Comments on: A Letter from Attorney Jones

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:01:28 +0000

Mr. Lamb raises some good points.

There are essentially two types of claims that might be
raised here: defamation and invasion of privacy.

In my opinion – and while I’m a lawyer, I’m not licensed in Oklahoma so the law may be different there – Bill Kerr would have several excelent defenses to either one of these claims.

First, everything Kerr said is apparently true, and even if not, he went to great lengths to show where he got the information from. Any defamation lawsuit would quickly beomce an inquiry into whether Edmund sat at his computer descrbiing his masturbation techniques and his plaster cast fetishes – not the ideal topic of disucssion in front of a jury.

Second, Edmund’s status as a deputy campaign manager for a major gubernatorial race makes his interactions with Congressman Foley fair game for public inquiry. Frankly, the fact that it was an interaction with Foley would probably bring it into that sphere regardless of Edmund’s status.

Third, the fact that Edmund apparently saved the IM logs and shared them with his friends as part of a prank would seriously damage any claim he would have to privacy. If he hadn’t saved those chat logs, if he had deleted them and a snooping computer tech recovered them during a repair, or soemthing like that, he might. This way, I doubt such a claim could be maintained.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:01:00 +0000

Mr. Lamb raises some good points.

There are essentially two types of claims that might be
raised here: defamation and invasion of privacy.

In my opinion – and while I’m a lawyer, I’m not licensed in Oklahoma so the law may be different there – Bill Kerr would have several excelent defenses to either one of these claims.

By: Kenneth E. Lamb

Kenneth E. Lamb — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:08:25 +0000

I sent this to Mr. Kerr; feel free to publish it:

I read the email from the attorney.

His client is now what is known under the law as a “semi-public” personality, if in fact not a “public personality,” given the scope of the story, the breadth of its dissemination, and the fact that his client is employed as a political operative in an active campaign for the governorship.

Unless the subject’s attorney can demonstrate that you published “with a reckless disregard for the truth” in a “malicious manner,” he can go pound sand. If the IM scammer thinks this is the best legal representation he can get, he’s cooked.

I thought the most foolish part of his email had to do with premising you must have someone’s “authorization” to run his client’s name or photograph. The guy is a campaign staffer, and this is legitimate news affecting the campaign with which he is associated.

He appears publicly in connection with the campaign as a matter of his employment; does this attorney think news organizations around the world have to either get his client’s permission to have his image in a photo, or else brush stroke the guy out if they don’t? What a maroon.

Well, I guess you have to give the attorney 2 points for trying to bluff you into submission. While he is suggesting you seek an attorney familiar with civil and criminal liability, he may want to contact an attorney himself to stop having a “fool for a client” when considering exactly what you will be able to subpoena and depose if a civil suit is filed – multiplied infinitely if a criminal investigation began. There are no Fifth Amendment claims in a civil suit. Ask OJ Simpson.

To sum up what I would tell the attorney threatening me with civil and criminal liability: “Oh Br’er Fox – please don’t throw me into that briar patch . . .”

All the remarks I’ve made are my personal opinion, and in no way should be constructed to reflect the opinion of the publications for which I write. Feel free to publish this if it will get the attorney to stop making a national fool of himself.

Kenneth E. Lamb