Jim,

You clearly know precious little about law so I'll help you out a bit:

1) Slander is spoken defamation that is not published. What you are trying (again incorrectly) to alledge is called "libel". What you need, is a lawyer.

2) Libel must contain falsehood or actual malice, you've not illustrated any such thing. Hell you've not even made a specific claim to that regard. You've merely indicated displeasure by negativity expressed about you, which is understandable if irrelevant.

3) Insulting you is not necessarily libel, nor illegal. To illustrate this I will proceed to do so: I think you are an opportunistic jerk who harms others in pursuit of the spotlight. Sue me.

4) When stepping into the court of public opinion as you have in your pursuit of the spotlight, your case for alleging defamation requires additional burden of proof on your part. You will need to prove that the defaming party knew the statement to be false, that defamation was explicitly malicious in nature or that it was negligent.

5) Yes, you do need to attempt to substantiate your charge. If you choose to do so in court instead of in your attempt at a Cease and Desist you run the risk of being seen as using litigation frivolously. Furthermore doing so will assist you in point #4 above, in that you can illustrate that the defamer knows an untruth whose correction is refused.

6) To receive damages you will need to illustrate damages. Otherwise your suit will merely serve as a cease and desist with teeth. Thing is, I've asked you to substantiate your claim, if you can substantiate your claim of libelous defamation I will not reprint the article. If you see this as a matter for the courts to decide you'll merely waste a lot of money answering a direct query that you can answer for free right now.

Once again Jim: On what basis do you allege "slander"?

If you want to play 'law' with me, my recommendation to you is that you avail yourself of some rudimentary knowledge of law or hire counsel, otherwise you merely serve as a pathetic amusement.

Sincerely,

Robert Gentel


> Dear editors of xfamily.org,
> I have politely asked you to remove the defamatory article. I never said
> that you originated it, but since you have elected to publish it, I have
> asked you to remove it immediately. I will not, nor need not, attempt to
> establish the article as slanderous to you. A court of law with do that.
> I
> have given you a heads-up that I intend on taking legal action. If you
> have
> mistakenly confused legal remedy with "bullying" then you have mistaken my
> intentions. Once again, I intend on seeking legal remedy to have it
> removed. If you do not wish to comply with my request, I will then be
> forced to seek legal remedy against your site as well.
>
> I am sorry you have taken such an adverse position in regards to this
> matter. If you re-print the article after I have finished with legal
> proceedings with exfamily.org, then I will have no other avenue left at my
> disposal and I will then proceedto seek legal remedy against your site as
> well.
> Sincerely,
> Jim LaMattery
>
>
>>From: [email protected]
>>To: "james la mattery" <[email protected]>
>>CC: [email protected]
>>Subject: Re: REmove Post
>>Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 12:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>You have established no basis upon which the article is "slanderous".
>>Furthermore, the article in question does not exist on this website, it's
>>merely linked to.
>>
>>Should you succeed in bullying exfamily.org into removing the article I
>>will personally re-print in on xfamily.org as your legal threats are
>>without merit and baseless.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Robert Gentel
>>
>>
>> > Dear Editors,
>> > I am formally requesting that you remove immediately your post "Jim
>> > LaMattery Fighting the Family International- Leaving a Trail of
>>Collateral
>> > Damage?." As of today's date, August 19, 2006, I have sent legal
>> notice
>> > to
>> > the webmaster of exfamily.org to remove the original post in its
>>entirety.
>> > I
>> > will be seeking legal remedy against the webmaster of that site within
>>one
>> > week, if it is not removed by the time allotted. I understand that
>> your
>> > site
>> > did not author the subject article, but you have mistakenly
>> republished
>>it
>> > on your site.
>> > In the past, I have utilized the information that your site has
>> provided
>> > to
>> > the public as a reliable source regarding The Family International.
>> The
>> > article is a slanderous mis-representation of my character, and I will
>>be
>> > suing exfamly.org accordingly, if the original post is not removed.
>> > Please
>> > give my request adequate attention, and remove it from your site
>> > immediately. Your speedy repy is appreciated.
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Jim LaMattery
>> >
>> > Below is a copy of the legal notice that I have sent to the webmaster
>> at
>> > exfamily.org:
>> > Dear Webmaster,
>> > I will be filing a suit against your site for the "Jim LaMattery"
>>article
>> > you have posted on your front page, and on your GenX BB. The author of
>>the
>> > article has made slanderous mis-representations against my character.
>> > Notice
>> > will be served to your "Whois" identification of ownership M Johnson.
>>This
>> > is legal notice to remove the article in its entirety immediately upon
>> > receipt of this communication.
>> > I will proceed with legal remedy if the subject article is not removed
>> > within one week from today's date, August 19, 2006.
>> > Thank-you for your attention to this matter.
>> > Sincerely,
>> > Jim LaMattery
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Jim's being an idiot yet again. Apparently he took issue with an article on exfamily.org detailing his penchant to make legal threats against people who don't wish to deal with him and decided, surprise surprise, to make more baseless legal threats.

