Tag: Roxy Lewis

Editor’s Note: This is a follow-up column by Roxy Lewis, a member of ASD and the ASD Members Business Association (ASDMBA). Lewis is a self-described member of the “AARP generation” and a grandmother.

Her initial column was published April 18. It dealt with her thoughts and feelings about seeing her name in a subpoena in the slander and libel lawsuit by Dallas attorney Larry Friedman against Florida resident Jack Arons, a pro se defendant who draws Social Security and lives in a manufactured home. The initial Lewis column also included her take on email exchanges with Friedman’s law firm in her bid to receive a refund for her $100 contribution to ASDMBA.

This column addresses her discussions with an attorney about these matters. It is published in her own words. The references to the “Ning Nine” below are references to individuals about whom Friedman sought information via subpoena to ning.com, the host of the ASD-Biz forum.

For additional background, see reports on this Blog pertaining to Bob Guenther, the de facto head of ASDMBA. Guenther introduced Friedman to potential ASDMBA contributors last summer as a lawyer interested in protecting their interests in the civil forfeiture case against AdSurfDaily Inc., a Florida company federal prosecutors said was selling unregistered securities, engaging in money-laundering and wire fraud and operating a Ponzi scheme. Some ASDMBA members are unhappy with Guenther, saying he has not provided transparent accounting that detailed  how ASDMBA spent money collected from contributors to protect their interests in the ASD case. ASDMBA members also complained about verbal bullying and threats from Guenther. Friedman is the attorney for the ASDMBA Trust.

Of Subpoenas, Speech and the Attempt to Silence

By Roxy Lewis

After writing the guest column on this blog [April 18], I was finally able to speak directly with a local Minnesota attorney who specializes in internet law, regarding my name appearing on Larry Friedman’s subpoena in his case against Jack Arons. I also wanted to know the legal ramifications of that, as well as my options and possible legal exposures. I would recommend everyone else who is curious do the same with an attorney local to their area.

Based on what I was told, I am even more convinced that naming the “Ning Nine” in the subpoena was a move intended solely to intimidate and silence us, and anyone else who reads about the ASDMBA, and possibly to fish for further information about the anonymous posters in the group.

First I asked whether I have any legal exposure based on being on the subpoena. The reply was no, as the subpoena was not directed to me personally, nor have I posted anything that could be considered libelous or defaming.

Next I asked, after reading the thoughts of others that the Ning Nine group members should sue Larry Friedman for defamation, whether this would be possible.  In a word, no. Larry Friedman has not defamed or issued libelous statements regarding any of us. The fact that he listed our names on a subpoena is not actionable.

Third, I asked if I were to file a complaint with the Texas bar or shared information with the Citizen Media Law Project site, as some have suggested, would I have an exposure to suit there. His response was very interesting.

What he said was, “The best defense for a claim of defamation is the truth. If what you say in the complaint or share with the Project is the truth, and you can show that, you have an excellent defense.”

Then, just out of curiosity I asked this: Suppose Larry Friedman decides, since he has my real name and address, to sue me and schedules a deposition in Texas as he did with Jack Arons. Can he compel me to go to Texas, which would be as big a financial hardship to me as it is to Jack Arons?

His answer was very enlightening. He said, “Generally speaking, the answer is no.  Generally speaking, a person being deposed cannot be forced to travel more than 100 miles for the process.”

So, there you have it. Ning has said it isn’t going to respond to the subpoena. None of us on the subpoena other than Jack have personally been subpoenaed or sued at this point. We have no cause of action against Larry Friedman for our names being included in the subpoena. Those of us who have said nothing negative or untrue about Larry Friedman and/or Friedman and Feiger, have the best defense should he ever decide to come after us in an attempt to silence his critics and/or the entire internet.

We have the facts, which often come from Larry Friedman himself, and in his own words, no less.

However, there is another option for the Ning Nine. I was told there is no reason to refrain from making truthful reports to the appropriate bar associations and other public groups, such as Citizen Media Project about this entire matter, as has already been suggested in multiple online venues.

As long as the information is truthful and the assertions can be proven and documented, there is no reason not to proceed. In my case, as well as several others of the Ning Nine, I have not posted anything false about Larry Friedman or his firm, or the methods he has employed regarding the ASDMBA. His own company emails have done the damage, both those from himself and his employee. And as one of the comments to my guest column says, I am not the only one to receive such threatening responses via email when a simple refund request was made.

I did find one other interesting tidbit in my research. Larry Friedman’s biography on the Friedman and Feiger site says he is licensed to practice in Texas, Florida and Minnesota.  From what I found online today and confirmed by calling the Judiciary directly, this is not the case, at least in Minnesota. While he is a member of the Minnesota Bar, lawyer license #0032165, by virtue of having paid the fees on March 5, 2009, he is not authorized to practice here. The following information about his Minnesota status comes from this link:  http://www.courts.state.mn.us/mars/AttorneyDetail.aspx?id=0032165

Since I was unfamiliar with the meanings of “Not authorized-Non-Resident” and “Involuntarily Restricted (by Court Order), I called the Bar office at 651-296-2254 and asked for clarification. I was told that the “Not Authorized-Non-Resident” is a choice the individual attorney makes, and is not mandatory simply because they are out of state.

The “Involuntarily Restricted (By Court Order) is because of Larry Friedman’s CLE status. Since he has not reported his CLE (Continuing Legal Education) record to the Minnesota Judicial System, his license to practice was involuntarily put in a “non-authorized” or “on-hold” status. I find it very interesting that his biographical information on the Friedman and Feiger site says he is licensed to practice in Minnesota, when he is not, according to our State Judiciary. Licensed? Yes. Licensed to practice? No.

The same information can be found by searching the Minnesota Courts Lawyers for Public Discipline site at http://www.mncourts.gov/lprb/SearchLawyer.aspx.

So, I invite all of you to do your own checking with an attorney local to your area, to see if you get different answers than I did. For the present, there are no grounds on which the Ning Nine can sue Larry Friedman as he’s done nothing actionable.

Ning isn’t going to respond to the subpoena request, according to Paul Levy, particularly since they don’t even gather all of the information included in the subpoena. What each person decides to do after talking to a local attorney regarding their personal interactions with Larry Friedman and/or his staff, is clearly up to them.

But as the attorney I spoke with said, as long as you are being truthful and can substantiate and document the facts of what you say, you have the best defense against any defamation claim from anyone, including other attorneys, wherever they may reside. That would apply to any group of persons, such as the 300 ASDMBA members located in Florida, who may choose to take this further as a group, as well as it would to individuals.