Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Michael Little, Stuart Pivar's attorney, left a comment on a post below that I'm moving up here to answer. He's been threatening to sue me for repeating some things that Peter Irons passed on to me from a conversation he had on the phone with Little after the complaint against PZ Myers became public. That is an empty threat, of course; one cannot be proved guilty of libel for passing on information that they do not know to be false. Little is disputing Irons' recollection of their conversation. In the interests of fairness (and having a bit of fun), here's what Little has to say:
I did not make those comments to Mr Irons. What I said to Mr Irons was: 'that I was initially skeptical as to MY abilities to take on his( Mr Pivar's) suit and that Mr Pivar was insistent that I had the ABILITIES to evaluate it.'
Having read the atrocious complaint that you wrote on Pivar's behalf, I can only say that you should have listened to your insecurities. If you doubted your ability to take on the case, those doubts appear to have been entirely justified. That case was a loser from the very start.
My comments as to the ultimate denouement of the case were typical British understatement: 'We'll have to see how far we can take it' which meant it would be ultimately for a jury to decide whether PZ Myers comments were libelous or not.
If you really think that case had a snowball's chance in hell of getting to a jury, you really are living in a fantasy world. There's no way that case would have survived a motion to dismiss. I'm not even an attorney and I guarantee you that I could have filed and briefed a motion to dismiss and gotten it thrown out.
It seems to me that there are really only two options here: either you really thought you had a case for Pivar, which calls your professional competence into serious question, or you knew it was a loser and you filed it anyway. Now, I have no way of knowing for certain which of those is true. The fact that you continue to make idle threats of filing suits that have no merit is, perhaps, evidence that you really don't understand libel law at all.
On the other hand, perhaps it is evidence, instead, of your need to make yourself feel strong by throwing your weight around. I truly cannot believe that you actually thought you could win that case, or that you could win a suit against me for libel either. I suspect that the real answer here is that you know that you can't make good on your threats but you use them in an attempt to intimidate people into silence. And you can see how well that's working, eh?
You have already apologised for your loose interpretation of someone's words. The destruction of someone's career is also a serious matter. Just a search of your site under 'Irons' leads me to believe that Irons's call to me on Augsust 20, 2007 was not of the avuncular nature that it purported to be. Neither was the subsequent blog scorching of Mr Pivar in L'Affaire Crackpot'.
I can't speak for Mr. Irons, nor would I presume to. His motivations are absolutely irrelevant to me, as are your disagreements with him. As for the blog scorching of Mr. Pivar, it was well deserved. Pivar is everything PZ Myers called him and more. He is a ridiculous blowhard and a wannabe bully. You appear to be both of those things as well. Neither of you seems to understand that your hollow threats can only intimidate those who are ignorant of the law.
Had you continued with the case on behalf of Pivar, you would have ended up far more embarrassed and publicly shamed than you have already; you also don't seem to be smart enough now to cut your losses, shut up about it and let it fade away. You seem intent, instead, on ducking into the punch. I suspect a therapist would have a field day with such behavior.
Therefore I urge you to choose your words more carefully in the future; however I am looking forward to reading your forthcoming best-seller (with Peter Irons) of 'How The Supreme Court should have seen it" with a bonus supplement of recommended additional rules for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Peter Irons is one of the most respected first amendment scholars in the country; I suspect he knows just a bit more about this than you do. He was, at least, able to understand the frivolous nature of the Pivar suit, to which you still appear to be oblivious. I'm not concerned with how the Supreme Court should have seen such issues, but you really should concern yourself with how they have seen such issues. As I recommended in my email to you, I suggest that you look up New York Times v Sullivan, it is the most relevant precedent.
Update: the Latest Latest:
After I had written the initial part of this response, Little left yet another comment. I want to respond to a couple things found in it. He wrote:
My 'threat' to sue Mr Brayton was not a threat. Mr Brayton responded to my posted demands as requested and immediately (and wisely) issued an amendment of his earlier remarks and offered me an apology, which I accepted. (see Pivar withdraws Suit...comments "PwS comm."). What's so dumb about that? Matter between me and Mr Brayton closed.
