Tag Archive | lying lawyers
December 28, 2024  

A Law License Is Not a Free Pass to Defame

James K. Trefil of the law firm Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP wrote a defamatory letter to the company that owns WordPress, this blog’s host. Mr. Trefil’s intent was to scare WordPress into deleting this blog. It was supposedly mailed on December 19, 2024, according to court documents filed by Mr. Trefil.

Thus far, and to the credit of WordPress and Automattic, Inc., you are still able to read my blog.

Here is a copy of the letter:

Doc 299-1 exhibit A Letter demanding to remove my blogDownload

Here is a letter I just emailed to Mr. Trefil and will put in the mail when it stops raining.

Signed scan defamation retraction letterDownload

ChatGPT is not an attorney. It is a tool that uses artificial intelligence. It is a good sounding board, that offers avenues to explore with more authoritative sources. Here is what ChatGPT had to say about the defamatory letter and whether an attorney could be found liable for damages caused by a defamatory letter to a non-governmental agency.

Yes, a lawyer can potentially be found guilty of defamation for statements made in a letter to a non-governmental agency, even if those statements are made on behalf of their client. However, whether the lawyer can be held liable depends on several factors:

Key Considerations:

  1. Privilege:
    • Absolute Privilege: Lawyers generally have absolute privilege for statements made in court filings, during litigation, or in other official judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. This privilege does not extend to communications with non-governmental agencies unless those communications are part of such a proceeding.
    • Qualified Privilege: If the communication is related to a matter of mutual interest or made in good faith, a lawyer may have qualified privilege. However, this can be lost if the statement is made with malice or without a legitimate basis.
  2. Truth as a Defense: Defamation requires the statement to be false. If the statements made in the letter are true, the lawyer cannot be held liable for defamation, regardless of how damaging they are.
  3. Malice: If the lawyer makes statements with actual malice—knowing they are false or with reckless disregard for the truth—they could be held liable for defamation.
  4. Role and Intent:
    • If the lawyer is merely relaying information provided by the client, their liability could depend on whether they exercised reasonable care in verifying the claims before making them.
    • If the lawyer independently makes defamatory statements, they may face greater liability.
  5. Non-Privileged Contexts: Communications with non-governmental agencies, especially those unrelated to litigation, are less likely to be protected by absolute privilege. For instance, a letter to a private organization or regulatory body could expose the lawyer to liability if it contains defamatory remarks and lacks privilege or justification.

Stay tuned.

November 14, 2024  

Defending the use of chemical restraints, full physical restraints and then generating a $46,000 bill for the false imprisonment and battery victim

The University of Arkansas Medical Sciences (UAMS), a publicly funded institution, claims to serve the public good. Yet, when policies are violated, and harm is done, how often do they admit fault? My experience suggests: not often.

My father, Dr. Norman H. Kramer, was the first student accepted into UCLA Medical School and one of its most generous benefactors. Medicine runs deep in my family, and my respect for the field is unwavering. This makes it even more painful to confront the failings of UAMS.

This post isn’t about condemning doctors or healthcare workers. It’s about holding the administration and their lawyers accountable for condoning violations of UAMS policies, ethical norms, and even Arkansas criminal laws.

Why do lawyers have such a hard time saying, “my client was wrong”? “How do we make this right?”

Here are the claim my son and I filed against the hospital, and the disingenuous answer. Finally, there is another YouTube video that shows my son two days after he was allowed to leave the $4,700 per day ICU against medical advice. With no help, he looked at his Amazon account, packaged and addressed a book he sold, gave me directions to the post office because he liked his way better than GPS, and as you see, he dropped off the package and waved at a clerk who said, “How you been?” Even after being tortured for two weeks while he should have been resting peacefully at home, he doesn’t look and wasn’t in fact in critical condition.

Unfortunately, rather than addressing the harm caused, UAMS’s legal team, led by Sherri Robinson, has chosen to prolong the fight, costing taxpayers millions in legal fees and salaries for the medical staff that will need to be called as witnesses. Meanwhile, we are seeking just $275,000 for the harm done by UAMS as a government entity.

Amended claim filed Arkansas Claims CommissionDownload
UAMS Answer filed UntimelyDownload