Carl David Ceder: Libel, Libel Libel!!! (Update: Equal Time)

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 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  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 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, 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

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 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. (

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 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: 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  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, 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, 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,” 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.

69 thoughts on “Carl David Ceder: Libel, Libel Libel!!! (Update: Equal Time)

  1. Bruce Godfrey

    Target rich environment.

    1) You didn’t accuse him of antisemitism, to my knowledge; you did accuse him of butchering your name, which he did repeatedly. The “Some of my best friends are Jewish” apologia pro sua vita gets center of the douchebag bingo card. A serious person spells correctly the name of the target of his “libel” suit.

    2) How about “thanks for your email, but I just pulled over into a parking lot and a traffic ticket would be bad for a working traffic attorney. I shall email you back in the next 24 hours when I am at at computer. Better, how about a letter by US Mail, or I might call you? Cheers, Carl.”

    3) His English writing style is terrible. Were he merely writing a recipe for crockpot orange chicken, it would still constitute poor drafting. What client deserves this sort of bad writing on a brief? Is he capable of writing a complaint?

    4) Every time he admits that he doesn’t know what his website says, he arms Bar Counsel (or the Texas equivalent) against himself and exposes himself to punitive damages for copyright violation in federal court, at least in theory.

    5) He thinks that what the EFF and WSJ publish are “laws.” Really, he said so.

    6) I hope he sues me too for what I have written about his nonsense, and I will help him spell my name right if he does.

    1. SHG Post author

      What I find unfathomable is that he still hasn’t grasped what the problem is, and how his attempts to defend himself (and threaten me) have proven more disastrous than his initial taking of Hull’s content. Not since Rakofsky has a lawyer done more to destroy himself.

  2. Tim Cushing

    “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). ”

    I presume Ceder has his assistant venue shopping for a locality where Section 230 of the CDA doesn’t apply.

      1. Tim Cushing

        And yet his EFF link contains wording on that issue specifically.

        “Recognizing the difficulty this would pose in the online world, Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet ‘intermediaries’ who provide or republish speech by others. See the Section 230 FAQ for more.

        The vast weight of authority has held that Section 230 precludes liability for an intermediary’s distribution of defamation.”

        Maybe he just read the parts he liked.

      1. Victor Medina

        This guy is the object lesson for “when you’re in a hole, first stop digging”.

        He also seems to have graduated from the trial school of “if you repeat it often enough, the jury will believe you.”

        I’d pay to sit in on one of his closings, as long as they permitted me to bring popcorn.

  3. Jim Cline

    He seems to be upset about his for “YOU, and YOU ONLY’ email to Mr. Hull being posted on your site. I quote from near the end of that message, “My frustration lies with Mr Greenbaum, or whatever he goes by. It seems you and him are in close contact with each other. And I stand by what I first wrote to him. You can forward this message to him if you like.”

    Maybe if he was a bit less wordy he could either remember what he’s written or have enough time to re-read his messages.

    1. SHG Post author

      This scenario would also serve as an excellent lesson in why suspects ought not try to talk their way out of trouble. Every attorney knows that, right? Right?

  4. Rick Horowitz

    I was just starting to get bored when I got to the part where “some of m…” — oops!!! — “ALL of my best friends…are Jewish” (emphasis added)!

    Mr. Ceder is perhaps to be commended for maintaining a sense of humor! (Or at least for giving me a good morning chuckle.)

  5. John Burgess

    I have to compliment this man’s thumbs! How he can be so insanely verbose while typing on an iPhone is just amazing. That’s about it for compliments, though. He does seem to miss the point entirely and to be rather uncertain about areas of the law outside Texas DWI. Maybe law school was a long time ago.

  6. John Barleycorn

    Parlays and straight bets are back on. What if bets paid 50 to 1, 7 to 1, and even money. A new line will be estsblished and what if bets will be back on and should be available at the window by noon.

  7. Wheeze The People™

    Not to be snarky or anything, but I’m guessing Carl’s DWI clients really connect with him on a personal basis. His emails make a lot more sense to me either shit-faced drunk or higher than a kite. Sober?? Not so much . . .

