He's threatening suit in federal court for libel, despite there is none, and his law license was suspended by the State Supreme Court.
Truth is the only defense; Blatherwatch told no lies, so we say, (sigh) bring it on.
On July 31, we reported that Marshall had sent us a cease and desist letter demanding we take down some reporting we did in 2005.
We've never been all that interested in this guy: but he once represented the late Mike Webb, and Marshall's past was a grubby sidebar to the Webb story. It was not original reporting, but rather fisking, and attributed paraphrasing and block quoting of The Seattle Times, The P-I, and the Washington State Bar Association Disciplinary Board.
(photo: Bradley Marshall)
Marshall was reprimanded and fined by the state bar in 1995. In another case, they tried to disbar him; he appealed to the state supreme court with former supreme court justice Phil Talmadge as his attorney.
The court concluded in 2007: "... suspension, rather than disbarment is appropriate here. Even so, a comparatively long suspension is warranted by the multiple violations and the fact that aggravating factors far outweigh mitigating ones. […] We therefore impose an 18-month suspension."
After reading our post, Darryl at Hominid Views, a researcher by profession, dug a little and found more juicy public records recounting great legal moments in Marshall's past.
His suspension doesn't end until November but not being a lawyer in
good standing didn't stop our Bradley from huffing like a python and
threatening us like we were somebody.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
As I have posted on my media blog, BlatherWatch, the facts and language I've used about you came verbatim from bar association disciplinary hearings records, The Seattle Times, and The Post-Intelligencer. As a journalist, I am well familiar with the rules regarding libel, and I've written nothing that comes close to libeling you.
Pursuing me legally will result in nothing more that your past problems being further disseminated in the public square.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Thank you for responding to my cease and desist letter. However, I was disappointed to learn that you have compounded the problem by publishing my correspondence on your blog. In an effort to work through this problem in a professional and respectful manner, i would request that you not publish our
communications while we are both in our present posture. If we can not work through this, then you are free to publish any further communications between us as you deem appropriate; but in the spirit of facilitating this discussion I would encourage you to not publish these communications.
You have implied that because the Times and the Bar have published information about me it must be correct and accurate. Nothing can be further from the truth. As a journalist and one employed by the Seattle Magazine, you well know that a journalist should never cite another writer's story unless you personally verify the facts or you are absolutely certain the facts have been critcally verified. Otherwise, as the law states, you cite the story at your own risk and peril.
You have suggested that the Post Intelligencer has published a disparaging story concerning me. My research of your suggestion can not be confirmed. I would appreciate more information regarding the alleged article.
As a journalist, you have violated the supreme credo: Verify your story. Statements published in the Bar News last year concerning the Jefferies matter can not be supported by objective and impartial evidence. I stand willing and ready to debate the issue at any time or place. In fact, you might want to read the dissenting opinion of three of the justices of the State Supreme Court who issued a strong and unwaivering opinion in that case; you might also want to read my brief to the state court or my brief to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in which I cite numerous consitutional violations in the Jefferies case. The Court of Appeals recently issued a stay after reading the brief. You might want to investigate the American Bar Association's 1993 and 2006 reports on the Washington State Bar Association's attorney disciplinary system. The ABA is forcefully critical of the disciplinary system, citing ethical and constitutional flaws in the system that directly impacted me. Finally, you might want to research the lawsuit I recently filed against the State Bar in the U.S Distict Court for the Western District of Washington. All of this information is available if you are willing to be fair and balanced in your reporting Mr. Hood.
If you had researched the substance of the articles written by the Times you would certainly know that most of what has been written is hyperbole, exaggerated, inaccurate and/or places me in a false light. The body of evidence that will serve to defend me is wide and deep, including written documentation, sworn witness testimony and other corrabative evidence that can not be refuted. Perhaps your research would have revealed what the Times' editorial staff wrote concerning the charges filed against me by the Bar. If you have simply taken the time to telephone me, I would have shared all of the information with you so that you could have made a judgment for yourself after knowing all of the facts. In fact, I remain willing to provide this information.
I trust that you will reconsider your position. I will be happy to
provide you all of the documentation so that you can reach a reasoned
decision. You have threatened me with more of the same if I pursue a
case against you. My grandfather once told me to never let fear cause
you to turn away from what you know to be right. If you choose to
continue with your campaign against me so be it. However, unless you
remove the false and misleading information on your blog concerning
me, I will muster all the strength that is within me to redress the
harm that you have caused me and my family in a federal courtroom. I
truly hope that this will not be necessary.
Bradley R. Marshall
Ol' Blathe's bunched up a bit, now:
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Go after the Seattle newspapers if you've been defamed by them. Please don't try to bully little guys like me.
~ The P-I report in question is not "disparaging," but, I presume, accurate.
~ I've not published anything about the "Jeffries matter" whatever that may be.
~ "Redress" in "a federal courtroom?" That's ludicrous and you know it.
~ I am not an employee of Seattle magazine, nor have I ever been. I have been a freelance contributor.
~ There is no BlatherWatch "campaign against you," and never has been. You only came into view during the Mike Webb fraud case back in 2005.
~ I'll continue to daylight your correspondence and attempts to intimidate me as I see fit.
~ Are you not still under the 18-month suspension of your law license by the Washington State Supreme Court?
I have no interest in publishing anything more about you. Your legal threats, however, have assuredly made your name even more prominent on the Internet and an even higher profile for the mighty Google search engines.
The progressive blogging community in Seattle is close-knit and will jump to defend one of its own. The matter has already drawn attention from this prominent liberal blog.
If you pursue this, your exposure will certainly further metastasize on the Web, and you'll suddenly have many blogs and websites to swat at with your threatening letters.
If and when the Seattle Times and P-1 retracts or corrects their news reports about you, so will I. When the bar association pulls their records out of the public purview, I'll do the same.
sincerely, Michael Hood
I am very appreciative of your response and fully understand your sentiments but, Michael, I offered to provide to you all of the factual evidence supporting the inaccuracy of your stories, in an effort to persuade a mutually agreeable solution.
Your response seems to suggest that you are unwilling to review this material. This is your decision. However, the two links relating to me must be removed. As I mentioned, the PI has not written any false, slanderous or misleading articles. The Times, through its legal counsel, has offered what may be an acceptable remedy. My request to you and Blatherwatch is that the two links be removed. My offer to you is gracious and fair in light of the nearly two years that you have run the story. The more recent story is even more reprehensible and will not be tolerated for another the time it will take me to prepare a comprehensive U.S. District Court complaint; which I estimate will take less than 7 days to prepare.
I am prepared to execute a settlement agreement, wherein I will release you personally, Blatherwatch and its writers from all liability. This proposal may be accepted on or before August 15, 2008. Thereafter, I will file the lawsuit against you personally, any writer who contributed to any slanderous story about me, Blatherwatch, the Seattle Magazine and any other publications you may have been affiliated with during the time the subject storie(s) were written.
Bradley R. Marshall