I was sued by my lawyer, Phillip Leiser, for breach of contract. Of course, I did not breach the contract and probably neither did the other 57 people he sued making the same claim. In my case, he lied about the representation he would provide. I am not a person who doesn't pay my bills and I certainly did not owe him any more than the amount I paid. THe legal system, however, is not geared for the pro se litigant and he won -- with the exception that the judge ordered that $1K be returned to me for errors made on his part and for which I was billed. In any case, he has verbally assaulted calling me a number of not so nice names -- this assault was so bad that I had to ask a sherrif's deputy to accompany me on the elevator -- from where Phillip escaped on the very next floor. He was intimated by the presence of the deputy -- Now, I am suing his law firm for violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. I filed, pro se, in general district court but he had it removed to circuit court. What a mess -- I'll probably lose but I certainly am giving it a fighting chance.

Good Luck!!

>..but I certainly am giving it a fighting chance.

Posting on an internet forum is always a solid first step in 'giving it a fighting chance', good luck dude you're on your way to victory!!

I'm certain I will need luck...the good news is that I have a letter from the Commonwealth Office of the Atty Gen that states that law firms are not exempt from the consumer law -- the judges and lawyers seem to believe that law firms are, in fact exempt. I think the judge will tell me to go home and with that, I have the ear of a powerful consumer group who will take it up on appeal. While I would like to win on the merits of my complaint, it is more important that the right to bring the action is successful for that will set precedence in the Commonwealth.....

next she is gonna get taken to court for posting about it on this forum

Report it to the Virginia Bar Assc. They will take all of your information and decide if there needs to be action taken against the lawyer.

http://www.vsb.org/

Donna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was sued by my lawyer, Phillip Leiser, for
> breach of contract. Of course, I did not breach
> the contract and probably neither did the other 57
> people he sued making the same claim. In my case,
> he lied about the representation he would provide.
> I am not a person who doesn't pay my bills and I
> certainly did not owe him any more than the amount
> I paid. THe legal system, however, is not geared
> for the pro se litigant and he won -- with the
> exception that the judge ordered that $1K be
> returned to me for errors made on his part and for
> which I was billed. In any case, he has verbally
> assaulted calling me a number of not so nice names
> -- this assault was so bad that I had to ask a
> sherrif's deputy to accompany me on the elevator
> -- from where Phillip escaped on the very next
> floor. He was intimated by the presence of the
> deputy -- Now, I am suing his law firm for
> violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.
> I filed, pro se, in general district court but he
> had it removed to circuit court. What a mess --
> I'll probably lose but I certainly am giving it a
> fighting chance.


Ever hear of slander? Or libel? Frankly, you could win your case and still get your ass sued over posting this. If I were Cary, I would pull this off the board now, since he could be dragged into the impending suit this guy is going to file against you.

This would be classified as libel by posting here, but he'd have to prove his reputation was damaged (you've already satisfied the first criteria of public dissemination via blog). It's impossible for any damages expert to assess. And yes, Cary you could be subpoenaed.

I agree that you should consider filing a complaint with the bar association. If his actions are egregious, then they have the power to suspend or fine him regardless of the outcome of your case. Good luck. -§

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This would be classified as libel by posting here,
> but he'd have to prove his reputation was damaged
> (you've already satisfied the first criteria of
> public dissemination via blog). It's impossible
> for any damages expert to assess. And yes, Cary
> you could be subpoenaed.
>
> I agree that you should consider filing a
> complaint with the bar association. If his
> actions are egregious, then they have the power to
> suspend or fine him regardless of the outcome of
> your case. Good luck. -§


The guy doesn't have to have a case to f-k with people. He can still file a suit and make this gal spend dough she probably doesn't have trying to defend herself.

You never mentioned what this was about. What was the case about?

I for one, will not be contacting this law firm now. Whether this is true or not, why take a chance with contacting this lawyer when there are hundreds of others that can take my case??

it's not libel if it's the truth.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

If you would of called him names back then you would both be even and you wouldn't have to worry about filing all these new cases. Kids these days...

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it's not libel if it's the truth.


No. It's not libel if you can prove it's the truth. You have to go through an expensive trial to do that, and you still might lose.

I see we got big law terms flying around.

NICE

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> § Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This would be classified as libel by posting
> here,
> > but he'd have to prove his reputation was
> damaged
> > (you've already satisfied the first criteria of
> > public dissemination via blog). It's
> impossible
> > for any damages expert to assess. And yes,
> Cary
> > you could be subpoenaed.
> >
> > I agree that you should consider filing a
> > complaint with the bar association. If his
> > actions are egregious, then they have the power
> to
> > suspend or fine him regardless of the outcome
> of
> > your case. Good luck. -§
>
>
> The guy doesn't have to have a case to f-k with
> people. He can still file a suit and make this gal
> spend dough she probably doesn't have trying to
> defend herself.