This strikes me as a slippery attempt to declare victory and withdraw. The only thing I corrected was my slightly inaccurate paraphrase of the information Irons passed on to me; even as corrected, you still deny having said those things. So if your original alleged grounds to sue me were valid, they still are. But as I said both publicly and privately to you, I don't think you ever had the slightest intention of suing me, for one simple reason: you know you'd lose and you know it would prove to be even more of an embarrassment to you than the withdrawn Pivar suit already has been.
My apology for the slightly inaccurate paraphrase was primarily to Irons, who I inadvertently misquoted; I still consider it highly likely that you said exactly what he claims you said and that you are now rattling your legal saber to distract attention from that (and perhaps to avoid a suit from Pivar for violating attorney/client confidentiality). But you can hash that out with Prof. Irons in court should you decide to sue him. And if you do, all I can say is: good luck, you're going to need it.
I'll skip over all the he said/he said about people I don't know and could not care less about; none of that is relevant to me or this exchange. But I cannot allow this bit of balderdash to go unanswered:
As I sign off, I'd like to comment on the irony ofwhat I believe this is really all about (not my poor drafting skills for sure, or my missreading of the F.R.C.P), and therefore it is aposite it's posted on a site entitled "Culture Wars". Eighty years since the Scopes Monkey Trial rocked the world Darwinist Fundamentalists use the same smear tactics applied by the Biblical literalists in 1925. Clarence Darrow fought to keep John Scopes out of jail for teaching Darwin's Theory of Evolution to his science class in 1925. Today the fight is not over whether evolution happened, but how it happened; and it's just as vicious. Natural selection is an obsolete, discredited explanation for evolution---Charles Darwin eventually renounced it and even the Creationists know it. However, the power of the Darwinist Fundamentalists is such that they have complete control of scientific theory; they intimidate educators and scientists into curricula conformity. All American high school science class students are forced to learn natural selection-based evolution and that's just as downright unethical as teaching science based on the literal truth of the Bible was in 1925. That's why Stuart Pivar was attacked so viciously, he had the balls to stand up to your hegemony.
Ah yes, the tried and true martyr pose. Come now, Mr. Little, a thousand creationists have struck this pose with much more panache than your silly attempt here. All you have proven is that your ignorance of American libel law is matched by your ignorance of evolutionary biology. The statement that Charles Darwin renounced natural selection is every bit as idiotic as the Lady Hope deathbed recantation story; only a rank ignoramus would peddle it. I suspect that you learned your history of biology from the same place you learned your libel law, from Billy Bob's Law School and Bait Shop.
Mr. Pivar was attacked because he is a first class crackpot peddling utter nonsense. When he attempted to file a frivolous lawsuit over that entirely legitimate criticism, he only added 'authoritarian bully' to his already long list of loathsome attributes. When you chose to represent him in that frivolous lawsuit, you were criticized - quite correctly - for your rank ignorance of libel law and your utter lack of legal ethics in filing a clearly frivolous lawsuit. With your continued threats toward me, you have only proven to be the same sort of wannabe bully that Pivar is.
What makes this martyr pose all the more ridiculous is one undeniable fact: the only people in this entire situation who have attempted to silence anyone are you and Pivar. For crying out loud, you tried to file a $15 million lawsuit to silence PZ for criticizing a book that your client sent to him to review. And you want to claim that Pivar is the one being intimidated into silence? You are an utter buffoon, Mr. Little.
Comments
Ed wrote:
What makes you think this kid knows anything about fishing?
Posted by: kehrsam | September 5, 2007 9:38 AM
So, do we all need to back up Ed by posting "I am Spartacus", or "I am Ed Brayton"?
Ed -- Good post! It seems prety clear that Mr. Pivar and Mr. Little are meant for each other, and you did a good job in pointing to the similarities.
Posted by: J-Dog | September 5, 2007 9:58 AM
Cry, laugh or just let my jaw drop - I can't make up my mind on how to react when seeing this utter nonsense.
By the way, wouldn't you agree that this lends a new meaning to the phrase "too Little, too late"?
Posted by: Thinker | September 5, 2007 10:03 AM
Oh no, Kehrsam! You've just libeled the poor man's fishing prowess! Line up, for no doubt you're next to be cowed by the awesome legal brilliance possessed by graduates of the Billy Bob Law School and Bait Shop.
