UPDATED 3:45 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.)
Editor’s Note: This is a guest column by Roxy Lewis, a self-described member of the “AARP generation.” Lewis was a member of ASD and the ASD Members Business Association. This column is in her own words. In the column, Lewis tells her story about various email interactions concerning her attempt to get a refund for her contribution to ASDMBA.
THE IRONY OF INFORMATION TRANSFORMED
INTO THREATS IN THE ARONS/FRIEDMAN CASE
By Roxy Lewis
When I saw my name in Exhibit A of the “Notice to Take Deposition†issued by Carter Boisvert to Jack Arons in the ongoing suit by Larry Friedman, I was frankly shocked at first and then scared. After all, I am a member of the AARP generation living in Minnesota, who never posted anything defamatory, slanderous or libelous about Larry Friedman or the legal firm. Yet here, buried in the middle of Larry Friedman’s suit against Jack, I found not only myself, but the names of 8 other users of the ASD-BIZ.NING.com forum. I was concerned, felt this was purely an intimidation tactic, and had no idea where to go next.
However, I am not one to just roll over and play dead based on legal documentation from some unknown person in a remote location. One of the ironies in this subpoena is the request for information on the 8 of us. The subpoena states they are asking for:
“Any and all documents regarding the following members of the “ASD Business Information Zone†social network site, located at the Internet web address http://asd-biz.ning.com, including but not limited to each member’s full name, address, telephone number, all e-mail addresses, all IP addresses and any other contact information within your possession, custody, or control.â€
Why is this ironic? Because in my case, Larry Friedman already had all of that information, and had it for months. In December 2008 I had an email exchange with Bob Guenther, who referred me to Larry Friedman, regarding a refund of my ASDMBA “contribution.†His final reply is noted below:
“Roxy. I am not avoiding any issue. There is no issue. You are not our client and never have been. Your dispute, if any, is with the organization that you purportedly joined not with me or my firm. You did not hire my firm. You are not a client of my firm. We don’t even know who you are. The only mistake I made was being nice to you in the first place, and I won’t make it again. If you take any frivolous action against me or my law firm we will defend it vigorously and pursue all of our lawful remedies against you. We know exactly how to deal with people like you in the Texas courts. Do not contact me again. -Larry Friedmanâ€
It’s interesting to me that Mr. Friedman moved immediately to threat mode, “we know exactly how to deal with people like you in the Texas courts.†Given that I am a private citizen, not an attorney, not financially wealthy as Mr. Friedman and his firm are, this was definitely perceived by me as a threat directed specifically at me. I decided to bide my time and do some research as things unfolded.
In March, I read that Larry Friedman’s firm had begun authorizing refunds. Laura Tripp was named as the contact person. I contacted her, restating my December request. I received a very nice reply, with the instructions and questions they required to be answered in order to obtain a refund. I found the last one particularly interesting: “Source of information for refund request†as it could be taken as asking “how did I learn about the fact that the firm was refunding monies.â€
I submitted my request and waited. The response from “Laura†was swift and as hostile and threatening as the December exchange with Larry Friedman, saying I would not be getting a refund. However, this time there was an added twist. This time “Laura†made disparaging remarks about the others on the ASD-Biz.ning.com board, the very thing Larry Friedman accuses Jack of doing! The tone moved from the pleasant information-giving exchange of earlier emails to what I perceived as a hostile threat as well:
Ms. Lewis,
This firm will not refund any money that was not paid directly to Friedman & Feiger. It has no obligation to do so. The money it has refunded has been strictly voluntary. The information you received from J. D. Sullivan a/k/a Wayne Tidderington a/k/a Bob Sterling is false and misleading. The statements that you have made are unsupportable. That is why Mr. Sullivan/Tidderington/Sterling does not make them himself, use his own name or file his own complaints. Mr. Friedman and the firm have recourse and will file suit against anyone who makes false, misleading or disparaging remarks against them or files a baseless complaint — as they have already. Rendering legal advice without a license is a crime in Texas; filing false complaints is actionable. The firm takes your threats very seriously and any complaint you file will be considered spurious and will be vigorously defended. Your should investigate Mr. Sullivan/Tidderington/Sterling’s background and history very carefully before you get involved with him or do his bidding. The last person he used for similar purposes got sued in Texas, after which he abandoned them and left them to fend for themselves with the problem he created. Ask Mr. Sullivan/Tidderington/Sterling what his real name and address is, what he does for a living, how many times he has been sued for interfering in other people’s businesses, what his wife’s real name is and where she works. If he will give you all of that information truthfully (which he won’t) you will know who you are really dealing with. Then you can determine for yourself who is leading you around. And, by the way, ask Mr. Sullivan/Tidderington/Sterling what his relationship is to Andy Bowdoin and what Mr. Sullivan/Tidderington/Sterling’s motives were to divert your attention from the real cause of your concern. If you want all of your money back start looking for it under Mr. Sullivan/Tidderington/Sterling’s rock.
