Hot off the presses:
Mr. Hull -
You should be happy to know that I took down your content that has caused so much consternation. Again, I feel this got way out of hand from my perspective. Frankly, I was shocked when I read the blog post for the first time this past Saturday, and even more shocked at the continued posting by the owner of blog.simplejustice.us again, this time in regards to the message I sent directly to you. I tried to write you as quick as possible, because it seemed everyone on the internet had negative things to say when I didn’t respond immediately. So I did so on my way to court, again on my i-Phone, but later was commented upon, and lied about, when saying I was doing so while I also driving my car (my assistant drove me to court today which gave me time to write, although it is hard to do so in a grammatical fashion from just an iPhone).
Regardless, this entire affair has been libelous (not on your part, but on behalf of the person maintains the blog.simplejustice.us). I tried my best to explain what happened to him, to you, and to Mr. Tannebaum (who has written an E-Book that I hold in very high regard), and each time I did so, I was harassed along the way by many parties. Just for your information, I received numerous hate e-mails through my website over the last 24-48 hours in my response to the message I personally sent to you, that the owner of blog.simplejustice.us felt compelled to post on his blog.
You should please note I was only made aware of this entire situation (with regards to the posting of the 12 Rules), whether you and/or he chooses to believe so or not, this past Saturday when it was brought to my attention by another individual. It was then, upon reading its contents, that I first wrote a comment back to him. My only mistake in doing this was not waiting until I was properly at a computer and had time to simmer down – I did so immediately when reading it on my iPhone and responded accordingly – which I tried to convey should account for any grammatical errors that did result (try writing anything at length, and of such serious nature, from an iPhone!). At first, upon reading the blog post and seeing my picture, I honestly did not even know what he was referring to. I tried to promptly respond to your e-mail that you sent on 1/20/14 when it was forwarded to me by another staff member on the morning of 1/21/14. I get plenty of spam and so much does get disregarded, but I was forwarded your e-mail and I wanted to do my best to give you the quick response you wanted. When I did so, and after it was re-posted by the owner of blog.simplejustice.us, I was then made fun of when I said I was writing from my iPhone while driving (one of my assistants was driving to court for me when I was typing the message to you – like I stated previously). This was sent to YOU, and YOU ONLY, via an e-mail message, and now it has been posted again on the blog of blog.simplejustice.us.
Again, whether you both choose to believe so or not, I was not made aware of this, or why it was such a big deal, until this past Saturday. I just had to contact my web manager to change the HTML on the site, but it was holiday (Martin Luther King Day, so on Monday there was no one available at my office). And again, in my message to you, and in my first comments on the blog, I said something along the lines of how I never intended to plagiarize, or send to clients or other colleagues, as if the 12 Rules were my own. I would swear on anything dear to me that this is the truth. They were presented to me, probably around a year or two ago, by a law grad (who was waiting on her bar results) who was helping me write and edit web content. In reality, I was trying to help her out because she needed work. I did not know where it came from, and I didn’t think to ask. But recently, as I look further into your rules, what confuses me, perhaps the most of all, is that on your page – when you originally wrote about the 12 Rules, and you mentioned it was “set out to write a rule-by-rule ’12-step’ program for lawyers, professionals, and executives….etc.” And then you mention “The Rules are not perfect, and can be improved. But this model works — if you work at it. If you follow these rules by building a disciplined culture at your shop where they are enforced and kept alive, your clients and firm both benefit as you go along….etc.”
Now that I finally see your page where you have it, I would think you first did so to aid and help other attorneys. I still haven’t read deeper into each Rule, as it seems you have a more in-depth page for each, which I am sure delve more deeply into what each means and how it is applicable to you, and your practice. I wrote you in my e-mail message that, in actuality, the only Rule that I particularly liked, was the Rule about bombarding the client with e-mails, most specifically because at the time someone cut and pasted the Rules and showed them to me, I was having trouble with a paralegal not communicating enough with clients (she was doing a great job otherwise).
I have said numerous times people have stolen my content over the years in numerous ways, and in numerous fashion, especially most of the content I have written regarding the laws in Texas on Driving While Intoxicated, which is my main focus. An attorney here in the Metroplex, it was mentioned on the blog initially, said a lawyer stole some content from my website and didn’t even change my name to his! If this had been brought to my attention, I would not have cared. I have been asked plenty of times, with my permission and without it, if people could publish my content, specifically everything written I have for DWI laws. If anything, and I never gave it much thought before, I would have not cared much either way, because I believe what matters the most is how the lawyer practices, as a person, and not what is written on some website. Regardless, if anything, I take it knowing someone wanted my material so badly that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Maybe that is just me – and because I am not a “master blogger” that I take pride in knowing that it is read by many, even non-lawyers (to me, again, this is useless – what matters most is how successful an attorney is, not what is written on a website).
