July 11, 2008

My letter to Dr. Wecht's attorneys

jmcdevitt@klng.com,
mrush@kl.com


dateFri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:22 PM
subjectRE: TPM Muckraker, JAMESDD, and Dr. Wecht
mailed-bygmail.com

Reply

Counsel,

I'm Virginia Simson, and run a blog covering Wecht legal proceedings, and am not represented by US counsel, but am concerned about information which may affect your client. I do have an attorney in Canada, Rocco Galati.

TPM recently did a story on your law firm, and your views of the Wecht proceedings. The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on that TPM information, and share with you a concern about other information which may affect your client's legal interests.

A TPM commenter named JamesDD, with IP Address 70.208.84.97 ? (Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless) (and maybe another)

left a messages saying they know your client; and this leaves me with the impression that he has a special relationship with your client. However, his comments do not suggest that he has a favorable view of your client. He has also published comments that show no tracking code at all today. I know that previously, JamesDD made a similar action, "checking out" my blog, but no ISP information turned up then either.

Although they are permitted to share their opinions, my reason for contact you as Wecht counsel is to share my concern that JamesDD appears to be publicly asking some to believe he has special information; but then proceeds to act in a manner that discredits your client by leaving dubious impressions about what issues are or are not relevant to this case. Only you and the court can decide what are legal issues.

I would like to know whether you or your client have any indirect or direct contact with JamesDD; and to what extent you or your client are concerned about someone (apparently) attempting to speak on behalf of your client.

My understanding is that statements from your client should be routed through you, his legal representation; and not indirectly through others who may not have any professional relationship with you or your client.

I have several specific examples, but before I provide them, wanted to give you a chance to consult and decide whether you want to spend any more time on this.

My reason for writing is to share with you the following issues and concerns, that I am writing a story about for publication:

* Represented clients should not have to have the distraction of public information which is presented "as if" it is official, but that information has not been cleared by counsel. Do you consider this a distraction to your client or your law firm?

* JamesDD's comments, if throught to be connected with you or your law firm or your client, tend to raise doubts about your client's legal interests. Is this how you view it?

I understand your time is precious; and am interested in knowing whether you or your law firm would like to have a discussion about the following issues in which I am interested. My reason for writing is to, if possible, seek your views and reactions to the following legal issues.

* To what extent someone, not officially connected with your law firm or your client, is presenting themselves as an official "Screener" of information on the internet/TPM related to your client, despite them having no official power, authority, or arrangement to do this.

* Despite their asserted relationship with your client, they have attempted to dissuade free exchange of ideas related to ongoing litigation. Are you concerned about this?

* To what extent JamesDD is inappropriately suggesting they have a special relationship with your client, or the facts/issues related to your client's legal issues. Is this how you view the situation; or do you have no comment?

* To what extent your client's legal interests are affected by someone who, despite requests to provide back up information, has refused to conduct themselves in a civil manner; and has substantially not complied with reasonable requests that they provide coherent arguments, otherwise they stop their disruptive actions on TPM. Is this something you are concerned about, or is this something you have no comment?

* Whether you would like additional information; or would prefer, as Wecht counsel, to discuss this directly with TPM board management.

If I do not hear back from you, I will assume that any comments JamesDD makes about your client are ones that you and your client have no position; and that nobody should take seriously any assertion that JamesDD does or doesn't know your client.

I obviously know that I do not work for you or Dr. Wecht (that would at this point be impossible), I am not represented by any of you and am aware of other legal interests you may have upon which you cannot comment.

Thank you for your work and efforts in challenging abusive government prosecutions. Understandably, you are very busy with the trial, and I look forward to hearing your response.

Virginia Simson


Domain Name myvzw.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address 70.208.84.97 ? (Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless)
ISP Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless
Location Continent : North America
Country : United States (Facts)
State : Maryland
City : Denton
Lat/Long : 38.8475, -75.7932 (Map)

Language English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Firefox

5 comments:

JamesDD said...

Virginia,

Way to misrepresent the facts yet again. I speak for myself and do not speak for Dr. Wecht or his attorneys. Your representation to Mr. Rush is an outright lie. I have stated that unlike you and testing, I have had contacts in passing with the Wecht family and feel they are good people. They did not deserve what has happened to them.

I have never wrote a disparaging comment on Dr. Wecht. I have written disparaging comments on people such as yourself that have attempted to utilize the pligth of Wecht to push your war crimes agenda on GW Bush. The simple fact you now send a letter that misrepresents the information as you have shows you to be the shrill human being you are.

Dr. Wecht has suffered enough and does not need to suffer more at the hands of an opportunist such as yourself.

JamesDD said...

It is unfortunate that you seem to wish to silence facts and honest debate. Your letter full of misrepresentations is nothing more than a shrill attempt to do so.

I will no longer becoming to your web page since it is nothing more than a reposting of other sites, it adds no additional value, and now it seems to be utilized as a vehicle of intimidation.

ladybroadoak said...

- MY PUBLIC STATEMENT -

James DD, has no idea of what I do publish. He has not taken the time to find out.

He is totally ignorant of the situation he is discussing.

I have asked him many times to CEASE AND DESIST.

It is my prime objective to be free of the hurdles I face.

Perhaps today is the day when legal counsel discuss this illegal representation on MY GOOD NAME.

I would like to spend the rest of the weekend having a wonderful SHOPPING SPREE, not constantly checking out the "action" on my sitemeter.

WAR CRIMES must be stopped; they shall be stopped and disinformation agents will be prosecuted is my "best guess"

I'd like to see where my blog or my opednews postings have EVER intimidated anyone!!

Virginia Simson

JamesDD said...

Virginia, or should I call you testing,

You asked on a TPM cafe blog that I come and discuss my views on this blog. It is unfortunate in doing so and pointing out facts, you have chosen now to rescind such invitation.

As for intimidation, sending letters to ones counsel with falsehoods and misrepresentations is an act of intimidation. Threatening someone with alleged legal actions because he or she disagrees with your point of view is an act of intimidation.

It is sad to see how someone that is against information warfare and intimidation, is so quick to embark on the use of such tactics to further your own personal views.

To allege that I am some sort of "disinformation agent" and that I should be prosecution for exercising my right of free speech is absurd.

I respectfully ask that you take down your attack posts on me and stop misrepresenting my positions and comments.

JamesDD said...

"I'd like to see where my blog or my opednews postings have EVER intimidated anyone!!"

One only needs to read the misrepresentations you put forth in this letter to Mr. Rush to see such actions.

Or perhaps, one should review our comments where you repeatedly threaten others with lawsuits for posting viewpoints that disagree with yours.

Or perhaps one should review the comments where you call others tools and other such disparaging remarks.

Enjoy your shopping spree virginia and please stop attacking, defaming me, and slandering me because I do not agree with your absurd viewpoint that GW Bush is running the prosecution of cyril wecht. Also, please stop insinuating that I support the overreaching prosecution of Dr. Wecht, for I do not, but such opinion is irrelevant to the decision of whether the case is tried or not.

ShareThis