That's true. Besides income potential, it's the main reason why people decide to be lawyers. Revenge. -§

When the latin starts flying free on an FFX Underground legal thread, you should strongly consider ending your affiliation with the thread and actually hiring a lawyer.

res ipsa loquitur

hahahaha suing fairfaxunderground.com ? that'll be the day... hahahaha. seems like just about everyone who doesn't like what gets said on here threatens to sue. NEWSFLASH: The suing fad went out about 5 years ago!

The Economist22 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hahahaha suing fairfaxunderground.com ? that'll be
> the day... hahahaha. seems like just about
> everyone who doesn't like what gets said on here
> threatens to sue. NEWSFLASH: The suing fad went
> out about 5 years ago!

You missed the point. FFX UG is only likely to be subpoenaed in this matter, not sued. I hardly believe anything will come of it anyway. -§

Me again. Well, I certainly didn't intend to be libelous so I re-read what I wrote. I honestly don't see anything that can be constued as libel. For the record --- he both wrote and yelled at me the following: You are stupid, you are so ugly no man would marry you, you are so ugly no man would ever have children with you, you have a fat ass, you are a liar, you are a deadbeat, you should sue your plastic surgeon, I'm going to ruin your credit --- my response to him -- everything probably looks big from down there and, when he approached me in the hallway adjacent to the courtroom and was taunting me with his venom I said to him, "Shoo, you gnat". I reported this to the Bar and they said that this behavior was not unethical. In my line of work -- I would be in all sorts of trouble for talking like this -- but --- it is not unethical for lawyers according to the Virginia Bar. BTW -- I would not be considered overweight or ugly by any standards.....and I can prove that!!!!

Back to libel....It would be a very sad day when we are silenced as to expressing our opinions and points of view in any venue. My experience with this lawyer is as was stated by me and I would never do anything to jeopardize my livelihood or my reputation as a respectable member of society nor would I want to drag anyone else into that quagmire. That being said, if whomever runs this site feels it is in his/her best interest to pull this thread, please feel free to do so --- I won't take it personally and, having been dragged through the legal system, I would completely understand.



Someone asked what the case was about.....please.....it is lengthy and detailed so, those who aren't interested...stop reading here - cause it is lengthy and possibly boring....

Since April 2002, I have been dragged through the legal system mill when, on that fateful day, while driving to work, I was covertly followed into the Metro Parking garage at Springfield station and was assaulted by a screaming woman. She was yelling and flailing about screaming that I had cut her off on Beulah -- I told her that I hadn't any idea what she was talking about and I continued to walk away. She followed me, continuing to scream at me and calling me names. She was a step or two behind me and off to my right. She ultimately called me a horrible name and I turned to her and asked exactly how old she was, being surprised to hear that talk from an adult, seeingly professional woman. At that, she had a bag filled with books and shoes and swung it from behind her and hit me in the face. The impact threw me back and my front tooth was dislodged. I screamed and she attacked me again. I had recently had surgery and the assault tore some incisions. She left the area in her car but several people came to my aid. Someone wrote her tag number down and others called 911. Her name was Nadine Huff and she ultimately went to jail on criminal charges. I had to wear braces for a year, I had to have a root canal and, ultimately, lost that front tooth. I had to have surgery on my lip and physical therapy for the whip lash caused by the blow. I sued her in civil court and my lawyer made errors. I did win but a much lesser amount ($18K, of which I had to pay my lawyer and other fees so I was left with $10K which was some $11K shy of my medical expenses). I went after that lawyer for mishandling my suit and, specifically, for failing to include the medical bills that were provided to him by various surgeons and dental professionals. His failure to include these items resulted in us not being able to prove the damages which resulted in me getting a much reduced amount. Leiser was working my case against this lawyer, but, due to a disagreement with his contract and billing practices, I asked that Leiser and Associates remove themselves from representing me. They did so and I continued, pro se ---there were filings and motions and then the depositions --- the defendant deposed the woman who assaulted me --- and --- she backed up my story. That put an end to this legal battle and I was satisfied!!!!

Then, Leiser and Associates came after me saying I owed them more money and I disagreed. Thus my continuing saga.

Wow... People are fucking nuts over traffic... I mean I would be pissed if someone cut me off (not saying you did) but I certainly wouldn't follow and confront the bozo.

Glad to hear she did some time on criminal charges.

Looks like she drives like an idiot, too:

"HUFF ","NADINE ","F","051"," 4600","TARPON ","LA","ALEXANDRIA ","VA","01/14/2004","IMPROPER LANE CHANGE "

oriondlf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That being said, if whomever runs this
> site feels it is in his/her best interest to pull
> this thread, please feel free to do so --- I won't
> take it personally and, having been dragged
> through the legal system, I would completely
> understand.

Hi oriondlf, I run this site. Here is an excerpt from the "Welcome" thread which defines my philosophy:

No legitimate post will ever be altered or deleted, regardless of how controversial, without a court order. Free, open, and anonymous means that you can express any thought, idea or opinion without fear of censorship.

Good luck in your fight!

Note: Meaning of "legitimate" subject to change without notice.