Dear Robert,
I am assuming that you are speaking for the owner of xfamily.org. It is
necessary for me to address the owner of the xfamily.org site. Because
ownership is hidden from the "Whois" information, I would appreciate it if
you would please inform me of who he/she is, and where I can post a
certified letter. Please indicate if you are indeed the owner of the site.

I will have my attorney address the legal format for reslolution of this
issue. I have asked your site to remove the subject post and I don't intend
on substantiating to you (as I have no idea if you are the owner of the site
or not) my claims. I have no intent on substantiating to the owner my claim
of harm. Nevertheless, I have communicated to you that the post has caused
me harm, and I have asked you to remove it. Substantiating my rights under
the law is something that I will have to do on Monday with my legal counsel,
as my attorney is unavailable during this weekend. I have no intention of
getting into legal terminology with you, trying to prove my case with you,
or even discussing intimate details of this issue. But please be advised
that I am hereby giving you legal notice that the article has caused me
harm, and I have politely asked you to remove your link to it immediately.
When I said I would be seeking legal remedy, I stated so because I am not a
lawyer, and I do not know what specific law has been broken, or what remedy
I have under the law. In my opinion, the article is misleading, malicious,
and an attempt to cause harm to my character. Substantiating this is my
attorney's job. So, I have simply given you notice that I believe that the
author of the article has, in my opinion, broken the law and caused me harm.
It will take an appointment with my attorney to ascertain what laws have
been broken, and what my remedy will be. So, although you are attempting to
give me legal advice, I respectively have to decline, as I already have
legal counsel.

I will need the name and address of the owner of your site in order for my
attorney to communicate with your legal counsel. Please provide it as soon
as possible.
I am also hereby informing you that you have no rights, expressed or
implied, to use my name or likeness on your site. Please remove the same
immediately. It is my sincere hope that we can resolve these issues in a
patient and legal manner.

Sincerely,
Jim LaMattery

> Dear Robert,
> I am assuming that you are speaking for the owner of xfamily.org. It is
> necessary for me to address the owner of the xfamily.org site. Because
> ownership is hidden from the "Whois" information, I would appreciate it if
> you would please inform me of who he/she is, and where I can post a
> certified letter. Please indicate if you are indeed the owner of the
> site.

Jim, I am the owner of the domain name xfamily.org. I have no legal, moral or ethical obligation to help you send this letter (your lawyer would know what to do) but since you seem as ignorant of ICANN regulations as you are of rudimentary law I feel obliged to lend you a hand (not out of compassion, but because I think the letter will bring me a great deal of amusement).

So to aid you in your attempt to tilt at windmills I graciously inform you that domains by proxy will forward your correspondence to me. So send your "certified letter" to the address in the whois information and it will reach me.

> I will have my attorney address the legal format for reslolution of this
> issue. I have asked your site to remove the subject post and I don't
> intend
> on substantiating to you (as I have no idea if you are the owner of the
> site
> or not) my claims. I have no intent on substantiating to the owner my
> claim
> of harm.

