You seem so convinced that Chapman’s claims are 100% true, and BVBL’s 100% false. Where’s your proof? You spend A LOT of time, and A LOT of words, but you say very little.

Short summary, there was a dispute on the Friends of Chinn Park library board, and in the heat of the moment a woman said “Heil Hitler” to the chairperson.

The Chair SUED the lady, and WON. Said the judge: “If someone came up to me and said, ‘Heil Hitler,’ I’d find them in contempt.”

Read my column, you may enjoy it, but realise that in Virginia, if simply saying “Heil Hitler” can get you a fine, imagine what substantive false claims will get you. We don’t have to like it to know that it is serious.

I don’t want you to have to go to court, I don’t want you to lose. But this isn’t some blogger game where people just rachet up attacks on each other, this is the real world, where there are real consequences.

You might be able to plead “temporary bloganity” (A word I just made up to describe how people get so used to attacking people for fun in cyberspace that they forget there are real people in the real world being really harmed by their “fun”.

Your response of “bite me” would be an example — it’s a natural response in the blogosphere.

Hopefully, you have a real lawyer you are paying to help you — but MY advice would be to call Steve, set up a lunch date, go meet him, talk through all this, show him your evidence, let him show you his, and settle this.

I don’t care about BVBL, because he or she is not a “real person”, just some anonymous thing. But I care about what happens to you, I don’t want to see you spend money on lawyers, much less have to pay a fine and have your reputation in the real world be effected.

You seem to support and encourage labelling your opponent’s lawyers as terrorist supporters and incompetents.

I can’t imagine a lawyer you would hire would take that tact. If you succeed in harming their business, it will be used as evidence that you smear people purposely for gain.

I still don’t understand why, when you and BVBL got the warning letter telling you that your accusations were false, you didn’t simply apologize and move on. You could have stopped this thing in it’s tracks.

You probably still could. Why defend false accusations?

You speak elsewhere of our free speech rights, but surely your lawyer has explained to you that each of these statutes you are sued under are valid points of law applied against people exercizing their “free speech rights”.

Honestly, “sliming” Gill & Gallinger seems pretty reasonable to me based on a casual observation of their filings and communications. I think they’re making a reasoned conclusion, well supported by the evidence.

As for your reliance upon “others far more knowledgeable in the law,” and assuming that you’re not relying upon that noted legal scholar AWCheney, I would note that none (to my knowledge) is being paid by you, or has put his or her name on it. That’s a pretty thin reed upon which to rely.

Gill & Gallgher is a worthy target of scorn and ridicule for what they’ve done, and others far more knowledgeable in the law have proven this in great detail. They do a great disservice to those who practice law and tarnish the public’s opinion of the legal profession with their antics. I would imagine that you as a professional would be upset that your fellow professionals are harming your profession.

But I haven’t tried to “slime you or the foundation” and honestly don’t understand the reference. We may disagree sometimes, but I have no reason to believe that you are anything other than a great attorney who defends the interests of some pretty important clients in cases that impact society at large in vital ways. I’d imagine you’re pretty darned good at it, given how you present arguments.

So what the heck is going on?

Keep it up, Greg (or allow it to be kept up); you might just end up with TWO lawsuits.

http://www.sperryfiles.com/characters.shtml