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | September 5, 2007 10:06 AM
Oh no, Kehrsam! You've just libeled the poor man's fishing prowess! Line up, for no doubt you're next to be cowed by the awesome legal brilliance possessed by graduates of the Billy Bob Law School and Bait Shop.
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | September 5, 2007 10:09 AM
Billy Bob's Law School and Bait Shop has been renamed in an attempt to garner greater credibility. It is now called "Liberty University".
Posted by: Dwimr | September 5, 2007 10:10 AM
Cry, laugh or just let my jaw drop - I can't make up my mind on how to react when seeing this utter nonsense.
By the way, wouldn't you agree that this lends a new meaning to the phrase "too Little, too late"?
Posted by: Thinker | September 5, 2007 10:13 AM
My apologies for the double post.
Posted by: Paul Sunstone | September 5, 2007 10:13 AM
Billy Bob's Law School and Bait Shop has been renamed in an attempt to garner greater credibility. It is now called "Liberty University".
Posted by: Dwimr | September 5, 2007 10:13 AM
Does that last quoted paragraph, going on about "Darwinist Fundamentalists", suggest the commenter is some sort of a cretinist? It sounds very cretinist (who else uses words like darwinism (except in parody)?).
I realise he says, e.g., "Today the fight is not over whether evolution happened, but how it happened &hellip", which, at least when taken out of context, suggest he has some grasp of reality (and might be talking about various drivers and so on?). However, I have the vague suspicion that phrase is some sort of a code used by IDiots? What comes to mind here is the micro- and macro-evolution gibberish (the there's a difference and only one happened nonsense), plus a vague recollection of (talk about) IDism being renamed something like "designed evolution".
I don't think his apparent disclaiming of creationism or teaching ancient scrolls as science (e.g., "... science class students are forced to learn natural selection-based evolution and that's just as downright unethical as teaching science based on the literal truth of the Bible was in 1925") means much. He is, supposedly, a lawyer, and should know teaching cretinism as science has been slapped down by the courts. So he is, I suspect, being careful not to suggest that, but even so, I do have the suspicion from reading the quotes he is another denialist, presumably of the classic crackpot variety? Or at least a badly trained monkey dancing to a classic crackpot's organ.
(The quoted comments are so goofy I have to wonder if they really are from Mr Little or not. Again, the guy is, supposedly, a lawyer, and with a nod towards Mr Irons as an example, express themselves in a clear manner. As far as I can recall, the complaint against PZ, whilst sloppy, was clearer than what is quoted.)
Posted by: blf | September 5, 2007 10:35 AM
How I enjoy reading this blog every day. It provides so much entertainment with so little effort on my part. Keep up the good work, Mr. Brayton.
Posted by: Milo | September 5, 2007 10:36 AM
In the comment Ed refers to above, Little writes:
Not so fast, Mr. Little. Under your own theory of libel (remember -- the one supporting your libel claim against Ed -- e.g., that Ed had defamed you merely by restating, with attribution, something allegedly said by another) you have indeed taken on Mr. Dershowitz. You have, after all, restated with attribution things that (you claim) Mr. Irons said to you. Oops!
Now for the good news: American libel law doesn't quite work that way. Just walk away from this whole mess, Mr. Little; it gets worse and worse with every comment you make.
Posted by: Dan | September 5, 2007 11:00 AM
Before I saw this latest post on Michael Little's drivel, I posted a reply to his latest idiocy on the original post, which anyone interested can dig up (or down). But it's mostly a side-show, proving only that Little owns a copy of Bartlett's Quotations.
However, let me reply here to Little's latest fabrication. He says above, about my quote (from my hand-written, verbatim notes of our telephone conversation on August 20) that he was "initially very skeptical" of the merits of Pivar's proposed defamation suit and filed it only because Pivar was "very insistent" that he do so (perhaps having been turned down by more experienced lawyers). Little now claims that what he told me was: "I was initially skeptical of MY abilities to take on his (Mr Pivar's) suit and that Mr Pivar was insistent that I had the ABILITIES to evaluate it." Total and utter bullshit! That's not what Little told me at all; it's pure and simple CYA. Of course, if Little was skeptical of his legal abilities, he was dead right. And if Pivar was insistent that Little had those abilities, he was dead wrong.