Fairfax County General District (Inactive Case Details)

Case Number     Defendant       Charge                   Case Type       Date  	         Disposition  	Paid
GT04009449-00 	HUFF, NADINE F 	FAIL OBEY HIGHWAY LA 	 Infraction 	 02/17/04 	 Prepaid 	 Yes

"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Economist22 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > hahahaha suing fairfaxunderground.com ? that'll
> be
> > the day... hahahaha. seems like just about
> > everyone who doesn't like what gets said on
> here
> > threatens to sue. NEWSFLASH: The suing fad went
> > out about 5 years ago!
>
> You missed the point. FFX UG is only likely to be
> subpoenaed in this matter, not sued. I hardly
> believe anything will come of it anyway. -§



How do you subpeoana a website? It's not a physical thing

take the whole server box.

Only the cops are allowed to do that.

For civil suits, I think maybe they'll have to be OK with a CD-R or DVD copy of the site.

Yes @ DVD as discovery. Also, any metadata would likely be useful. -§

>How do you subpeoana a website? It's not a physical thing

This "attorney" has many happy customers at lawyerratingz.com
Perhaps he needs to check out
help for wacked out lawyers .com
or i need GOD.com

Thanks Cary and all. I feel up for this fight and will keep you posted. Leisers Answer in Grounds of Defense is due to me by 15 August.....I'm waiting for the Motion to Dismiss which I believe will be coming soon.

THe responses I've gotten on this site have inspired me....

HEY I HOPE YOU GET THIS IDIOT,BEFORE HE SCREWS ANYMORE PEOPLE.HE GIVES ALL ASSHOLES A BAD NAME.PLEASE POST THE TRAIL DATE.A FEW UNDER GROUNDERS SITTING ON THE FRONT ROW WOULD BE COOL.

Thanks for the continued support...I'll keep you posted...v/r

you probably deserved it you kook.

granny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you probably deserved it you kook.


Hi Nadine!

To Donna:

With all the problems you have caused me, now you are spreading defamatory statements.

Why don't you tell this website about the death threats you have made against me and my family? Why don't you tell them about the bad checks you wrote my law firm for the services I provided you?

The statements you made will now be used in a civil court in the case I am building against you.

Dear e-mail harvesters and fellow spam bots:

I present you Donna's e-mail address:

oriondlf@cox.net

oriondlf@cox.net

oriondlf@cox.net

oriondlf@cox.net

Phillip Leiser Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The statements you made will now be used in a
> civil court in the case I am building against you.


sick burn phillip

update on this fiasco

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/leiser-v-fell#description

Donna Fell is being sued for posting a rating on LawyerRatingz.com and also for posting a thread on Fairfax Underground about her experience with a law firm and lawyer. Three lawsuits are still pending in Fairfax Circuit Court in Virginia.

Although the details available online are scant, one Leiser case against Fell was dismissed from the Virginia Beach Circuit Court (#CL07000455-00) (no direct link; search here (in Civil): http://wasdmz2.courts.state.va.us/CJISWeb/MainMenu.do), and the VA Supreme Court refused both his appeal (#070154), and his petition for rehearing (search here: http://208.210.219.132/scolar/select.jsp).

A defamation suit brought by Leiser is still pending in the Fairfax County Circuit Court, according to this site: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/leiser-v-fell#description. Unfortunately, cases in the Fairfax Circuit are not readily searchable online.

The good news is, when you Google "Phillip Leiser" the second listing is this page: "Beware of this law firm".

Perhaps Donna Fell will post an update.

and thats probably why he brought the defamation lawsuit as he can show that it could be causing him unwarranted trouble. she seems to be the only one with a problem with this guys work.

i find this thread disturbing, not because of the original claim but because Phillip Leiser is suing one of his clients. defamatory or not, it's just poor form to go after someone who has paid you money and is unhappy with your services. you dont see companies going after their unhappy customers because they stand by their work. if everyone sued for defamation, high schools would be filling the court systems from gossip between classes and shit posted on myspace/facebook/blogs.

i find it highly disturbing that in a situation (not this particular one) where someone actually does the alleged acts of insulting their client, you have to fear getting sued for defamation because you cant prove an argument if it's not recorded.

besides, what's going to look worse, random allegations on the internet or suing your own client for posting such.




go ahead and sue me Leiser, you will only prove you will sue anyone who doesnt like you and will drag your name through the mud again. everything in this post is true.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Well said, Gravis !!

+5....to you.

This "case" will get dropped by the plaintiff, or dismissed by the court. A consumer can say just about anything about a business or professional practitioner as long as it's true. A defamation claim over quality of work or professional conduct is virtually unwinnable. This attorney is doing his firm great damage by even bringing such foolishness to the court. I would ask the court to sanction him. Since he originally filed in Virginia Beach even when his firm & the defendant are Fairfax county residents, the judge just might slam him with sanctions. It will be obvious that it was done to harass the defendant, and make it more difficult for her to defend herself.

