And getting that e-mail was a delicious irony in the wake of Monday's post on Anti-SLAPP legislation, "critics" and "douche-bags".
(Spoiler alert: In this particular instance, I am "the critic". The candidate-for-public-office who sent it is, in my OPINION, something else.)
The e-mail was from candidate-for-Guilford-County-Commissioner (District 3), (as opposed to radio DJ) and the Greensboro blogosphere's resident lawyer, Sam Spagnola.
AND I HAVE NEWS FOR CANDIDATE SPAGNOLA. TWELVE YEARS AFTER RANDOLPH, I DON'T JUST CURL INTO THE FETAL POSITION ANY MORE WHEN A LAWYER STOMPS HIS FEET.
Sam's e-mail was not "off-the record". And I've decided not to do the dueling Inbox thing, but instead (in addition to commenting at Joe's), respond here. I'm doing that realizing that Sam-the-clear-underdog-in-this-race might be theorizing that any publicity about his campaign is good publicity. Getting a little blog-war stirred up . . . making the campaign about hating Mary . . . bumping up traffic . . . might be strategy.
But at face value, our candidate for Guilford County Commissioner is a little put out with Dr. Mary. I've not jumped on his little "hope & change is really deep red" bandwagon solely for the sake of ideology. But, you see, I grew out of that when I realized that "progressives" were just deep blues in a newer opaque suit.
Here's the text of Sam's e-mail (the header read, "Publishing False Information"):
I have never said that "bad faith does not matter in North Carolina courtrooms". That is a false and libelous statement that you need to correct immediately.
You may not like my take on your case, but that does not give you the right to spread falsehoods regarding my position on ethics. The world does not revolve around you and your case and I suggest that you stop trying to drag me into it. I don't care that you don't like my opinion on it but I will not allow you to lie about me or my ethics. I am not relevant to your case in any way.
I have a professional reputation to maintain and false statements about my professional ethics will not be tolerated. I suggest you correct the false characterization of my words and immediately and stop referring to me in your posts. I have NOTHING to do with your case.
Samuel S. Spagnola
Now, counting to ten would not have helped at all with this one, so the response was composed fairly quickly.
My dear, dear Sam,
I think this is the most PATHETIC e-mail I've ever gotten from a lawyer.
I AM A PRIVATE CITIZEN EXPRESSING AN HONEST OPINION ABOUT A PUBLIC FIGURE (YOU). Moreover, you are among one of several bloggers in the Greensboro ether who hasn't ever given a royal damn about my professional reputation as you spewed your bile. It's always been, club (or should I say "Cone"?) Mary like a baby seal first, ask questions later.
OBTW, please do not even get me started on your sometimes-buddy-in-filing-lawsuits, Roch Smith, Jr., and the subject of MALICE.
SO IF ANYONE IS OWED AN APOLOGY, IT'S ME. NOT HOLDING MY BREATH.
I did not "drag" you into anything. You and your massive legal EGO jumped in. You have published/said some pretty despicable things about/to me in this ether. Moreover, for the record, I've NEVER dished out anything remotely close to what I've taken . . . from you or Cone-of-the-Cones or Roch Smith, Jr. or "Fec" or anyone else. I've done my very best not to get angry (not always successfully) and to meticulously counter with facts . . . facts that you/others like you seem determined to IGNORE because it might burst your bubbles or disrupt your Google-carts.
If it's your argument that you have "nothing to do with my case" . . . and you could not support my cause (we'll get to what that cause is in a minute) . . . or be encouraging in any way . . . then perhaps YOU should have kept your own mouth shut.
Your position on "ethics" is fairly clear to me (and, for the record, a number of other people) based on your published "take" on my case.
Let's take a look at that "take" right here and right now.
According to Sam Spagnola, a local conservative lawyer (like we need another lawyer in office) who often pontificates on healthcare reform, this lowly-lady-doctor-totally-hosed-in-a-public-service-gig-in-her-own-hometown is supposed to just accept all of the slimy, amoral, unethical things that other lawyers (big bad corporate ones) in his precious, noble legal system did to her because she did her duty (hell, because she went above and beyond) . . . ugly, nasty, malice-soaked ILLEGAL things that the N.C. State Bar & N.C. Attorney General have so far condoned with inaction and silence . . . . . . as the way things are, and get over it.
What exactly, do pray tell, about that synopsis of your position is "false" or inaccurate?
Sam, you keep harping on the fact that I settled my case against Randolph Hospital ten years ago. But you MISS THE POINT (or more likely, CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT) that the civil suit(s) were settled fraudulently based on a pack of lies.
That's PERJURY, Sam. It's A FELONY. And it has NO statute of limitations (ergo, it does not matter if it happened yesterday or twenty years ago). It was reported almost seven years ago . . . and has yet to be properly investigated by ANYONE because (1) Federally speaking, if you're not a terrorist plotting the murder of thousands of Americans you have no civil rights, and (2) a local DA has buried the case.
It's also called BAD FAITH and BAD FAITH corrupts/negates the settlement.
THIS IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 101, SAM.