Little once suggested to me that I had tape-recorded our conversation. I wish I had, although I didn't, of course, because it's illegal to do so in my state without the other person's consent. That's why I took hand-written notes. But it certainly would clear up the "he said/he said" dispute between us. Maybe Little could give us his notes ("I'll show you mine if you show me yours"). But he won't, and I doubt they exist.
Posted by: peter irons | September 5, 2007 11:22 AM
Is Little really a lawyer? I'm a biologist and I think I could represent better than he.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | September 5, 2007 11:35 AM
As a lawyer, I must admit, law school teaches very little regarding the actual practice law. A good analogy would be a calvary school, where 90% of the classes were simply reading and writing about saddles, the history of saddles, famous horses in the past, etc. And maybe one class thrown in where one actually gets to momentarily sit on a horse. Passing a bar exam (with the sole exception of the patent bar) in no represents a competence to practice law any more than reading a book about pretty horses represents riding skill.
Posted by: EnzoAntonius | September 5, 2007 1:03 PM
Peter Irons writes:
Maybe tape-recording phone conversations is OK in Mr. Little's state? Did he tell you he didn't record the call?
Posted by: Dave S. | September 5, 2007 2:09 PM
From what I have been able to tell, attacks against evolution generally seem to come from those who promote two different alternate "theories": Theism and Vitalism. Both camps dispute the current diversity of species as having sprung from a bottom-up, simple-to-complex, mechanistic, naturalistic, materialistic process. No: at some point, magic happened. Our existence is seen as the critical and vital result of a planned progression from 'lower' to 'higher;' it is not the accidental result of mindless forces.
Young Earth Creationism, whether Muslim or Christian, is staunchly Theistic. But Intelligent Design Creationism, by being far more vague and far less specific, appears to embrace not only the God-as-designer views of western religions, but the Life-Force manifesting through progressive- stages- of- consciousness views of the eastern religions and liberal forms of western "spirituality." Vitalists technically accept evolution, but only an evolution infused with spirituality and teleology, with life or energy "forces" unfolding to reveal a direction towards Mind and Meaning.
Think Deepok Chopra here, as an example.
I'm afraid I don't have the background in biology to tell where Pivar falls, but when I read PZ's summary and critiques there was something about his "breakthrough" theory which struck me as Vitalistic. If I had to personally make a guess, that's where I'd put my money.
As an aside, Vitalists often emphatically insist they're NOT Creationists. They do NOT reject science. No, sir. Those creationist guys are nuts. Evolution happened. But mechanistic, materialistic algorythms will not capture the magic, the direction, the life force driving through all things and making them special. They love science, but real science. Holistic science. They only reject scientism, you see.
Posted by: Sastra | September 5, 2007 2:15 PM
In reply to Dave S about Little's possibly tape-recoding our phone conversation: a quick Google search reveals that New York is a "one-party" state, which means he could have recorded our talk without my knowledge or consent. However, ethical lawyers never do this. If he did, however, that would settle the "who brought up Epstein and Dershowitz's names first" issue. Little says he doesn't recall; my recollection is that he did. This is all a red herring anyway. But if Little did tape it, let's see a transcript of the tape.
Posted by: peter irons | September 5, 2007 3:00 PM
for this bit "My comments as to the ultimate denouement of the case were typical British understatement"
please, please tell me he isnt British and if so apologises and can you please keep him.
As for the comments about evolution I would say he should keep to the day job but....
Posted by: kevinj | September 5, 2007 4:15 PM
According to the Office of Court Administrationj ("OCA") website, Little graduated from a law school in the UK, so he may well be British. Libel law in the Mother Country is much more pro-plaintiff than it is here in the Former Colonies, though I doubt that any of these threatened cases would be viable even there. Don't rely on that, though, since I don't practice in the UK. Little does practice here, so he doesn't have a comparable excuse.
Posted by: CJColucci | September 5, 2007 4:57 PM
He probably wishes he was British - legal bullies much more clout over here in the UK in the matter of libel. Even truth is not an absolute defence in British libel law!