You can't even maintain consistency within the span of two sentences. LOL! You don't intend to substantiate your charges to me as I may not be the owner of the domain yet you also have no intent of substantiating your claims to said owner?

As I stated earlier, you have no legal ground to stand on and I welcome your attorney's involvment. He/she will either explain as much to you or accept your money while knowingly embarking on a futile pursuit at your expense. Either solution is risible.


> Nevertheless, I have communicated to you that the post has
> caused
> me harm, and I have asked you to remove it.

You still don't seem to understand defamation law. Whether or not it causes you harm does not make it legal or illegal. Other factors make it legal or illegal and harm is primarily used to establish damages for which the defendant is liable.


> Substantiating my rights
> under
> the law is something that I will have to do on Monday with my legal
> counsel,
> as my attorney is unavailable during this weekend.

In your initial correspondence today you claimed to have sent "legal notice" today. Given the vapid nature of your legal claims and your lacking legal expertise this is either foolish on your part or yet another example of your inability to remain consistent within a very short period of time.

> I have no intention of
> getting into legal terminology with you, trying to prove my case with you,
> or even discussing intimate details of this issue.

I don't blame you, I find it akin to a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

> But please be advised
> that I am hereby giving you legal notice that the article has caused me
> harm, and I have politely asked you to remove your link to it immediately.

I commend you for finally understanding that we don't even have the article on this site, and have merely linked to it. I will again graciously provide you with unsolicited (and subsequently unheeded) legal advice:

- Linking to a URI on the web is illegal only in very few circumstances (such as aiding and abetting DCMA violation). This is certainly not one of them. You may not even be able to get me in a courtroom over this link, much less lose a lawsuit and pay my legal bills.

> When I said I would be seeking legal remedy, I stated so because I am not
> a
> lawyer, and I do not know what specific law has been broken, or what
> remedy
> I have under the law.

I'm not a lawyer either (though I've commited substantial portions of law to memory) and even I can tell you that no law has been broken here. But if you prefer to spend your money to hear this again from a lawyer (or even more money to find out in court) I welcome your attempt to do so as I'm confident that you would be footing the bill.

> In my opinion, the article is misleading,
> malicious,
> and an attempt to cause harm to my character. Substantiating this is my
> attorney's job. So, I have simply given you notice that I believe that
> the
> author of the article has, in my opinion, broken the law and caused me
> harm.

And I, in turn, have given you notice that you are ignorant of the law and have no legal ground to stand on against the author of the article and even less against myself. I am not, however, gracious enough of an individual not to get a good laugh out of your folly.

> It will take an appointment with my attorney to ascertain what laws have
> been broken, and what my remedy will be.

Wrong again Jim! It will take breaking of the law in addition to that and this is that critical element lacking from this scenario. Your attorney may not have the temerity or integrity to tell you this as bluntly and you'll have to spend a your money finding this out the hard way. I'm fine with you spending money on our legal bills Jim, especially after all this free advice I'm providing.

> So, although you are attempting
> to
> give me legal advice, I respectively have to decline, as I already have
> legal counsel.

You would do well to avail yourself of it prior to playing lawyer yourself, to spare yourself the embarassment of these idiotic threats.

> I will need the name and address of the owner of your site in order for my
> attorney to communicate with your legal counsel. Please provide it as
> soon
> as possible.

My name is Robert Gentel. You can send correspondence to the following address and it will be forwarded to me:

Private, Registration [email protected]
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

As an additional courtesy I would like to inform you that I will be out of the country on business from the 25th of August to the 4th of September. Feel free to copy your correspondence to me by email [email protected] as I would enjoy a laugh or two at your expense while overseas.

> I am also hereby informing you that you have no rights, expressed or
> implied, to use my name or likeness on your site. Please remove the same
> immediately.

I am hereby informing you that you are wrong and that I have no intention of doing anything of the sort. You have no legal grounds to make this petulant and baseless demand.

> It is my sincere hope that we can resolve these issues in a
> patient and legal manner.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim LaMattery

It is my sincere hope that you keep sending me these hillarious and illegitimate threats and "legal notices" as I've not had correspondence with such a foolish counterpart in a long time.