I don't think leiser will be slammed by the judicial system. He knows his way around the law and how to make it work for him. This is another example of how this man sues "on principle," digging up old statutes to support his case against average people with little or no legal training and probably less financial resources (after going up against him, or using him to represent them).


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060704/ai_n16511005/

McCarthy's comment (in a moment of anger) was uncalled for. Still,something in my gut tells me Leiser didn't feel intimidated or harrassed by McCarthy's statement, but he did see McCarthy's comment as an easy way to make a little extra pocket change.

If Google is to be believed, Leiser takes the difficult cases. If so many of his clients are going against him for alleged "questionable billing practices," he might want to set his sights on some easier cases where he can meet the expectation of his clients.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/leiser-v-fell

FFXU is specifically listed in the case! Cool!

If that was really him posting up there, I find it really unprofessional that he's attacking her reputation (true or not about the bad checks, death threats, etc) here.

Its one thing if some kooky lady says angry things about a lawyer, but when a lawyer comes and says kooky things about the kooky lady, I get a little suspect about that lawyer's professionalism.

Oh well, its not like this board has really high google trust metrics or anything, I'm sure this thread won't be very high in google searches for "Phillip Leiser's Law Firm" or leiserlaw or "The Law Offices of Phillip B. Leiser" when people search for "lawyer reviews" or "leiser lawyer review" or "lawyer ratings" anything..


oh wait


Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would not use Phillip Leiser's lawfirm because
> he has shown that he will sue unhappy clients that
> express themselves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2009 12:24PM by jimmy jingles.

Also:

"A Jewish lawyer from Vienna, Va., won a $1,500 verdict against a man who told him he was sorry his family had not been exterminated in the concentration camps."

I didn't know you could sue someone (and win) for saying something like that.. That is a really fucked up thing to say to someone though, but I always figured you could say just about anything opinion-y like that and be protected by 1st amendment rights.

"A little-used Virginia statute allows a person to sue when subjected to acts of intimidation or harassment that are motivated by racial, religious or ethnic animosity."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060704/ai_n16511005/

How hilarious would it be if a bunch of illegals started suing the racists on this board...

Phillip Leiser eats dicks for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

I've actually used his law firm (Leiser, Leiser, and Hennessy) for some civil stuff over the past year. I retained one of the associate attorneys, not Phillip himself, and I thought they were a very professional and responsive group of people to deal with. They were recommended to me by someone who also had a good experience with them.

Just thought I'd point that out- it's not like these people are crooked, I think whoever is writing that is just some bitter person who probably deserves the way she's been treated.

http://www.leiserlaw.com/attorney.htm

$175 to $350 an hour. LOL, thats pretty cheap.

lol, I thought it was expensive actually, especially to solve a problem I shouldn't even have to hire a lawyer to do!

Also, I doubt anyone there is charging 175 an hour, I sorta remember during consultation that 300 seemed to be the going rate for everyone there.



ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.leiserlaw.com/attorney.htm
>
> $175 to $350 an hour. LOL, thats pretty cheap.

im giving leiser the benefit of the doubt here. this did not start as a defamation case but as a breach of contract because she did not pay. that sounds legit enough for me and then for her to try to ruin his reputation is just a childish attack. take her for all shes got! however if that was the real leiser posting im not sure it would help your case to defame her back on the same forum. that doesnt seem like a lawyer move to me though so im calling a fraud leiser post

I still don't understand how this third-tier lawyer can assess damages in a case like this? It's certainly unquantifiable to make an assertion that a simple negative post on a message board cost him business. To make a punative claim, it would have to not only be widely disseminated, but would also have to be for something egregious and not a consumer's opinion, which this clearly doesn't pass the smell test (but for the fact that the complaint stinks).

It's no wonder he's working at a strip mall operation and not a blue chip firm. The Williams and Connolly's of the world wouldn't put up with this non-sense. He should be disbarred.

You tried really hard to make your post look all lawyerly, yet you misspelled punitive.... not to mention you were clearly stretching your own vocabulary to hack that abomination of a post together.

The court finds you guilty of fail of the 1st degree and fines you one (1) internet.

Economic Analysis = No Damages Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a punative claim

How about a term of no less than four years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Donna Fell told a rather elaborate story in her couple of posts, beginning with the fact that a lawyer screwed up her personal injury case by failing to submit medical bills as evidence of damages. Her lawyer screwed up so badly the damages didn't even cover her medical costs, which is simply an egregious result on the facts presented.

She then took a legal malpractice case to Leiser, whom you think is a good attorney -- or at least, you think that the firm with his name on it is very professional and responsive, and a third-party you trust also believes his firm is good.

Leiser took her case. Presumably, therefore, he thought she had a reasonably good case, or, being a good attorney, he wouldn't have taken it.

Therefore, she's not a nut, according to your terms, at least at this stage of the game.

Act II. Fell gets into a fee dispute with Leiser, and describes in some detail - persuasive detail to my ear - Leiser's abusive response.