Posted by: Bartholomew | September 5, 2007 4:58 PM
Perhaps where you might learn nailing techniques?
Posted by: Don Cates | September 5, 2007 5:03 PM
Mr B---
I really must have got under your skin to warrant 1651of your precious words. Well I exaggerate, there were a lot of cut and pastes.
One serious suggestion and one question, in the spirit of your wish to have 'a bit of fun'.
I urge you to pop down to your local library and take a look at the The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This might also work for Mr Irons as a Lexis search shows him with very little trial experience and none involving libel law that I can find. Irons seems pretty rusty on litigation tactics also and appears to have no real courtroom experience, which is borne out by the serial conclusory statments he makes. Opposing counsel would slice those away with his/her eyes closed. You love the conclusory too, Mr B., straining at the bit to leapfrog premises and torment syllogisms but you can be forgiven, because, after al, you are not a lawyer. Something that gives you sleepless nights in August I suspect when in your secret moments of self-loathing ( else why all this outrage) you curse yourself for not having gone to to law school, how you'd have aced those LSAT's. I feel your pain. I understand, those obsessive thoughts thatt won't leave; when your therapist is away and the fridge is empty of comfort food. I'm here to tell you Mr. B that it's not too late. Look at the quality of the competition!, Talk it out, Mr B. Talk it out...we're here for: you we're all in recovery from something ourselves
After falling asleep a few times and getting lost in the Rules, I suggest, Mr B you visit Sack on Defamaition; the library is your best bet again as it's $355 at Amazon, new or used, and what with foreclosurures, the Adminsistration and just the whole damn uncertaintly of it all Mr B,. I sense your disposable is down Mr. B...and I don't mean your diaper. Sack is the seminal text and after you've obtained an opinion as to whether the elements necessary to claim libel per se have been averred (in the Pivar claim, amended of course) and if the F.R.C.P. hasn't proven to be too heavy going for you, take one more little peek at Sack again and after that if you really want to revisit the question, lets talk. To clarify what the bottom line is: whether an amended complaint of mine would survive a motion to dismiss and furthermore that there could be any liability to me or sanctions, given the safe harbor provisions of Rule 11,. Unless of course, you are not really interested in the law as it is practised and just wish to opine and spout supercilious hyperbole, hiding behind your faux Fourth Estate privileges.
Now after all that heavy going, my fun question to you comes from looking at that very comely potrait of yourself, prominently featured on your site: Mr. B. who ate all the pies, then?
Michael Little
Posted by: Michael Little | September 6, 2007 12:58 AM
Mr B---
Assumptions in above are that SEED are dropped...thus leaving the claims within Federal Jurisdiction.
Michael Little
Posted by: Michael Little | September 6, 2007 1:05 AM
Good lord, has our intrepid attorney been reduced to fat jokes? I'd call that a surrender, especially in light of the fact that there wasn't a single substantive response in the comment. If you're trying to dispute my conclusion that you are a ridiculous buffoon, you could hardly have done a worse job. I only wish that you could file the Pivar suit, amended however you wish, so we could have a wager on it. I'd be more than willing to bet a large sum of money that it would not survive a motion to dismiss. Hell, I'd be willing to bet that I could brief it myself and get the case dismissed. Sadly, the complaint was withdrawn; too bad the ignorant bluster has continued.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 6, 2007 1:06 AM
Mr Little -
Congratulations! You have managed to use a large number of large, important sounding words, to say absolutely nothing. That is as impressive a display of bullshit, as I have seen in quite some time.
Let me just translate.
Ed,
Ha, I got you to waste a lot of words on me. You and Mr Irons don't know as much about the law as me. You're obviously depressed and hate yourself. I really could be suing Mr Irons and you would know that if you read a really expensive book. You're probably really poor, so you can't actually afford that really expensive book. You also wear diapers. After you read the really expensive book, we can talk some more about this lawsuit that I could file, and will, I really will, which is why I'm here babbling about it. Oh, and just for fun, you're fat too. See how clever I am, see, see!!!