    He demonstrates a high EQ — something most attorneys lack. Thus, I raise my glass to Carl David Ceder, because he is one of us.

    1. SHG Post author

      Not your best work. Carl David notwithstanding, let’s not use people arrested for DWI as grist for the mill.

      1. Wheeze The People™

        I agree, so strike that lamer comment from the record. On further review, I bet he connects well with batshit-crazy clients who want to sue bloggers and commenters for writing opinions, hyperbole, and publishing true facts to censor that which he considers unflattering . . .

  8. Pingback: Texas Attorney Carl David Ceder Makes Bogus Libel Threat Against Scott Greenfield of Simple Justice | Popehat

  9. C. N, Nevets

    “I have been asked plenty of times, with my permission and without it…”

    I hate when people ask me without my permission.

    “…specifically everything written I have for DWI laws.”

    Is he channeling Yoda there?

  10. UltravioletAdmin

    Oh this is getting entertaining. And Mr. Ceder’s grasp of Libel law and CDA immunity makes me question whether cellphone radiation gives brain cancer from texting.

  11. DaveL

    I’d pay to sit in on one of his closings, as long as they permitted me to bring popcorn I wasn’t actually the defendant.


  12. Warren

    Ah yes, the good ol’ “internet defamation laws”. I don’t think Yankee courts have those – maybe Texas includes “publishing your own rambling words” in the definition of libel.

  13. jakee308

    So now your name is Blog?

    I’m surprised he didn’t say Greenblog or Greenblaug.

    So Mr. Blog, how’s business? Libeled or defamed any plagiarizers lately?

    You should send this guy a shovel. You know, so he can keep on digging that hole.

      1. Victor Medina

        What I find most upsetting is that his highly-insulting racial stereotypes are at least a decade old.

        I haven’t heard “homeslice” since In Living Color.

        Oh no, I “dun got me” commenting on this derptwat again.

  14. Stephanie

    I am not a lawyer, or even very familiar with the law profession; and in truth I hope I don’t have to be. But – I always envisioned it as being similar to a doctor in that you may specialize in one area, but you would have at least a passing familiarity with other major areas. For example, a cardiologist would not be the doctor to deal with epilepsy, but he would know what it is and how to recognize the classic symptoms.

    So I assumed that a lawyer who specialized in some other area would still know the basics of another, say, copyright law. And now I am genuinely interested – did I make an unreasonable assumption?

    1. SHG Post author

      No, you did not make an unreasonable assumption. While some odd niche areas may be foreign to lawyers who don’t specialize in them, we all should have a general working knowledge of the law, including matters such as copyright and defamation.

  15. Jo

    Thanks to Ken White at Popehat, I found this utterly delightful self-immolation going on. Part of me wants to reach out to poor deluded Carl and advise him to just STFU, but it is just TOO entertaining.

    Please, Carl, do continue.

            1. Patrick Maupin

              Hey, Darryl, I’m in Austin, and I’ll say this to your face: Your law firm’s website has plagiarized content.

              Yeah, I clicked on the “About us” link and all I got was “Page not found.” I don’t know who originated that, but it sure as heck ain’t original!

              Where/when do you want to meet? Does your first aid kit have as much alcohol as mine?

            2. Victor Medina

              And, honestly, I didn’t like or agree with much of what was on that page, except for the last “4” – which I send to all my web visitors now.

              I just want to take the time to point out what an outstanding “About Us” page Mr. Tannenbaumgreenfieldstein has. I thought every word of that was pure gold. I hope, after learning I lifted the whole thing, he was as flattered as I am when my mentor lifts the logo on my “Resources” page. That’s just how we do things in the mid-Atlantic.

    1. SHG Post author

      Whew. Good thing. I’m old. I’m tired too. I don’t need to get beat up twice. I only have one first aid kit.