Now all of a sudden, by your lights, Fell is "just some bitter person who probably deserves the way she's been treated."

Uh huh. That makes complete sense. From good client to looney tunes in 60 seconds (you'd have to be looney tunes to write what she wrote if it's not true -- to have made up that detailed of a story out of whole cloth).

I don't know what really happened in this case, but I do know there are some very smart, good attorneys who can act like complete assholes.

I'm thinking, based on what I've read here, that Leiser is probably one of them. And I'm really enjoying the fact that his hotheaded defamation claim is exposing that assholishness to an extent that never would have occurred if he had simply resolved his dispute with Fell reasonably and professionally.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.leiserlaw.com/attorney.htm
>
> $175 to $350 an hour. LOL, thats pretty cheap.

sure... until he sues you.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

jimmy jingles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You tried really hard to make your post look all
> lawyerly, yet you misspelled punitive.... not to
> mention you were clearly stretching your own
> vocabulary to hack that abomination of a post
> together.
>
> The court finds you guilty of fail of the 1st
> degree and fines you one (1) internet.
>
> Economic Analysis = No Damages Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > a punative claim

Indeed; you are correct.

Let's chalk that up to a speed-typing accident with -4 points on my keyboard license.

No thanks on the prison stay. I'd much rather run backward through a corn field.

Eight Men and a Neckbeard Wrote:
>>>(you'd have to be looney tunes to write what she wrote if it's not true -- to have made up that detailed of a story out of whole cloth).


A random unregistered person comes on FU to write a goofy inaccurate story?

NOW WAI!!!

This is just a brief message to readers of Fairfax Underground website readers--
A recently-posted item was called to my attention this morning, by telephone, referring to a posted item on this website. The "Posted by" box identified the writer as me, i.e., "William Van Alstyne." This entry is a fraud. I frankly did not know of "Fairfax Underground" until this morning when some regular reader saw what appeared to be my name and telephoned to ask whether it was correct. It is not correct and whoever posted it was not merely misleading readers to have used it but may well have violated federal laws in falsely representing themself in just this way.
William Van Alstyne

Economic Analysis = No Damages Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still don't understand how this third-tier
> lawyer can assess damages in a case like this?
> It's certainly unquantifiable to make an assertion
> that a simple negative post on a message board
> cost him business. To make a punative claim, it
> would have to not only be widely disseminated, but
> would also have to be for something egregious and
> not a consumer's opinion, which this clearly
> doesn't pass the smell test (but for the fact that
> the complaint stinks).
>
> It's no wonder he's working at a strip mall
> operation and not a blue chip firm. The Williams
> and Connolly's of the world wouldn't put up with
> this non-sense. He should be disbarred.



Unquanti whatable?? please speak english - if we were dicKtionary toting geniuses we wouldn't be on this site - yo

william van alstylne Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The "Posted by" box identified the writer as me, i.e.,
> "William Van Alstyne."

WRONG! the poster identified themselves only as William W. Van Alstyne, not you specifically. you act like you are the only William W. Van Alstyne. talk about arrogant.


> it but may well have violated federal laws in
> falsely representing themself in just this way.

FUD++

> William Van Alstyne


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2009 05:03PM by Gravis.

Well, there's Google.

Or, if you are lazy, unquantifiable means "not able to be quantified." LOL.

For additional help, please type the word "quantify" into the box on http://www.merriam-webster.com/, click "Thesaurus", press "Search", then add your result to the end of "not able to be [result]."

Then afterward, take two of these and post your results in the morning.

-------------------------
Attachments:

Haha.

Put Phillip Leiser into Google and the FIRST post that comes up is this thread:

Beware of this law firm

His foolhardy defamation claim has thus served not only to PUBLICIZE the alleged defamation, and thereby increase the harm to his reputation, but also, as it were, highlight for the public his strategic and tactical STUPIDITY as a lawyer.

Indeed, I daresay calling a LAWYER "stupid" might itself fairly be reckoned defamation PER SE.

Thus supposing myself next in his ever-litigious sights - and since I don't doubt that's he's drafting a subpoena EVEN NOW - let me add that not only is Leiser STUPID, but he ALSO has a LOATHSOME DISEASE.

I refer not to syphilis, HIV, or even the dreaded herp ("what's so bad about herp?" thinks Meep as he darts his tongue compulsively at a peculiarly flavorsome canker - strange barren blastocyst where late the cockbirds sang).

Oh no, I am thinking rather of something far, far more insidious and deadly.

To wit: Hubris.

jimmy jingles Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also:
>
> "A Jewish lawyer from Vienna, Va., won a $1,500
> verdict against a man who told him he was sorry
> his family had not been exterminated in the
> concentration camps."
>
> I didn't know you could sue someone (and win) for
> saying something like that.. That is a really
> fucked up thing to say to someone though, but I
> always figured you could say just about anything
> opinion-y like that and be protected by 1st
> amendment rights.
>
> "A little-used Virginia statute allows a person to
> sue when subjected to acts of intimidation or
> harassment that are motivated by racial, religious
> or ethnic animosity."
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20
> 060704/ai_n16511005/
>
> How hilarious would it be if a bunch of illegals
> started suing the racists on this board...