Damn, I think I managed less than half the words you did, to say exactly the same thing. Well, heres one for you. I'm not a lawyer, hell, I'm a high school dropout (sort of), but I'm pretty sure that when preparing to sue someone, talking about it on a public, open forum is really, really stupid. I'm also pretty sure that talking about your client, during an ongoing case, over the phone to someone you don't know, is really, really stupid and possibly actionable. I am absolutely sure, that if my five year old whined as much as you do, made absurd threats like you are making and insulted people the way you are, I would spank his little behind for being an insufferable little prig. You should really be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 6, 2007 1:21 AM
Why does this blog remind me of the Jerry Springer show? Tell me again, now....
and BTW three cheers to DuWayne for advocating bringing back those good old 'spare the rod...' Christian parenting skills
Posted by: Michael Little | September 6, 2007 1:43 AM
|Why does this blog remind me of the Jerry Springer show?
Tell me again, now....
Well, just look at who the featured guest is...
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | September 6, 2007 4:18 AM
So the world's troubles are caused by Darwinist Fundamentalists, and an incompetent lawyer knows more about biology that biologists do? Wow, Mr. Little, you are a serious kook; a kook of biblical proportions, if you will.
Posted by: valhar2000 | September 6, 2007 4:27 AM
I say, Ed, are you sure that Larry Fafarman is a real name, and not just an alias for the Little Lawyer? That's how much kookery I am detecting here.
Posted by: valhar2000 | September 6, 2007 4:32 AM
I was thinking the same thing valhar. This Little guy is a bonafide Fafarmaniac.
Posted by: Dwimr | September 6, 2007 8:34 AM
Hey everybody, have you noticed that Little's idiocy grows exponentially with each post? His latest effort leads me to suspect that it's a Dembski-style hoax and should be headed, "For heavens sake people, this is a PARODY." In fact, he's a parody of a lawyer.
I'll let Ed deal with Little's juvenile stabs at humor, but I'll reply to his snide comments about me. His late-night Lexis search of my legal record shows that I have "very little trial experience and none involving libel law that I can find. Irons seems pretty rusty on litigation tactics also and appears to have no real courtroom experience." Wow! I must be a real doofus. So, not to boast, here's a precis of my legal experience. For the past 30 years, since I graduated from Harvard Law School in 1978, I have been a full-time legal academic, serving on the faculty of Boston College Law School, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of California at San Diego (from which I retired in 2004). During those years, I have written 14 books on the Supreme Court and constitutional litigation, five of which have received Silver Gavel awards from the American Bar Association for their contributions of "public understanding of the American legal system" (an unprecedented number, I might modestly mention). I have also lectured on legal issues at more than a hundred universities and law schools, including Harvard, Duke, Stanford, and Boalt Hall.
As an academic, of course, I did not have a full-time law practice. But I'm not a stranger to courtrooms. In the 1980s, I initiated and served as lead counsel in the successful effort to vacate the World War II criminal convictions of Japanese Americans whose wartime challenges to their mass internment had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the infamous Hirabayashi and Korematsu cases; in these cases, I appeared as counsel in the California and Washington state federal courts. I'm really proud of that effort to wipe this blot from America's civil liberties record.
More recently, I served for nine years as counsel for the plaintiffs in the suit to remove a Christian cross from Mt. Soledad park in San Diego, arguing the case--successfully--before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and successfully opposing the city's cert petition in the Supreme Court, of whose bar I have been a member since 1994. I have also prepared and signed amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in several important cases, including the Pledge of Allegiance case and those of alleged "enemy combatants." I've left out a number of other cases, but that's enough halo polishing.
So, Mr Little (bar member for just two years), show us your trial record and awards for distinguished legal scholarship. I've showed you mine; you show us yours, OK?
On to other issues: if, as Pivar told a reporter on August 28, "my attorney has withdrawn the suit," the complaint can't be amended; it would have to be refiled. I suspect it wasn't actually withdrawn (making Pivar a liar) but left to languish on the docket. If you did amend it and dropped Seed as a defendant (curing your stupid jurisdictional mistake), you'd lose your "deep pocket" defendant. Second, I'll join Ed in betting any amount you like that an amended complaint, with PZ Myers as the sole defendant, would be promptly dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6). The suit would still have no merit. What will you wager?
