Comments on: JUICY SUITS: Lawyer vs. Lawyer in Internet Libel Dispute

By: Michael Roberts of Rexxfield.com

Michael Roberts of Rexxfield.com — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:19:03 +0000

The Streisand effect is an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized. Examples of such attempts include censoring a photograph, a number, a file, or a website (for example via a cease-and-desist letter). Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity, often being widely mirrored across the Internet, or distributed on file-sharing networks.

The effect is related to John Gilmore’s observation that “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it”.
(From Wikipedia)

By: JUICY SUITS: Oregon Doc Vs. Anonymous Web Commenter | Willamette Week | Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:36:15 +0000

[...] internet libel suits keep on coming — this time against an anonymous commenter who pissed off an Oregon [...]

By: Another Bar Member

Another Bar Member — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:17:24 +0000

I, too, am admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. Big deal. Nearly every attorney not currently in prison is eligible for admission.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/bar/baradmissions.html

By: Austin

Austin — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:13:55 +0000

They say a man’s website is the mirror image of his soul.
Well, no one ever said that, but my point is that guy’s website is fantastically awful.

By: twilliam

twilliam — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:22:32 +0000

Attention to detail is important, especially when he misquotes his own claimed inaccuracies “despite being a member of the bar.”

By: Daniel A. Bernath

Daniel A. Bernath — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:12:10 +0000

freedom of speech asked for a legal analysis; I have a doctorate in jurisprudence, earned 25 years ago. Please read Ramstead v. Morgan 219 Or 383, 347 P2d 594, 598 (1959)

By: A member of the bar

A member of the bar — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:34:40 +0000

Wow, that statute was renumbered all the way back in 2003. Maybe time to invest in a new statute book?

By: freedom of speech

freedom of speech — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:21:21 +0000

Where does the right to freedom of sppech intersect with libel law?

Any legal experts care to weigh in for those of us who didn’t go to law school?

By: hold the line

hold the line — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:19:19 +0000

Go get them Dan.
Attention to detail is important in journalism.
Cheers.

By: Daniel A. Bernath

Daniel A. Bernath — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:02:09 +0000

To: Willamette Week Publisher

Greetings:

An article in your publication mentions me. Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes 30.150-30.175 et seq, among others I state the following and demand a retraction and correction.

“Despite not being a member of the bar”

Truth: I am a member of the California Bar for nearly 25 years and of the United States Supreme Court bar for nearly 20 years. I told your reporter that I practice law in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Wyoming and I am licensed to practice law.

You may contact the United States Supreme Court and the California Bar to verify this as per the statute.

Your publication says;
“on the lawsuit, Bernath repeated his claim that Vergamini ‘committed malpractice’ citing the bar complaint.”

Truth: I have never stated at any time that Vergamini has committed malpractice. I published an official complaint to the Oregon State Bar and never “repeated” something I never said even once.

Again, the above statements are false and defamatory as to me. Pursuant to the requirement of the ORS: Demand is hereby made that a retraction and/or correction be made pursuant to Oregon Revised Statutes compliant with the above facts, you publish the retraction as prominently as the defamation, you state that the statements are not factually supported and that you regret your error.

Respectfully,

Daniel A. Bernath