Laura Tripp
AR Manager
Friedman & Feiger, LLP
Just to be sure I had been clear, I sent one last email to “Laura†:
Dear Ms. Tripp,
Thank you for your reply.
Please confirm for me that you (and Attorney Friedman) understand that his solicitation of funds to be sent to ASDMBA and mailed to Bob Guenther, still means he solicited them, received them and then did no service for them. As such, if he will not reconsider and refund my $100.00 I will have no recourse other than to immediately file a complaint with the Texas Bar Association and advise others who have asked my opinion on the matter to do the same.
Please reply by midnight on 4/7/09 CDT. Thank you.
Roxy Lewis
“Her†reply was swift and again perceived as threatening:
Ms Lewis
You have my response. I would strongly recommend that you consult with an attorney in Minnesota and stop getting your legal advice off the internet from non-attorney bloggers. As stated, any baseless complaint filed with the Texas Bar will be vigourously defended by this law firm. Also, I might recommend that you examine your finances to be sure you have the means to defend yourself against any actions that may be brought against you as a result of your actions.
That’s the second irony in this exchange. Clearly she had NO information about my December email exchange with Larry Friedman and assumed I was “getting my legal advice off the internet from non-attorney bloggers,” the same bloggers she disparaged in the prior email, rather than realizing this was a repeat request. Still, this threat against my finances compared to those of “this firm†felt very much like a second threat against me.
Those of you who have been following the case from Larry Friedman against Jack Arons know that many people believe, and have posted online in multiple forums, that this is really a first amendment, freedom of speech case. Considering that fact, I began to search for information on the internet regarding first amendment rights and came upon cyberslapp.org. I’d never heard of a “cyberslapp†before, but the definition on their home page was exactly what I was looking for:
“A new form of lawsuit called a “CyberSLAPP” suit is threatening to overturn the promise of anonymous online speech and chill the freedom of expression that is central to the online world. CyberSLAPP cases typically involve a person who has posted anonymous criticisms of a corporation or public figure on the Internet. The target of the criticism then files a frivolous lawsuit just so they can issue a subpoena to the Web site or Internet Service Provider (ISP) involved, discover the identity of their anonymous critic, and intimidate or silence them.â€
Because I was named in the subpoena, I contacted them via their “contact us†link on the home page. This put me in touch with a Mr. Paul Levy. I told him of the subpoena and my name being there, along with 8 others. He advised that Ning, being located in California, would likely not respond to a Texas subpoena at all, but he would verify this with them. Yesterday he confirmed this is indeed the position [Ning] has taken, and authorized me to share this information. You can view the posting on the ASD-Biz.ning.com forum.
So, to all of us named in that subpoena, it appears we don’t have much to worry about. Some of the online bloggers speculated early that this would be the case. Personally I needed a greater assurance than that, and the feedback from Ning to Mr. Levy gave me that assurance.
I am still not convinced Larry Friedman or the Texas courts and Judges have any jurisdiction over those of us in other states, including the subject of the suit, Jack Arons of Florida. I am now more convinced than ever that we all need to be diligent in guarding our first amendment rights against those who would try to intimidate, threaten and silence us, no matter where they are located.