I won't make jokes about your physical appearance, except to say that you are a joke yourself.
Posted by: peter irons | September 6, 2007 11:13 AM
I, too, had a good laugh over Little's pretensions to being more knowledgeable than Pete Irons on this subject. If one were to make a list of the most prominent first amendment scholars in the country, Prof. Irons would surely be in the top ten. Long before I ever became acquainted with him personally, I was well aware of his scholarship in this area. To have an ambulance chaser like Little believe he has the best of Irons in that area is truly a sign of remarkable self-delusion.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 6, 2007 11:26 AM
Is that really Michael Little; or someone out to ruin his reputation?
Posted by: khan | September 6, 2007 11:43 AM
If this is the Jerry Springer show and Little is here as my guest, which guest would he be? I vote for the sub-literate woman who's been sleeping with her mom's boyfriend, standing up and screaming "You're just jealous" as the audience boos her.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 6, 2007 11:44 AM
Mr. Little, you are a serious kook; a kook of biblical proportions, if you will.
Dare we say... a crackpot?
Posted by: Graculus | September 6, 2007 12:53 PM
As a fundamental litigation strategy, I have long held to a maxim attributed (anyone who can verify it will have my gratitude) to Napoleon: "Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself." But we're having too much fun at Mr. Little's expense, with no client interests at stake, so why not goad him on?
Mr. Little cites the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a rather general fashion and refers to a treatise on defamation by Robert Sack, who formerly represented media defendants and is now a federal circuit judge. My first argument before an appellate court was against Mr. Sack, a fine and gracious advocate. I won, but we had a grand time.
I've spent a lot more time with both the FRCP and Sack's treatise than Mr. Little could possibly have, and I see nothing in either of them that makes a hypothetical amended Pivar v. Myers lawsuit anything but frivolous. Maybe Mr. Little can explain what he means, with citations to relevant authority, rather than wave around books that, to all appearances, he either hasn't read or doesn't understand. I know Bob Sack. I've worked with Bob Sack. Bob Sack was an adversary of mine. Mr. Little, you are no Bob Sack.
Posted by: CJColucci | September 7, 2007 11:27 AM
I want to thank C. J. Colucci (is it Clement?) and John Pieret, who are excellent lawyers, for standing up for PZ, Ed Brayton, and me in exposing the absurdity of Pivar's now-deceased lawsuit and Little's empty threats to sue Ed and me for defamation. I don't know if Little is still surfing this blog (does he have any real clients?) but if so, let me lay out his options: he has none! He dismissed Pivar's suit on August 27 (I checked yesterday with the court clerk, who confirmed this), so he can't "amend" that complaint; he'd have to file a new one, without Seed Media as a defendant. And a new complaint, with PZ as the dole defendant, would be promptly dismissed. As for me and Ed, Little would have to represent himself (no sane lawyer would take the case for him, plus he's have to pay them). And he hasa no basis for defamation against either of us, since Little himself published the allegedly defamatory statements, which were true anyway. What a buffoon! Thanks again, CJ and John.
Posted by: peter irons | September 7, 2007 12:42 PM
CJColucci writes:
I can't find the primary source, but I do know the quote is sometimes written -
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
Ouch! Getting the Dan Quyale Facial has got to sting.
Posted by: Dave S. | September 7, 2007 12:55 PM
Prof. Irons:
"I want to thank C. J. Colucci (is it Clement?) and John Pieret, who are excellent lawyers,"
It is indeed. You must have looked me up. But I've never thought I was an excellent lawyer, just pretty OK. That seems, however, to be more of an accomplishment than I would have thought. Indeed, I'm now writing something with the working title: "The Mediocre Lawyer's Guide to Trying Cases" to show how far ahead of the game you can get with solid, unassuming mediocrity. Thanks just the same; it has been my pleasure.
Posted by: CJColucci | September 7, 2007 3:10 PM
Oh. THAT Mr. Irons. Minor legal deity in my personal universe for what he did on Korematsu, et al.
I'd say "we're so not worthy", but that would give the bozos like Little the wrong impression.
Posted by: gwangung | September 7, 2007 6:04 PM