"Illegals" is a term referring to ones Status, NOT their Race, Ethnicity, Religion, Nationality, or so on. Therefore, how do you deem someone a "Racist" for voicing their displeasure with a law breaker?

Actually, if that is the real Professor Van Alstyne in the above post - which I rather doubt, but it's not impossible - I would be interested in his view of the Virginia statute Phillip Leiser used to sue someone (discussed in the last post on the first page of this thread, including a link to this article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20060704/ai_n16511005/); specifically, whether it passes muster under the First Amendment, about which Professor VA is of course an expert.

I understand that prosecution for threatening language is not necessarily repugnant to the First Amendment, but at least according to the paraphrase in the article, it doesn't sound like Leiser was actually threatened (or could reasonably understand the comment as a threat), but rather merely insulted, albeit in quite nasty terms. It is unfortunate the defendant chose not to appeal the verdict, which would have brought the dubious statute under the scrutiny of a higher court.

!

Has Leiser seen the error of his ways....looks like he has stopped suing vast numbers of people....

Fell did good.

The Economist22 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> § Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Economist22 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > hahahaha suing fairfaxunderground.com ?
> that'll
> > be
> > > the day... hahahaha. seems like just about
> > > everyone who doesn't like what gets said on
> > here
> > > threatens to sue. NEWSFLASH: The suing fad
> went
> > > out about 5 years ago!
> >
> > You missed the point. FFX UG is only likely to
> be
> > subpoenaed in this matter, not sued. I hardly
> > believe anything will come of it anyway. -§
>
>
>
> How do you subpeoana a website? It's not a
> physical thing

For the longest time I have been wondering how to go about making a complaint against this firm. I will say this and leave it there, how do you pay $4,000.00 and only have a agreement order typed. How does the lawyer that took your case not know that she was suppose to file a petition to the courts before she requested something from the judge, well today I paid $4,000.00 and when I called the firm to make a formal complaint I was told that I would be charged to talk to the lawyer about the problem.

