Ive been threatened with a lawsuit

Just received an email letter from a local law firm threatening to sue me for “slander and libel” for comments made on a post here at Babalu where we published someone’s letter to a local media entity. Said letter made statements about a certain person in the employ of said media entity and said person, via his or her attorneys is demanding a retraction, a correction and a full and public apology for this blog’s publication of said letter.

I’ve forwarded said letter from the local law firm to my attorneys for their review and comment.

What I find most illuminating, however, is the fact that said person in said media entinty’s employ – while claiming that said letter previously published here has been injurous to his or her career, reputation, safety and well being, and which has caused great anguish, pain and suffering, and emotional distress – has not and did not see fit to respond to, clarify or deny said allegations made in the original letter personally or contact me directly, but opted to pursue this as a legal matter through which the ultimate outcome would be not to address said “libelous” allegations, but to silence and quash the opinions as expressed herein by myself and others.

21 thoughts on “Ive been threatened with a lawsuit”

  1. my favorite part of those type of letters is the closing “govern yourself accordingly”.. in that spirit, it wouldnt be a bad idea to ‘remove’ the post, at least until you talk to your lawyer.. but i wouldnt get to bothered about it.. just a lot of smoke and mirrors..

  2. daniel,

    I have set the post in question to “draft” mode, thus unpublishing it from the internet until I hear back from my attorneys. There was also no actual letter sent, just an email, with only my name and no other pertinent, legal information or a receipt request.

    Apparently, said attorneys didnt read our email disclaimer here that specifically states “Babalu Blog reserves the right to publish any emails received by its writers in whole or in part.” and said email contains the alleged “libelous” original letter in full which, should I opt to publish said letter from the attorneys, as is my right to do so, would allow for posting the allegedly “libelous” original letter without fear of repercussion or lawsuit.

  3. It’s a nifty little form of harassment to send out those legal letters with intentionally vague (and mostly bogus) claims. It’s actually a threat veiled in legalese. Anyone who’s tried it knows darn well that a libel suit is very hard to win, precisely because they are hard to prove: you better have some air-tight evidence that you’ve been harmed.

    It might be an attempt to shut down the blog or get some $$$$$ out of you. I bet on the latter.

  4. In the spam-fighting world, this is often what is called a “cartooney” threat—a bogus legal threat made by someone posing as an attorney.

    I remember piddling around on Usenet years ago, this guy was pissing me off in private e-mails while pretending to be all rational debating me on the board. I publish the emails, and he backed the frak off.

  5. Libel lawsuits are one of the most difficults things to win. Also, there is a big difference if the person bringing the lawsuit is considered to be a public figure or not.
    If the person is considered to be a public figure he/she would need to prove that you acted with actual malice, knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. In the case of a private person, he/she will need to prove that the statement is false and that it was published with the intent of causing harm. Proving that it was done with the intent of causing harm is always very hard to do.

  6. So someone in the mainstream media is trying to stifle free expression here? Why doesn’t that surprise me?

    It is useless to place the thread on draft status. It can still be accessed through google cache or The Wayback Machine.

    If this individual wishes to sue for libel [a suit that (he/she) can file but which (he/she) can’t win] it is immaterial whether you take down the thread or not.

    My advice is to make public all the facts of this case. Reporting the identity of someone who is threatening to sue you entails no liability to you. In fact, I would even advice you to publish the e-mail from the law firm. There is nothing like the light of day to send the varmints scrambling.

  7. Val,

    I don’t know the facts of this (ie. person supposedly defamed, statement that was deemed defamatory). But, a person who injects him/herself into an issue, publishes opinions about it, attempts to influence public opinion and/or publicly advocates for a particular position or outcome, is deemed a public figure. And, as The Real Cuba wrote, that person must then prove not only that the statement was false (because truth is a defense), but that it was published with actual malice and intent to harm.

    If the person who wrote you claims to be a Florida attorney, you can check him out at Floridabar.org. Go to the “Find A Lawyer” link.

    No worries. Let your lawyers handle it. Think about it, if you are being threatened, you must be doing something right.

  8. Val,

    Keep up the good work! Remain focused. It’s clear that you are making a difference.

    I wish you well 🙂 Melek

    “Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God.” ~ A

  9. Val:If said person was offended (tough shit u have a disclaimer).I am pretty sure that he or she probably has caused u alot of grief mentally ,spiritually, and physically.Counter sue the motherfucker for damages .Call me if you need a good lawsuit corporate attorney.

  10. PRIETO :REMEMBER—P-L-P—It’s time to go on a fishing trip for Sunday ,since I am in town.We can get the mullet Saturday.Tommy is game remember.