Robert Gentel

Jim, I once again posted another link to the article - please don't forget to sue me too. I think the perfect person to advise you on this is Jeff Merkey.

Jim,

You are threatening to sue me and being a general nuisance. I wouldn't even piss on you if you were on fire. Why would I try to help you identify someone you are also threatening?

Robert Gentel

> Robert-
> Do you know who "WC" is? I have some confirmation that it is Ed Priebe.
> Can you confirm this?
> Thanks!
> Jim
>
>
>

Jim,

Weren't you supposed to avail yourself of your lawyer's advice on Monday? You persist in playing 'law' and doing so poorly. I suspect you have no intention of seeking counsel and it's more of your bluster. I hope that I'm wrong because the notion of your lawyer laughing behind your back is one I've cherished this weekend.

> Here's an interesting website dedicated to internet law:
> http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html#Defamation

Because it's funny, I'll keep explaining to you how defamation law works. You might want to change the way you approach this from 'how can I call this illegal?' to 'is this actually illegal?' as your strong desire to believe that whatever you don't like to hear about yourself constitutes crime is clouding your reason.

> The term defamation refers to a false statement made about someone or some
> organization that is damaging to their reputation.

Read this part of the page your are quoting Jim. Then read it again. Repeat until you finally realize that falsehood is integral to your claim of defamation.

Get it? The criteria is not 'what makes Jimbo mad'. The criteria is falsehood. You've not established a single falsehood in the article you are pitching a fit over.

> An example defamatory link would be: This man killed my cat, stole my
> invention, and threatened to destroy the Internet. The statement itself
> does
> not identify the party. The link itself (assuming it actually linked to
> someone) provides the context that turns the statement into defamation.

In this example the word 'man' was linked to a page that identifies the individual about whom the spurious claim is being made. Were the claim truthful there would be no defamation. Furthermore, the link itself is not defamatory without the context of the falsehood and defamation that surrounds it.

xfamily.org merely links to an article about you that you have expressed displeasure with, but whose veracity you've not challenged.

I repeat, there is nothing whatsoever that is illegal about the article and even if there were, there's nothing illegal about the link without additional context that is lacking in this case.

You may not understand this, but I can't be faulted for your daftitude. I can, however, continue to recommend that you seek counsel and hope that a lawyer can help you understand this before a court of law has to hammer it home to you (together with our legal bills you'd be footing).

> So help me understand. Are you saying that if I am successful in having
> the
> webmaster of exfamily.org remove the article, you intend on re-publishing
> it
> despite their removal of it?

Yes. I've already saved it on my computer for this purpose. See, to the best of my knowledge the article is accurate. And unless I find out otherwise I intend to republish it if you succeed in threatening exfamily.org into its removal.

The article details your penchant for threatening people and the fact that you are threatening people over the article only highlights the reasons it was written.

Robert Gentel

> Robert-
> Here's an interesting website dedicated to internet law:
> http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html#Defamation
>
> Here's an appropriate quote:
>
> Defamation:
>
> The term defamation refers to a false statement made about someone or some
> organization that is damaging to their reputation. The law of defamation
> is
> complex, as it has been determined by numerous court decisions rather than
> one national statute. In addition, claims of defamation are subject to
> first
> amendment defenses. As a result, a full explanation of defamation will not
> be set forth here. However, it should be noted that a link to another's
> page
> or image could be defamatory, and hence subject someone to legal
> liability.
> An example defamatory link would be: This man killed my cat, stole my
> invention, and threatened to destroy the Internet. The statement itself
> does
> not identify the party. The link itself (assuming it actually linked to
> someone) provides the context that turns the statement into defamation.
>
> -What's interesting to me is that since the internet is so new in terms of
> adjudcation, judges have to sort intepretations of the law out, ie:
> decisions have been made by nurmerous courts decisions, rather than one
> national statute. Its a complex legal field that I will have to rely upon
> trained and experienced individuals who practice this kind of law to seek
> remedy. But the defamation of the article you have linked to is rather
> simple and obvious. You may not see it that way. Here's where
> adjudication
> helps all parties- to see it in clear legal terms.
>
> So help me understand. Are you saying that if I am successful in having
> the
> webmaster of exfamily.org remove the article, you intend on re-publishing
> it
> despite their removal of it?
>
> Sincerely,
> Jim LaMattery
>