I can't believe this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Economist22 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > § Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The Economist22 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > hahahaha suing fairfaxunderground.com ?
> > that'll
> > > be
> > > > the day... hahahaha. seems like just about
> > > > everyone who doesn't like what gets said on
> > > here
> > > > threatens to sue. NEWSFLASH: The suing fad
> > went
> > > > out about 5 years ago!
> > >
> > > You missed the point. FFX UG is only likely
> to
> > be
> > > subpoenaed in this matter, not sued. I hardly
> > > believe anything will come of it anyway. -§
> >
> >
> >
> > How do you subpeoana a website? It's not a
> > physical thing
>
> For the longest time I have been wondering how to
> go about making a complaint against this firm. I
> will say this and leave it there, how do you pay
> $4,000.00 and only have a agreement order typed.
> How does the lawyer that took your case not know
> that she was suppose to file a petition to the
> courts before she requested something from the
> judge, well today I paid $4,000.00 and when I
> called the firm to make a formal complaint I was
> told that I would be charged to talk to the lawyer
> about the problem.


``````Go to this site: http://www.vsb.org/site/regulation/inquiry/
Follow the directions.

Not a bitter person and not deserving of all that happened.

Just read "Leiser v. Fell". Whoever posted it took the time to research the story.

Here tell that a VSB complaint is coming Leiser's way. Hennessy and MCarthy, too.

Yes, Virginia, we need to join the ranks of the other 28 states -- we need anti SLAPP regulations to stop the kind of craziness that prevents FREE SPEECH!!!

dont mess with a lawyer haha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> update on this fiasco
>
> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/leiser-v-fell#d
> escription
>
> Donna Fell is being sued for posting a rating on
> LawyerRatingz.com and also for posting a thread on
> Fairfax Underground about her experience with a
> law firm and lawyer. Three lawsuits are still
> pending in Fairfax Circuit Court in Virginia.


Like some of us didn't see that one coming.

Re: Beware of this law firm
Posted by: WashingToneLocian ()
Date: July 25, 2006 11:05AM

Ever hear of slander? Or libel? Frankly, you could win your case and still get your ass sued over posting this. If I were Cary, I would pull this off the board now, since he could be dragged into the impending suit this guy is going to file against you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like some of us didn't see that one coming...


Fail.

Per Scooper's detailed report, http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2,227950,241095,quote=1, the Leiser v. Fell matter has been resolved.

If Leiser prevailed in his libel claim, Cary would have been forced to take this thread down.

The thread's still up.

Ergo, your warning was ill-placed, and certainly not something to crow about.

It's *very* hard to sue an internet discussion board or its proprietors for defamation; plaintiffs can and do go after the individuals who post allegedly libelous comments, however.

No one should be sued for posting an opinion, making a bar complaint or complaining to the proper consumer offices -- period. It took Leiser a lot of time, money, energy to hunt after this woman for years and years. She paid nothing to him -- didn't cost her a dime.

Grotius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Like some of us didn't see that one coming...
>
>
> Fail.
>

Really? Apparently you can't read...

Frankly, you could win your case and still get your ass sued over posting this.

I never said that the lawsuit would prevail. I warned that it would be a hassle that would eat up money that this person probably didn't have, which I'm sure it did.

This idea from "StandUp" that it "didn't cost her a dime" is misplaced. Did the woman have to file legal fees? Did she have to hire lawyers? Did she miss time from work?

Then there are the other costs....stress, aggravation, fear.

Was it worth it for the supposed satisfaction of bitching about this guy on a forum? I doubt it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Apparently you can't read.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Like some of us didn't see that one coming.
>
> Re: Beware of this law firm
> Posted by: WashingToneLocian ()
> Date: July 25, 2006 11:05AM
>
> Ever hear of slander? Or libel? Frankly, you could
> win your case and still get your ass sued over
> posting this. If I were Cary, I would pull this
> off the board now, since he could be dragged into
> the impending suit this guy is going to file
> against you.


For some stupid reason, you decided to crow about the unnecessary warning you gave Cary.

Crow fail.

Tone fail.

Some of us believe in our rights to free speech so I, for one, would have to say it was worth it for this woman to stand tall and try and make a difference. I agree with Anti-SLAPP -- we need that type of legislation in this Commonwealth to prevent abuses.
BTW, the lawsuits were broader than posting on this site. She was sued for making a bar complaint, as well. Can you imagine not having the freedom to voice a complaint for fear of being sued -- and sued -- and sued -- and sued?

What price is freedom and kudos to those who do stand tall to protect those freedoms.

Grotius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently you can't read.
>
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Like some of us didn't see that one coming.
> >
> > Re: Beware of this law firm
> > Posted by: WashingToneLocian ()
> > Date: July 25, 2006 11:05AM
> >
> > Ever hear of slander? Or libel? Frankly, you
> could
> > win your case and still get your ass sued over
> > posting this. If I were Cary, I would pull this
> > off the board now, since he could be dragged
> into
> > the impending suit this guy is going to file
> > against you.
>
>
> For some stupid reason, you decided to crow about
> the unnecessary warning you gave Cary.
>
> Crow fail.
>
> Tone fail.

My understanding is that the guy did try to drag Cary into the suit. How did I fail again?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

StandUp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some of us believe in our rights to free speech so
> I, for one, would have to say it was worth it for
> this woman to stand tall and try and make a
> difference. I agree with Anti-SLAPP -- we need
> that type of legislation in this Commonwealth to
> prevent abuses.
> BTW, the lawsuits were broader than posting on
> this site. She was sued for making a bar
> complaint, as well. Can you imagine not having
> the freedom to voice a complaint for fear of being
> sued -- and sued -- and sued -- and sued?
>
> What price is freedom and kudos to those who do
> stand tall to protect those freedoms.

Finally, seems that an agreement was signed and a few dollars was trown at Leiser to get rid of him and free Fell from continued legal harassment.

So Fell won by paying this guy even more money?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My understanding is that the guy did try to drag
> Cary into the suit. How did I fail again?


Because Donna Fell was sued, not Cary or FU.

It would have been very easy enough for a lawyer like Leiser to sue Cary if there were any legal grounds, which there were not.

Cary was not sued, and did not have to take steps to avoid being "dragged into" the Fell suit.

I don't fault you for your July post - you were just trying to give Cary a heads-up. Which is fine, particularly given Leiser's litigiousness.

But crowing about it at this late date, after the matter has been settled, and your warning shown to have been pointless, is ridiculous.

Grotius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My understanding is that the guy did try to
