Update from Ron about the lawsuit
May. 16th, 2013 05:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cos posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
davis_square![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ron_newman writes,- Here's an update regarding the lawsuit against me. (Normally I would post this to Davis Square LiveJournal, but LJ is so hosed right now that I am not able to post anything to it at all.)
Jonathan Monsarrat's lawyer, Mark Ishman, has reached an agreement with my lawyer, Dan Booth, to extend the deadline for filing a response to his lawsuit. The deadline will now be June 10 instead of May 20. My lawyer will file this agreement with the court by the original deadline of May 20.
The delay is intended to buy time to resolve this matter amicably. Meanwhile, my lawyer will continue to prepare his motion to dismiss the case.
Ishman was unaware that his client was sending out Doe Letters and Doe E-mails, until a lawyer for one or more of the Does contacted him. Ishman said he never authorized his client to send any of these, and he promised to restrain his client from sending any more of them. Ishman also promised my lawyer that JonMon will no longer send out press releases, and will not visit anyone's house (even while at the same time denying that his client had done this already).
[ Ron is having trouble posting to LiveJournal due to the problems they're having today, but I've been able to post today and he said to go ahead and post so let's see if this works. ]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-05-16 09:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-16 10:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 11:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-16 10:09 pm (UTC)Still, I wonder what "resolving this matter amicably" means. When all of the claims against Ron are totally bogus, what is the middle ground? If there are legitimate claims, they are against individuals who are not Ron. Is Ishman going to insist Ron delete posts that he did not make and is not responsible for?
I guess we'll have to just wait. Good luck, Ron.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-16 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 01:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 12:11 am (UTC)The reality is that "amicably" probably means "Let's pull the plug on this before it gets worse."
no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 12:50 am (UTC)ETA: Not to mention that many of the posts and comments are in
no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 02:39 am (UTC)If so, then the extension he has negotiated with Booth is to give him time to try to convince JonMon that continuing to pursue the suit is folly and the best course of action is to withdraw it with prejudice as requested.
If he is unable to convince JonMon of that, then I suspect he will petition the court to withdraw as JonMon's counsel, on the grounds that his client is refusing to listen to his advice and/or that he can no longer advocate in good faith that the suit should proceed.
Having said all that, after seeing how thoroughly Booth demolished the original complaint in his letter (I knew the complaint was bogus even before reading Booth's response, but holy cow, I didn't realize it was that bogus), one cannot help but wonder if in fact Ishman is rational and at least minimally competent. We can only hope that he is, at least enough to realize the depth of the doo-doo he is currently standing in.
It is also possible that the complaint wasn't actually written by Ishman (and if not, you only get one guess as to who actually wrote it). It would hardly be the first time that a non-lawyer decided to play lawyer or that a lawyer took money from a client to file a suit on his behalf without putting in enough due diligence on what he was being paid to file.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 02:56 am (UTC)I will note that the complaint was not actually signed by Ishman, it appears to me to have been signed by JonMon, "with permission".
no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 02:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 01:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 01:50 pm (UTC)On a more practical level, what Ishman does, at least in the short term, is inextricably linked to what happens to the lawsuit and its defendants named and unnamed, and what he does is inextricably linked to his motives and whether he's been screwed over.
While I agree with you that Ishman was responsible for knowing what was in the complaint filed with his permission, (a) we don't actually know that the complaint that was actually filed, was filed with his permission, and (b) even if he was aware of the content of the complaint and did not do the due diligence he should have, I hardly think he could have anticipated the Doe letters, in-person visits to Does' houses, or press release identifying him as a partner in a business he has nothing to do with.
It is possible that Ishman is lying about not knowing about any of those things, but given what we know about his client, I think it's more likely that he is telling the truth, and he is a victim in this mess too.
From a pragmatic point of view, it seems to me that treating him as a victim in this mess is more likely to yield results favorable to the defendants than treating him as a perpetrator, because it gives him the ability to retreat with less loss of face.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 01:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 01:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 01:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-16 10:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-16 10:34 pm (UTC)It's important that if any more letters show up, let me or
no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 02:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 03:00 am (UTC)(this observation is for informative purposes only)
no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 06:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 12:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 04:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 11:38 am (UTC)Oopsie! (http://prsync.com/monsarrat/jon-monsarrat-brings-general-electric-and-citigroup-power-to-expose-cyberbullies-542401/)
no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 11:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 01:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-17 02:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-20 12:04 pm (UTC)That was [initiated by] my handiwork *curtsey*. I'm not the lawyer, but I know one, and she's got her hackles up over this BS on our behalf. We fully expect these jerks to fuck off now, but we'll see what actually happens.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-23 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-24 01:45 pm (UTC)