Jim,
For the record, I personally added the link in question to the
xFamily.org wiki at 19:54 on 3 June 2006. I take full responsibility for
it and if you are going to sue anyone, please, please sue me as I
would find that very amusing. I think you are an idiot who deserves
to be legally eviscerated by a vast horde of Vandari lawyers,
but the link was not added with any malice towards you personally but only so that people are
fully informed about your shameful and disgraceful behaviour.

Please also note that virtually every page on http://www.frouman.net/
now links to the article in question in a special links section for
people like you and Ms. Borowik titled "Kooks and Crackpots." This
section is reserved for kooks and crackpots who write letters making
absurd legal threats.

So, if you are going to sue anyone, please don't forget to sue me.

Sincerely,
Peter S. Frouman

On 20/08/06, james la mattery <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert,
> It appears that you linked to the subject posted article with malice towards
> me personally. I don't understand this as I don't know who you are. But I
> suggest that you understand that I am not threatening you when I say I will
> seek legal remedy for the malicious and defaming post. Please understand
> that I have no ill will against you, I don't believe we've ever met, but if
> we have, maybe you can enlighten me as to why the attacks? Regarding "WC"
> it appears that I may be able to obtain his/her name legally, so thanks
> anyway, I will pursue that course.
> Sincerely,
> Jim LaMattery

> It appears that you linked to the subject posted article with malice
> towards
> me personally.

You don't say? How does it appear so? I find that hard to believe given
that I did not post the link to the article at all, must less with the
'malice' you allege. You are full of BS Jim.

Here's my take: You've been slowly absorbing my elucidation on defamation
law, and happened to notice that malice and falsehood are integral
qualities to most defamation claims. Since the article you are whining
about is truthful you are trying to allege malice. Do note that you've
done so falsely Jim. ;-)

It's as transparent a stretch as it is irrelevant. Here it is again for
you Jim: There's nothing illegal about the article and you will not
succeed in suppressing it.


> But I suggest that you understand that I am not threatening
> you when I say I will seek legal remedy for the malicious
> and defaming post.

It's neither defaming nor illegal. Furthermore you *are* threatening
lawsuits. Baseless threats, but threats nonetheless.


> Please understand that I have no ill will against you,
> I don't believe we've ever met, but if we have, maybe you
> can enlighten me as to why the attacks?

I've already explained this to you. I think you are a jerk who harms other
people while bullying your way to the spotlight. You can read more here:
http://tinyurl.com/rtqs5

Robert Gentel

> Robert,
> It appears that you linked to the subject posted article with malice
> towards
> me personally. I don't understand this as I don't know who you are. But
> I
> suggest that you understand that I am not threatening you when I say I
> will
> seek legal remedy for the malicious and defaming post. Please understand
> that I have no ill will against you, I don't believe we've ever met, but
> if
> we have, maybe you can enlighten me as to why the attacks? Regarding "WC"
> it appears that I may be able to obtain his/her name legally, so thanks
> anyway, I will pursue that course.
> Sincerely,
> Jim LaMattery
>
>

I was just watching Jim LaMattery and his daughter on the Dr Phil television show which was posted on youtube. On the show LaMattery's own daughter was accusing him of trying to benefit out of his experience with TF financially, she said that LaMattery doesn't really care about the issues relating to TF and those who were abused, but he's more interested in benefiting financially from his involvement with the group.

I don't know if this help's in understanding what's going on with this Mr LaMattery, but it seem's like this man's legal attack against xfamily is unjustified, and it also seems he has hidden and alterior motives, judging from the testimony of his daughter and his actions.

I'm not here to judge anyone, I'm just describing what I've observed, any other information anyone wishes to add is appreciated. Constructive critisism also welcome.

Well at least his is making a legal attack against the FI and I at least support him there.