Earlier today, I went on Twitter and I posted a chart I’d put together showing who Brooks Bayne has been attacking, who has been associated with those attacks, the tactics that have been used and what reasons were given for the attacks.
Now Mike Stack is threatening to sue me. I’m going to respond to his threat with the one weapon I have; free speech.
Mike just sent me the following letter. Mr. Stack also CCd a person who Stack claims is his own attorney, Ned Cohn of Cohn, Bracaglia, and Gropper, PC. The letter reads in full:
You are defaming me and making it appear as though I agree with or am acting in concert with Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser by putting me in your little graph next to them. Regardless of the outcome, I have pressed charges against Neal and been face to face with Brett in court. I am not on their side and each time you write that to get back at me for disagreeing with your methods and actions, you are sending the message that I agree with them.
Tomorrow, the first two of my tormentors get their bad news. You’ll probably laugh at this, and I hope you do, but I intend to seek legal recourse against all those who have smeared me and by inferring that I am endorsing their tactics, you are accusing me of working with them.
My lawyer is cc’d above and he has been filled in on the whole Neal-Weinergate-Swatting-Montgomery PD saga.
Here’s the chart. I’m planning to do a newer one but this is the one that Mr. Stack is referring to.
I view this threat as another example of Lawfare. I assert that I have a First Amendment right to make a chart that attempts to explain this whole mess. Stack has, in my opinion, been clearly ‘associated with’ the attacks by Brooks Bayne. Here’s one simple example, where Mr. Stack aka @CryingWolfeBlog — in response to Brooks Bayne — accusing me of deleting tweets; something I have not done, by the way.
I believe that is clearly Mike Stack being associated with Brooks Bayne in an inaccurate attack.
Here’s a Tweet from Patrick Read, one of the people on my ‘associated with’ sections of the chart — you’ll note that he mentions Mike and a number of other people who are listed on that same section.
In his letter to me threatening suit, Mr. Stack says
“You are defaming me and making it appear as though I agree with or am acting in concert with Brett Kimberlin and Neal Rauhauser by putting me in your little graph next to them.”
Look for yourself; nowhere do I claim that Mr. Stack either agrees with or is acting in concert with Mr. Kimberlin or Rauchauser. . In fact, neither Kimberlin or Rauhauser actually appear on my chart; I use the phrase Team Kimberlin to broadly describe three anonymous accounts that appear to be associated with the people defending Kimberlin. That’s as close as it comes and nowhere do I say Stack is working with them or in agreement.
Further, Mr. Stack doesn’t explain how he has been damaged. Nor does he make a credible claim that I accused him of a crime, since I did not. These are key elements in defamation case according to my layman’s knowledge of the law.
For those reasons, I believe this is Lawfare — the threat of a frivolous suit that is intended purely to stop me from exercising my right to non-defamatory, non-harassing speech. Mr. Stack will not like this characterization, but it does remind me of the sort of litigation that Brett Kimberlin has pursued in the past. I’m not suggesting Mr. Stack is working with Mr. Kimberlin; I’m say that Mr. Stack using this tactic strikes me as quite ironic.
I have seen Mr. Stack change in the course of the year or so I’ve known him from someone actively working with the Breitbart team on aspects of the Weinergate story to someone who befriended people like Ron Brynaert, Michelle / @ZAPEM and then went on to attack Breitbart, his company and its employees. I don’t know what happened to Mr. Stack, but the change has been jarring.
Now, he’s planning to sue me and others? Puzzling.
And no, Mr. Stack — you will not stop me from telling the as I see it truth with your threats. Why not exercise your own freedom of speech and respond factually? Why not ask for a point of calcification? Why act like your supposed enemies?