mr. Coleman reminded the World of Rule 11, in case they needed reminding.

Rule 11- is that anything like "Catch 22"??

I don't think the newspaper has a valid claim here, and I'm glad that someone has stepped up to represent you in this case. I'd have to disagree that the letter represented a "smack down." It was a pretty common letter informing the potential plaintiff that the potential defendant was represented by counsel.

Aside from that, in my humble opinion, the bluster, especially citing Rule 11, was pointless and probably counter-productive. Sanctions are darn near impossible to get, and bringing up Rule 11 is pretty insulting to opposing counsel. Citing Rule 11 says, "You, Mr. Bad Lawyer, have advised your client that he has a very good case and will win, but not only are you wrong in your professional judgment, your advice borders on insane and your client may even have a malpractice claim against you because no competent attorney would have filed that claim." Hence, I generally try to avoid Rule 11 unless opposing counsel is a complete tool who is eggregiously abusing the system and I realize I'm not going to get anywhere with him.

That said, assuming you thought the claim was so far beyond the pale that a judge would agree it didn't pass the laugh test, YOU DON'T TELL SOMEONE THAT YOU HAVE RULE 11 SANCTIONS IN MIND BEFORE YOU FILE THEM! No lawyer worth his salt is going to be intitimidated by laughable threats, and it just gives them a heads-up and an opportunity to cover themselves by fortifying the complaint or motions.

Given the facts and the newspaper's apparent business model and legal strategy, if I were their counsel, I'd make a note that the blogger was represented by counsel and go ahead and file my complaint. Not that I wouldn't advise my client that it wasn't a stupid claim...

Rule 11 applies to clients who instigate the improper action as well. Considering Mr. Coleman is not an attorney in Oklahoma and studied on its rules applying to frivolous suits, he was right to point out the relief available to his client he was sure about. Rule 11 has a very light trigger now and in this case, were the World to pursue action on the arguments presented its threatening correspondence, would definitely be an option for Mr. Bates relief.
One other consideration is whether there was a conspiricy to damage Mr. Bates, if so RICO applies.

Oh, this is too sweet. :)

I'll lay off lawyer-jokes for a week in solidarity.

Actually, the "left" has been heard from on this matter in that The Media Bloggers Association has members from all stripes who support the effort of the MBA to protect ALL bloggers from meritless threats such as those emanating from the World. The MBA happens to have Oliver Willis as a member.

This is not about left or right but right or wrong. The effort by any company, organization or government to silence those who lawfully publish bloggers is wrong the MBA will do what it can to prevent that.

I'm glad you retained expert counsel.
You did however miss one opportunity to really get the Whirl'ies choking on their coffee.
You should responded *first* with a short letter saying: "Sirs. Fuck yourself. Strong letter follows from my lawyer."

As I understand it penalties under Fed Rule 11 are difficult to get awarded. If the Whirl'ies do go ahead however the complete lack of basis for a sustainable claim may mean that the Rule applies. Good luck,

I'm a lawyer in Ontario and let me tell you that thecosts regime which *requires* the loser (of the motion, or the action) pay costs really tends to keep things under control. Costs are awarded and payable forthwith in the case of motions.. That means, if the plaintiff moves for relief to which he is not entitled and loses the motion, and does not pay the costs, he can be stayed from proceeding with the action: stop, do not pass go.

And the costs can be substantial.

Geoff

Thats great! I have been telling anyone I can about this story. Even talking about it on my small corner of weber-net.

I am looking forward to when the "Whirled" backs off their claims. Hopefully soon. You dont deserve this. But, Jesus never said the road of truth would be smooth...

Pogo: (Seems funny typing that, fan of Walt Kelly's work that I am.) My situation has received attention from left-leaning bloggers like Atrios, Matthew Yglesias, and Kevin Drum, and plenty of other folks whose entries start with words like, "I don't agree with Michael Bates on anything, but I support him in this fight." I think bloggers of all stripes realize what is at stake here, and I've been gratified by the support from across the political spectrum. And I can't thank Bob Cox, Ron Coleman, and Media Bloggers Association enough for being there for me.

Actually, I thought the letter quite competent. And an amusing contrast to the silly letter Tulsa World wrote Bates. The Rule 11 reference is not quite as over the top as some here believe in the case of SLAPP ( an acronym for actions like Worlds' - Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation ).

Nice work Mr. Coleman.

Thanks, Robin, and all the other people who said kind things about our letter. I am writing in my blogger identity now, and not on behalf of Mike!

Speaking generally, then: It is true that Rule 11 sanctions are rarely granted. But neither are they lightly sought. And, in my practice, they are very rarely threatened.

Incidentally, there is no state court jurisdiction over copyright matters (unlike, say, trademarks, which permits private actions in state or federal court) -- so, indeed, only the Federal Rules would apply.

Hey lets all link to the Tulsa World!!!!

www.tulsaworld.com

Regardless of whether a Rule 11 claim is likely to succeed or not, I think mentioning it has a value in this case.

Sometimes, in some situations, someone with deep pockets may take an attitude of "I can't win, but I don't have to. My deep pockets will let my lawyers tie things up until his shallow pockets run dry. He'll have to give up, and we'll have to win by default. We don't have much to lose."

But then their attitude goes even further: they know that the little guy knows this value equation as well. So they figure they can bully him on the cheap: for the cost of a simple letter, they can make him see the value equation, and surrender without a fight.

Mr. Coleman's letter changed that equation. First, it said, "I'm being paid by an association. They have deeper pockets than Mr. Bates does." And the Rule 11 mention says, "And if you think you have nothing to lose, think again. We expect to win your suit handily, and then see if we can make you pay for the attempt."

In essence, it says, "I call your bet, and raise. You still wanna bet?" Given the weak hand the World has, that should give them pause.

This is a kewl opening move !!

Now its time to wait for rebuttal /reply from World. !! What happens if they do no reply and sit on it and then pull up their "old" letter and once again (after lets say 3 months) and action it in courts ?? Can this be done ??

Is life that doggone slow in Tulsa that the newspapers have to pick on, as MSM puts it, "guys in their living rooms wearing pajamas"???

VIVA LA PAJAMA REVOLUCION!!