Dear William Kerr and Passionate America:
Please be advised that I represent Jordan Edmund. It is our understanding that you and Passionate American are identifying Mr. Edmund with certain Instant Messages ("IMs"). You have indicated that ABC News mistakenly published these alleged Ims and that you should not have been able to obtain this information. Whether this is true or not is beside the point. Without any foundation or legal permission, you are stating that our client is the person associated with the Ims. Neither ABC News nor Brian Ross have been error free in their reporting in the past. You should not assume that they are correct now. Like all individuals and institutions, they occasionally make mistakes. Therefore, I respectfully demand that you cease any further efforts to identify our client with these alleged Ims and cease publishing such information on Passionate America. Neither you nor Passionate American is authorized to use any photograph of him, his name or his personal information. You should consult with an attorney who is experienced in civil and criminal liability regarding the internet. If you are correct that ABC News should not have released the alleged AOL screen name and that ABC News has risked civil and criminal liability because of the unauthorized release, then your republication of the unauthorized release likewise exposes you to possible liability.
Sincerely,
Stephen Jones
JONES, OTJEN, DAVIS, NIXON & JUHL
114 E. Broadway, Suite 1100
P.O. Box 472
Enid, Oklahoma 73702
(580) 242-5500
(580) 242-4556 (fax)
sjones@stephenjoneslaw.com
Sounds like they are going after ABC for the big bucks.
YIKES!! Calling Mark Levin!!
"Neither ABC News nor Brian Ross have been error free in their reporting in the past. You should not assume that they are correct now."
Well you certainly can't argue with that.
No headers?
There is absolutely no way that this e-mail was written by an attorney, running off on a weird, subjective muddle about "mistakes" and "errors" by ABC as it does.
I don't know that a cease-and-desist letter has any real legal significance anyway, except that if the lawyer goes ahead with a lawsuit or asks for an injunction, it looks better if he can say he tried this first. The law on it might vary from state to state, though.
(I know that in MA, to sue under the Consumer Protection Act, your supposed to send a demand letter citing the statute -- and wait I forget how long for a response -- before filing suit, but I know of a couple of cases where the demand letter was never sent and the trial went on.)
Just had a thought. If there's a 'hacker', as I've read involved in this ordeal, I would NOT reply to that email. Would use the phone and fax.....fwiw
He had a previous suit AGAINST the Repubs I believe in a campaign ad published in a magazine. IIRC, it was in regard to two homosexuals who had gotten married. I believe the ad published a picture of them from the ceremony.
That letter doesn't look like it was really written by a lawyer. It may well be a crime for someone to impersonate him, in this kind of context.
I would suggest that you contact the real Stephen Jones, looking up his contact information for yourself, and provide him with a copy, including headers. You might also want to provide a copy to the police.
That e-mail is a bluff.