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.- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arthur alan wolk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
File That Email
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"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: File That Email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: File That Email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: File That Email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: File That Email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you tried an alternative approach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have you tried an alternative approach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you tried an alternative approach?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
Apologies to Mr. Wolks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
Guy Fawkes in a cheerleading outfit. >.< Thanks for that mental image. /sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Robert Ring on Aug 4th, 2011 @ 2:08pm
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!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$100,000,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $100,000,000
[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]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SLAPP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd also say the 5 virtual fingers Mike has were applied to Wolk's digital self.
Man, does Mike have fun with these clowns hahahaha
Next: Wolk sues Mike for the comments posted about him. Did I mention clown already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No. It's STRIKE.
Motion to strike, your honor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So...you're right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Post of the week?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techwho?!?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techwho?!?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techwho?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techwho?!?
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".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techwho?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techwho?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techwho?!?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techwho?!?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't trust him to open an envelope for me let alone a legal case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ultimatum
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]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or less accurately: soak.
But it does not rhyme with folk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
who who simply couldn't take a joke
the courts gave him a slap
while the audience clap
and now Wolk is gonna end up flat-broke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There once was a young man named Wolk
who simply could not take a joke
the courts gave him a slap
while others did clap
and now Wolk will soon be made broke.
think that works better :D
(still not sure if it's perfect)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who sued everyone who dare spoke
Unfortunate for him
His petition was slim
And his protests merely prolonged the joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The man who would sue over a joke,
To make it utterly plain,
You can't sue for being called a name,
Jackass idiot dumbfuck poopy pants....er, spoke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wouldn't calling the judge that heard his case "defrauded" merit a case of defamation against him? heh heh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has been happening a lot lately.
*Dramatic* What horrors has my thesis corrections left upon my soul!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ow! I'm sorry! I take it back! Uncle!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://xkcd.com/326/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Air ambulances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(1) Truth.
(2) Opinion.
This is both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fan Mail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Although I doubt Mike's responses will be nearly as amusing as TPB stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But not paralysed enough not to type? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old saying: First thing done in law school is remove your conscience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hilarious
> 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hilarious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good reason for judicial reform
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good reason for judicial reform
> to non-clients
But it's okay to lie in communications to clients?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good reason for judicial reform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good reason for judicial reform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good reason for judicial reform
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is name-calling defamation?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is name-calling defamation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is name-calling defamation?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is name-calling defamation?
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is name-calling defamation?
This lawyer does:
http://blog.bennettandbennett.com/2011/07/selling-out.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is name-calling defamation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Stupid Man
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is his name Alan Cartman?
Cool Mike is like: "Come at me bro!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only someone would give him a reason to make legal threats against 4chan, the internet could rid itself of another pestilence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I laugh in your general direction, Mr. Wolk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shark in the dark
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This emphasises, reinforces and unequivocally supports my original comment on the supposedly defamatory TechDirt Article that I will now republish (yes republish) in full! Also I would like to add to this with a quote by Lawrence Sterne and draw Mr Wolks attention to a fascinating article about The Basic Laws of Stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clueless people
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Wolk
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dumba55
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tsk tsk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wolk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eat today or sue tomorrow? It's a question of priorities really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bravo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DId he libel youi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]