      1. william doriss

        Bzzz. I hear buzz-saws a-buzzin’. I smell a Texas Chainsaw Massacre redux. This should be more exciting than an Ocean State Job Lot in a New York Minute. Do they sell first-aid kits down there, or do they just let you bleed to death?
        Hey, CDC could get the last laugh if he sells the movie rights! That is assuming he has “possession” of the “movie rights”. We trust that if he does not, he will “sue” for them. Ha.
        P.S., The promo-video does not bother me. I enjoyed it. A down-and-out lawyer in Texas has to do what a lawyer has to do (in order to pay the bills and keep his head above water). Am starting to warm up to the poor fellow. The boat is listing terribly to starboard. (Northeast metaphor.)

  16. Nigel Declan

    Snap, Crackle and Pop, SHG! I’ve completely reconsidered my opinion of Mr. Ceder based on that video. Will this be replacing your favorite lawyer ad ever?

    1. SHG Post author

      Every once in a while, I watch my favorite lawyer ad just to hear him say “heavens no, we are just the right amount of angry.” I don’t know if I can bear watching Ceder’s ad again.

  17. MrSpkr

    Wow. Just . . . Wow.

    I first saw this at Popehat. I cannot believe this moron is actually going to sue anyone involved in this fiasco, least of all you, but if he does, I’d be happy to assist in an anti-SLAPP defense (pro bono).

    I also think Mr. Ceder should be very careful about stirring up this nest of hornets. I think he may be drawing a lot of attention to his very poorly considered attorney advertising that could result in potential sanctions from the Texas bar – a fate I wouldn’t wish my worse enemy to suffer.

  18. JKTJ

    People are writing “rude and blasphemous things” to him. Blasphemous? Really? Then again, he is the self-proclaimed god of trial…

  19. Eric L. Mayer

    I just found your blog from reading Popehat. Do you know Ken? He is so funny!!! I just think he’s one of the niftiest bloggers I’ve ever read.

    I wanted to let you know that……..hang on……..why am I here again?

  20. Mirriam Seddiq

    I wrote an email to CDC but spelled his name Cedar so it got bounced back and then I couldn’t be bothered. I think there needs to be more testing before we let people into law school. For example, we need to see if people know basic grammar and language skills. Then, we need to do psychological testing. I am not saying CDC is ‘crazy’ but uh, like the kids say WTF.

    The ad is horribly offensive. And the fact that he is willing to say – nay, is PROUD of the fact that he doesn’t know what is in his web content is just unfathomable. Aren’t there rules agains that? Someone really does need to help him. But maybe that’s just not going to work. I recall thinking that someone would stop that other guy but it never happened. Maybe his friends are just all too happy to watch him slide down this road. Which is truly a shame.

  21. Curtis Steeves

    It’s almost hard to believe that video isn’t a parody. I am not sure how you could be more offensive if you tried. Personal favorite moment has to be the computer voice overs. Absolutely priceless.

    1. SHG Post author

      How can he deny the world access to the secret of his success? Doesn’t he realize content wants to be free?

  22. KronWeld

    What truly amazes me is CDC seems incapable or too lazy to look at the top right corner of this page where he would find “Scott H. Greenfield.” Wow, was that difficult. It is hidden so well, if I wasn’t a Software Analyst I never would have found it. I can understand how a big Texas attorney was unable to find your name. Unless he meant it as humor or an insult. Was he trying to insult you? If so, it seemed to me to be more of an insult to himself than to you.

    Grammar and spelling are not my strong suits, but CDC’s writing reads like English isn’t his native language. Is it? If not, I’ll cut him some slack on his writing. Or is Texan now classified as a foreign language?

    As for digging holes. I think he may have taken Granny Weatherwax’s saying to heart, “The reward for digging holes is a bigger shovel.” It would appear that he is making very good use of that new shovel he was gifted.

    Even after Googling “ad hominem” I’m not sure I’d know how to use it correctly, so I won’t use it at all. Feel free to ridicule me for that, I can take it. And FireFox’s spell checking flags “hominem” as misspelled, great, I cut and pasted from the instructions. Maybe I Googled the wrong term too. Drat it all, not my night.

Comments are closed.