Again, I am just at a loss as to why this is such a big deal. And just an FYI – as I looked at the page where the content used to be, there was not any place on there, ANYWHERE, where I tried to pawn the content off as my own, or that they were exclusive “Ceder Law Firm” rules. I said in my message to you via e-mail, that if I truly intended to disseminate it to clients, I would have done so elsewhere. Again, I was ridiculed for this, and my words were taken out of context. Numerous people called me a thief and took everything I wrote completely out of context, and chose to use my words as they saw fit, in an attempt to disparage me, my intellect, and my ability to practice as an attorney. What I meant, when trying to convey this, was I would placed your content, if I found it useful to convey to those I cared to read about it, on one of my sites similar to the following links, all of which content was written by me many years ago, and I hope clients do read still (these are all under a tab indicating “About Me” or “About Our Firm” on my websites:
At any rate, I am sure people will take this message, as well, and again, out of context. I rarely, if ever, maintain the actual “blog” portion of my website. Honestly, I hadn’t updated any of my website content in well over a year, until recently. And again, just to be clear, I never, not even once, tried to pawn your material off to another, whether it be a client or another attorney, as if it were my own.
As of now, and this is true, I plan to sue the owner of the blog who has disparaged, and impugned, my character and intellect, in such a way. I suggest that he read and review about how one can be sued for writing libelous content in such a way, especially when it is promulgating information that he did absolutely no research on before posting (about me, about my ability to practice as an attorney, about my character, my integrity, etc. Nor did he even try to contact me to clear anything that bothered him up, in a more professional manner (rather than by writing a libelous and lashing blog post railing against me professionally). Perhaps the most baffling to me, however, was how he wrote information that he had absolutely no knowledge of, that was false, which eventually led to other comments that are also libelous (because he manages the content of the website, he is also liable for the comments posted by others). Aside from all of this, most recently, because of his self-proclaimed monitor of the internet, and his perceived freedom to bash others whenever he sees fit, is the flaring backlash that it has already caused me in the last 24 hours (or less), specifically relating to how many hate messages I have received from people who prefer to hide behind a computer, rather than say rude and blasphemous things in person, so one can identify them. Again, this all came because you sent him the e-mail message, he read it, then felt the need to write disparaging comments again about me, and my practice. This alone baffles me completely. You forwarded to him, without even giving a response to me, one way or the other.
Again, you can see that your content, of which was posted 12 very simple rules, that again – I never took credit for, even on my own website, has now been changed to the following:
And it was changed from the URL:
I apologize if you took offense to anything that was written. Again, I was not trying to plagiarize or steal your content. The fact that the owner of blog.simplejustice.us finds himself to be the moderator and self-proclaimed “bouncer” of the entire internet, is beyond me. Aside from that, what he has posted about me has resulted in the following hate messages sent to me, accusing me of being an anti-semite, a racist, among other many very disrespectful and untrue things. In respect to this, it should be noted, for the record, that my main paralegal is Jewish, all of my best friends (since childhood) are Jewish, I have been to Israel and am a staunch supporter of it as unified nation, and have been to many meetings of AIPAC, and am a supporter of what it promotes, and have donated to it as a contribution. (http://www.aipac.org/)
I would think that he would not want to have made this as messy as he has, because it certainly did not have to be this way. The easiest way to contact me is via the number on all of my websites, and/or an even easier method would be by writing in one of the contact boxes on them, as have about 25 people today accusing me of being everything under the sun in a very negative fashion, of which I can clearly say that I am not. I find this offensive, libelous, and something that, I would think at least, the owner of blog.simplejustice.us would tread on sensitive ground with, in that he is promoting very pointed, very damaging, and very hurtful material, that hurts and damages, very badly, my reputation, my character, and my integrity, both as a lawyer and as a person. To this, I would direct him to the following regarding internet defamation laws, what constitutes being able to sue a blogger for libel, and being the moderator who is responsible for not only posting the material, but all the comments that stems as a result from it (these are just a few articles I would peruse if I were him relating to this, I have many more I could send him, but I doubt he would heed my advice, as I’m sure he would only write more disparaging remarks, in some way, because this seems to what he is prone to do:
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/bloggers-sued-libel-124300372.html Most notably the section: “Further, the blogger must have known that the statement was false or should have known by exercising reasonable care in their work.”
Again, I hope this clarifies anything you were concerned with. You can be expecting a call from me this week, as can the owner of blog.simplejustice.us. I consider this a very serious, and a very offensive issue. I think you would too, considering what I have attached, as just a mere sample of what I received today. And this all came from a confidential message I sent directly to you, that I did invite you to share with the owner of blog.simplejustice.us, but again, he found it, for reasons to me beyond any comprehension, necessary to post yet another blog impugning my reputation. I found your message respectful, and I was trying to return one as respectful in-kind. I don’t know if the miscommunication lies with owner of blog.simplejustice.us, or with you, but I do intend to try and get to the bottom of this – because this has become a very serious, offensive, and a very legal issue. One glance at the libel and defamation laws for the owners of internet blog sites would seem to make this very clear and evident.
Thank you, and I hope to put this behind us very soon, if at all possible.
I’m certainly happy to learn that Carl has removed Dan Hull’s content from his site. As for the threats to the “owner of blog.simplejustice.us,” what else is new. As for the balance, it speaks for itself. And regardless of how you feel about what Carl has done or written, don’t send him emails or call him. That’s just wrong.
Confidential to Carl: The only person who impugned your reputation is you. No one can do the harm to a person’s reputation that he can to himself.
Update: It’s been pointed out that while I have freely posted Carl David’s words, they tend not to paint him in the most positive light. To remedy any perceived imbalance, I offer Carl David’s marketing video, carefully calculated to appeal to ethnicity and containing his self-assessment that “no case is unwinnable with the Defender protecting your rear.”
WARNING: Do not drink beverages while watching. I mean it. You’ve been warned.
H/T Bruce Godfrey.