In addition to the DUE PROCESS that I never ever got from anybody, these things are VERY SIMPLE/BASIC LEGAL CONCEPTS. And these concepts are the reason I came to the blogosphere . . . to get some help from people who said they care about truth, justice and the American way - people who profess to crave accountability and transparency and better government oversight.
It was my hope to maybe even plant the seed of some much-needed medico-legal (legislative) reform in this uber-corrupt state.
With Raleigh imploding in on its rotten core, as a lawyer . . . hell as a ordinary blogging citizen . . . you do agree that we've got some serious corruption problems, yes?
But what did Sam Spagnola, lawyer and now candidate-for-public office do when Dr. Mary Johnson, victim of a "non-profit's" malice (and our government's apathy/corruption), begged for a little kindness and consideration and (even) help from the citizen-journalists in the blogosphere?
Instead of saying, "What happened to Mary was/is wrong and I'm personally & professionally disturbed by it . . . she clearly suffered horribly at the hands of people in my profession (and hers) . . . and it's a story right-under-our-noses that resoundlingly demonstrates why we so desperately need REAL healthcare reform" (as others in this blogosphere - including those who support your bid for office - have done) . . . instead of offering encouragement to someone deeply wounded by a broken system of medical and legal oversight . . . Sam Spagnola, lawyer and now-political-candidate stuck up his eminent/omnipotent legal nose and told Dr. Mary Johnson that she needed to "shut up about it" (it really does remind me of John Edwards making lame excuses for Clinton at his impeachment trial - OBTW, I really am loving this).
And/so, Sam, as far as I am concerned, in your public statements and "analyses" of my case, you most certainly HAVE excused perjury (and bad faith). What's more, if you think that these things are all and only about me, you really ARE denser than your oh-so-eloquent (and cruel) "shut up about it" demonstrated you to be.
What I've done is called "fair comment and criticism". And it's not even a stretch. The logic is quite sound. Furthermore, there's been no "reckless" (or should I say, Fecless?) disregard" for the truth.
And/so your "publishing false information" so-called "claim" is a sad, sorry joke. WHY do you lawyers think you can pull these stunts and everyone will run for cover?
I note you did not mention the cyberstalking case in this e-mail - but you did at Joe's. Your "argument" there seems to be that the lady DESERVES what a "Fecund Stench" dished out because something she said on a blog made the GSO blogosphere's resident angry white man even angrier. Following the logic isn't very hard there either: It's okay to counter the strong opinions that are often expressed on blogs with threats against someone's person & livelihood . . . not to mention (very real) libel.
You might as well be Martin's defense attorney. No, wait. An Asheboro City Council member is already doing that.
I have an opinion about what you've published/said in the past, and I'm expressing it. In a free country I believe it's called countering speech with speech. And in this instance, that speech is both true & heart-felt.
Moreover, I do not respond well to threats . . . especially threats of SLAPP suits. You just hit the PTSD mother-load. Of course, I expect that's what you were trying to provoke.
You are running for public office. That makes you a public figure. I'm sure you studied all of the these things I've talked about here in law school. But you act like you missed ALL the classes.
As a public figure, the things you have said and published on the blogs (to anyone) are open to criticism and even interpretation (as you yourself demonstrate on your blog every day).
And/so, Sam, you do not have a LEGAL leg to stand on with regards to ANY kind of "libel" claim, and, as a lawyer, you damned-well KNOW it. A judge would laugh you out of the courtroom. So you can take your e-mail and your (inferred/implied/whatever) threat and you can STUFF IT.I realize you hail from an adversarial profession/environment. But if THIS is an example of how your are going to conduct yourself . . . or respond to criticism in public office, I think my take on your case is spot-on.
One more thing. It also seems to me that you have a problem with women-of-substance who disagree with you - or point out flaws in your logic (or in my case, lack thereof). It's a quality I've encountered along the way in my own professional path . . . unfortunately, a bigger problem amongst those who label themselves "conservatives" . . . and I don't think it's a quality that serves anyone in public office well.
Your campaign is not about Dr. Mary Johnson unless you make it so. But if you choose to do that, I CAN SO GO THERE!
Here's some advice: Grow up and run your campaign like an adult instead of a school-yard bully (you'll forgive me if I don't donate . . . I've given enough money to do-nothing lawyers over the the years).
In this case, perhaps you should make like a politician and back-track.
Mary H. Johnson, M.D., FAAP
Asheboro, N.C.
(Translation: Not even a potential constituent.)
Sam Spagnola, the lawyer and candidate for public office has a choice now. He can make like a Clinton (or a Morrison/Eblin for that matter) and escalate this even further than his beyond-stupid e-mail already did . . . he can bang his little red drum and blow the smoke/splatter the snake-oil and chant his tired/old "it's all about Mary" chant (then we can call it the "Sam and Mary" show) . . .
. . . OR he can take this time to re-evaluate some of his previous "analyses" . . .
. . . and maybe change his own tone/tune. Because his brand of "tea" is tepid and stale.
But make no mistake. These days, Dr. Mary is DONE with the garbage, and she SLAPPS back.