  11. It’s obvious that pro-Castro activists are behind this.
    In February 1993, I wrote a paper entitled “Academic Espionage: U.S. Taxpayer Funding of a Pro-Castro Study.”
    In it, I cited in part:
    “Also, in July of 1983, DGI Captain Jesús Pérez-Méndez defected to the United States and declared in a secret briefing to American counter-intelligence officers that Areito and the BAM were controlled by the DGI through its front group, the ICAP, and that Marifeli Pérez-Stable was a DGI agent who responded to Cuban intelligence officials Isidro Gómez and Jesús Arboleya Cervera.”
    “Pérez-Stable, who had organized another DGI front group called the Cuban Culture Circle, was
    receiving $100 for every person that traveled to Cuba through that organization. According to
    Pérez-Méndez, Pérez-Stable replaced DGI agent Lourdes Casal after her death in Havana, and the
    DGI and ICAP prepared the yearly plans for Pérez-Stable.”
    “Pérez-Stable, an ardent supporter of the Sandinista revolution, had travelled to Nicaragua in April 1980 to interview Commandant Two, Dora María Tellez, for Areito magazine. The following month, at the start of the infamous Mariel boatlift, Pérez-Stable and 14 Cuban emigre scholars sent a letter entitled, “Time to Normalize Relations with Cuba,” to the editor of The New York Times (15 May 1980), advocating the normalization of relations with Cuba and claiming that “[the overwhelming majority of the Cuban people support the revolution . . .”
    In May 1984, Perez-Stable led a group of 20 members of Areito and the Cuban Culture Circle
    during a one-week trip to Cuba as guests of the ICAP, where they met with Rodríguez-Cruz and
    other government leaders, participated in an homage at the grave of Casal, and gave press
    conferences denouncing the Cuban-American community for “abandoning their fatherland to sit on the lap of imperialism.” In one press conference they spoke with pride of their work with Areito: “The pages of the magazine have been during these 10 years effusing the accomplishments of the Cuban Revolution” (“Tenth Anniversary of Areito, ” Bohemia, 8 June 1984, p. 63).”
    After that academic report was published, Prof. Lisandro Pérez wrote a letter to the director of the foundation that published it, saying that he had consulted with other colleagues (apparently including Marifeli Pérez-Stable) and had referred the matter to the FIU attorney due to “grounds for legal action due to the slanderous content of the document.”
    It was a big bluff and they never took legal action. The same article was translated into Spanish and published in the Diario las Americas the following month. It is public record and those threatening to sue are public figures, with no right to privacy.
    Check out the entire Pérez-Méndez debriefing on my website at:

  12. I know my opinion will be in the minority here but if it is true that you published something that was untrue about someone and did so with “actual malice” (as you have in the past) defined as: “knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.” Then you brought this on yourself.

    You may say whatever you wish on your blog but you have to stay with in the parameters of the law. Many here have engaged in character assassination and published blatantly untrue diatribes about others whom they disagree with. If someone publishes lies or slander and then gets sued then they are reaping what they sow.

  13. Mike,

    You don’t know what post it was or what was contained in it. Suffice it say that the statements about the person in question were reported on this blog and not made by anyone from this blog. In other words it was a report about an accusation someone was making without any judgment as to whether the accusation was true. Something like “so and so says that so and so is a _____”

    As for publishing untrue statements about people, why beat around the bush? Where was a false statement made?

  14. “As for publishing untrue statements about people, why beat around the bush? Where was a false statement made?”

    Here’s a link to Val calling me a “Socialist” which is untrue.


    Here is a link to Ziva calling me: a liar, hateful, and stupid. All of which are untrue.


    Here is George L. Moneo stating that his dog is smarter then me. Untrue.


    Here is Val again saying that I don’t know anything about Cuba’s government. Also untrue.


    Let me say that generally I don’t care what people say about me and I wouldn’t ever go as far as sueing someone for what they put on their blog unless it was an extreme case. I just sited these posts as an answer to your question. I’m sure that there are plenty more but I don’t feel like looking.

  15. Mike is definitively a member of the thought police. I am suspicious of the way he has singled out this blog to track down all the comments. Me thinks Castro spies, like those from FIU who pled guilty, are trolling this blog. Where is Cuban Patriot when we need him?

  16. FYI: Pure opinion is not defamation and is protected by the 1st amendment. All of those examples fall into that category.

    Moreover, this blog falls under the jurisdiction of the federal CDA which provides our good friend Val with absolute immunity from libel suits for 3rd party posts made to the blog.

    Anyone who tries to sue Val, will have a rude awakening … 😀 ’nuff said

  17. Mike,

    You come here with an attitude, display hubris, condescension, disrespect and then when you are treated tit for tat, you get all whiny widdle girl on us.

    If you dont like being treated a certain way, then I suggest you not treat people that same way.

  18. Ziva – Thanks for proving my point.

    Val – First of all I never was disrespectful to anyone here unless they insulted me first. If someone gets an attitude with me then I respond in kind. Second of all as I said in my original post I don’t care if people talk trash to me. Sticks and stones. That being said everyone here has an obligation to follow the law. If they break the law and get caught then they have to deal with the consequences. In other words don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

Comments are closed.