> drag
> > Cary into the suit. How did I fail again?
>
>
> Because Donna Fell was sued, not Cary or FU.
>
> It would have been very easy enough for a lawyer
> like Leiser to sue Cary if there were any legal
> grounds, which there were not.
>
> Cary was not sued, and did not have to take steps
> to avoid being "dragged into" the Fell suit.
>
> I don't fault you for your July post - you were
> just trying to give Cary a heads-up. Which is
> fine, particularly given Leiser's litigiousness.
>
> But crowing about it at this late date, after the
> matter has been settled, and your warning shown to
> have been pointless, is ridiculous.


I was crowing about a suit coming out of this, even a failed one. I provided a warning to Cary who, I understand, was approached by the lawyer when he was preparing his case. By "pointless" if you mean "dead on," then you would be correct.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

You warned Cary about being dragged into the suit.

It was a pointless warning. There was no such threat.

Cary has averred that he's received *many* take-down notices, and I don't doubt that Leiser tried to get him to take down this thread.

But that's far different than actually being dragged into a lawsuit, or Leiser even *attempting* to drag him into a lawsuit.

Again, Leiser made no such attempt.

Indeed, he could have simply done so if he wished to.

It's very easy for a lawyer to file a lawsuit. Leiser could have dictated a complaint in 10 minutes, and had the suit typed up and filed the same day.

Or he could have amended one of the Fell complaints to include Cary/FU.

But he didn't.

Leiser has done a lottttt more harm to his reputation since the post of this then he could have. I know that I will never be using this crook and I know I will make sure that no one I know uses him either. Thats the beauty of word of mouth.

There are countless ways to be "dragged into a suit" that don't involve being sued. Cary could have been subpoenaed and/or deposed, which would have involved his needing to hire a lawyer.

The fact is you have an issue with me being right. Sorry, but that's your issue, not mine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact is you have an issue with me being right.
> Sorry, but that's your issue, not mine.


I have an issue with you idiotically bragging about a pointless and incorrect warning.

Cary was never at risk of being "dragged into the impending suit" Leiser was supposedly "going to file against" him.

Under § 230, the host of an online message board is not legally responsible for defamatory posts made by someone else. Period.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html#230.c_1

http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID708

Your original warning was ill-conceived, but well-intended. You get a pass on that; you were trying to do the right thing.

Crowing about it now, however = FAIL.

I just wrote: "Cary was never at risk of being "dragged into the impending suit" Leiser was supposedly "going to file against" him."

The last part of that sentence was incorrect.

In your July remark, the "going to file" part was directed to the OP, not Cary.

Nonetheless, you warned Cary about being "dragged into the impending suit," and he wasn't.

So you were wrong, and you fail.

Grotius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Cary was never at risk of being "dragged into the
> impending suit" Leiser was supposedly "going to
> file against" him.
>
>

Hey, fucktard! I never said a suit was going to be filed against Cary. Learn how to READ!

If I were Cary, I would pull this off the board now, since he(meaning Cary) could be dragged into the impending suit this guy is going to file against you. (meaning the OP)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Grotius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just wrote: "Cary was never at risk of being
> "dragged into the impending suit" Leiser was
> supposedly "going to file against" him."
>
> The last part of that sentence was incorrect.
>
> In your July remark, the "going to file" part was
> directed to the OP, not Cary.
>
> Nonetheless, you warned Cary about being "dragged
> into the impending suit," and he wasn't.
>
> So you were wrong, and you fail.

So you are admitting that your entire rationale has been wrong from the beginning, yet I still fail? Fuck you, moron.

You are wrong. You know it. Fuck off.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you are admitting that your entire rationale
> has been wrong from the beginning

No, I misphrased a part of one sentence, and when I spotted the mistake, I corrected it.

My "rationale" hasn't changed.

To wit:

You made a prediction. You predicted wrong. Then you bragged about it.

As noted, I don't have a problem with your July post.

But today's posts, bragging about your failed prediction, are just stupid.


WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cary could have been subpoenaed and/or deposed,
> which would have involved his needing to hire a lawyer.


McCain could have been elected President, but he wasn't.

Your prediction was WRONG. Period.

But for some stupid reason you're now bragging about it.


> Fuck you, moron.
>
> You are wrong. You know it. Fuck off.

Grow up.

You can paint bullshit gold with a can of Krylon, it doesn't make it a Krugerrand.

Sorry, but you lose. Hope you enjoy eating crow this Thanksgiving.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

You warned Cary about being "dragged into the impending suit."

He wasn't.

You predicted wrong, then bragged about your mistaken prediction.

You fail.

And get bonus fail points for trying to wriggle out of your blunder.

Grotius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> And get bonus fail points for trying to wriggle
> out of your blunder.


My only blunder was not doing this sooner....



...Enjoy the crow on Thursday, shithead.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

StandUp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> She paid nothing to
> him -- didn't cost her a dime.

That's great to hear.


WashingTone-Childish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If I were Cary, I would pull this
> off the board now, since he could be dragged into
> the impending suit this guy is going to file
> against you.

You made this prediction in July.

Bragging about it today, after the matter has been resolved and your prediction
proved wrong, is as foolish as someone who predicted the Skins would beat Dallas
posting today to brag about the accuracy of their prediction.

The only difference being no Skins fan would be so foolish.

Only you sir could rise to this level of stupidity.

Congratulations.

Psst, WTL, the crow line is a bit beat. Acceptable, albeit lame, the first time, but multiple posts using the same "zinger" is mighty weak. You do fail on that account.

advessor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Psst, WTL, the crow line is a bit beat.
> Acceptable, albeit lame, the first time, but
> multiple posts using the same "zinger" is mighty
> weak. You do fail on that account.


Crow = Turkey not comic gold?

Okay. I digress.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Grotius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You made this prediction in July.
>
> Bragging about it today, after the matter has been
> resolved and your prediction
> proved wrong, is as foolish as someone who
> predicted the Skins would beat Dallas
> posting today to brag about the accuracy of their
> prediction.
>
> The only difference being no Skins fan would be so
> foolish.
>
> Only you sir could rise to this level of
> stupidity.
>
> Congratulations.

Let me know when your vagina monologue is over and I might engage again. Otherwise, you know where I stand.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm