CenLaBriarPatch, on the other hand, has the majority of its posts about local attorney Tommy Davenport and me, who are not even politicians. Danny Slater is a true "broke dick" who apparently lacks morals and is a paralegal now. In fact, almost the only attorneys he likes is his own boss, Jacques Roy and Chuck Johnson. The rest of us lawyers, he appears to have a jealous deep seated hatred for.
That blog continues to comment on legal issues when none of its writers are lawyers and really don't have a legal opinion. All of their writers, except for Slayter recently, are anonymous so that we don't even know who they are, if they even separately exist, and lack the courage and convictions in what they write to stand by their posts.
That blogs co-writer, Bubba Fox, for example, wrote a post today entitled "The Price Of Defending Your Bad Name" in which he wrote that I would have to defend myself if I wanted to sue Slayter for defamation. He even wrote that "Unless Susan Ford Fiser, Aymond’s attorney for a time, did all her work for free, a mere review of the pleadings and the history of the case leads me to guess at least $2500 was spent in legal fees". id. Had Bubba Fox been a real practicing attorney, he would have realized that is simply untrue.
First, many lawyers take a case on a contingency fee. A contingency fee is "A fee, as for an attorney's services, that is payable only in the event of a successful or satisfactory outcome". It did not cost me a dime for Susan to represent me in her successful lawsuit against Ed Hooper for defamation. Second, I am a lawyer and have lawyer friends who will be more that willing to represent me for free. So, in short, Fox does not know what he is writing about.
Slayter also wrote "I reassert the allegations made against Greg Aymond and “double dog dare” him to do something about it". id.
In response to that Slayter post, I then wrote "WILL I SUE SLAYTER?", is which I said that I would be happy to sue Slayter if two simple conditions were met: 1). That he affirmatively state Hooper's allegations instead of simply stating that he agreed with them, and 2). If Hooper would finally pay my court costs and the damages that were awarded to me in the judgment that I obtained against Hooper.
Instead of doing those two things, Slayter came back with "Peanut Butter Jelly Time" is which he did not meet my challenge. (See my post "IN FORMA PAUPERIS").
Slayter also posted his "Memorandum in Support of Special Motion to Strike Pursuant to La. C.C.P. Article 971" and recommended that I read it. I am not impressed with Slayter's amaturest dribble.
First, I note that Slater's so-called memorandum of law consists of 54 pages, while most memoranda by real lawyers rarely exceed a dozen pages in length. Also, Slayter's memorandum is filled with copies of blog posts, blog pictures and newspaper articles. Perhaps if Slayter was a real lawyer, he would realize that those copies are not evidence. To be considers as evidence, one would have to get it admitted by the court by first authenticating it and then by showing its relevancy. I made one of the highest grades in the history of LSU Law School in Evidence and have over 25 years in practice which I would put up any day of the week against Slayter's unskilled so-called legal expertise.
Slayter's hatred for me started with my commenting on his pleadings file against Alexandria lawyer Tommy Davenport. He also likes to keep pointing up that Davenport is a client of mine, when the fact is that I have represented Davenport only once, in a lawsuit for a writ of mandamus against the City of Alexandria, and we won that suit.
I do not fault Slayter for disagreeing with me, I fault him for his lies on his so-called blog. Slayter and crew well be better off if they stuck to blogging on topics that they know something about. The law is not one of them.
0 comments:
Post a Comment