Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Malonis Mails Me! (How do you "represent" a "Sock Puppet?")

Seriously, now Malonis acknowledges an attorney client relationship with TxBluesMan.

September 30, 2009

Mr. Hugh McBryde
Via email: hughmcbryde@gmail.com

RE: Txbluesman

Dear Mr. McBryde,



I have been engaged by "txbluesman" (txbluesman@live.com/coramnonjudice.blogspot.com) to represent his legal interests in connection with potential criminal and/or civil actions which you anticipate may be taken against you as a result of your presence and activities on the World Wide Web. "Txbluesman" has informed me that, for purposes unknown to him, you have indicated that you may attempt to serve papers upon him. In that regard, please direct all communications to me at the address listed below, save and except those papers to which "txbluesman" is entitled to personal service or service by process.

If you have any questions, please contact me at this email address or the mailing address listed below.

Sincerely,

Natalie E. Malonis

The Malonis Law Firn
Attorneys and Counselors
1173 Bent Oaks Court, Suite 200
Denton, Texas 76210
The header:
Delivered-To: hughmcbryde@gmail.com
Received: by 10.151.111.20 with SMTP id o20cs310695ybm;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.79.140 with SMTP id p12mr905487vck.57.1254357854935;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path:
Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (imr-ma05.mx.aol.com [64.12.100.31])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 6si14069198vws.141.2009.09.30.17.44.14;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.12.100.31 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of nmalonis@nmalonis.com) client-ip=64.12.100.31;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 64.12.100.31 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of nmalonis@nmalonis.com) smtp.mail=nmalonis@nmalonis.com
Received: from imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (imo-ma01.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.136])
by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n910iAtx010991;
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:44:10 -0400
Received: from nmalonis@nmalonis.com
by imo-ma01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.5.) id o.d0a.593bd151 (37093);
Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:44:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [10.76.198.22] (166-205-007-002.mobile.mymmode.com [166.205.7.2]) by cia-db07.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIADB073-90e54ac3fb5213; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:44:06 -0400
References: <592e90970909301133l6e8397e0wca6bbe56b324760a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <73925C61-D6EC-49DE-8E24-93421767B92F@nmalonis.com>
From: Natalie Malonis
To: "hughmcbryde@gmail.com"
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii;
format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7A400)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7A400)
Subject: Txbluesman
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:43:51 -0500
Cc: "txbluesman@live.com"
X-AOL-IP: 166.205.7.2
X-Spam-Flag:NO
X-AOL-SENDER: nmalonis@nmalonis.com
Hmmm, be careful for what you beg? You just might get it?

Thanks Blues. Christmas early this year.

Thanks to Nat.

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

(Hugs)

Oh, I replied after careful consideration:
You don't represent Jack you daffy twit.

"Txbluesman" (txbluesman@live.com/coramnonjudice.blogspot.com) is not an entity. Unless you can demonstrate to me that you represent an actual person or fictitious person (such as a partnership, LLC, or Corporation), your contention is ludicrous on the face.

I apologize and retract the above if it turns out you do have a client in association with this matter, whose name is "Jack."

Hugh McBryde
PO Box ***
Montpelier VT, 05601-****


Sphere: Related Content

6 comments:

Rick Beckman said...

Is it common practice for lawyers to get in touch *via e-mail*? That seems a bit unprofessional, I guess, but I've never, ever had any official dealings with a lawyer, so I don't know how they conduct business.

It just seems like a professional letter on law firm letterhead would seem the proper method... or perhaps even a phone call.

The Pharisee said...

Malonis is a real attorney. It seems it's believed that intimidation is in order.

It's silly really, I had contacted Malonis' alleged client because on that clients site, threats were being made, against me.

The content of the letter was essentially, if you countenance that kind of thing I'll go legal. The reason would be to discover (if possible) what troll was behind the threats.

And so, I got this charming missive.

I think it's a great gift for persons who wish to sue the blogger who runs Coram, because there are a few. They now have his legal representation and they can go to town if they want to.

Having provided that pathway even though that was hardly what I set out to do, I am content.

What I wanted actually, was to have such threats removed, to show that even the Sock Puppet that is "Blues" wasn't going to use his site to transmit threats.

Instead the troll decided to see that as a threat, towards him.

No Blues, it was never a threat, it was always a promise. If I think for a second that a disaster brought in my life may be traceable to someone Blues knew, I would be asking who first Blues was and then who the friend was.

That's apparently a threat.

From a sock puppet.

Who provides a platform.

For threats.

Puck said...

"Is it common practice for lawyers to get in touch *via e-mail*? "


For Malonis? Yes. It's cheap ;)

The Pharisee said...

I like my lawyers, cheap.

Dale Kemp said...

It is common practice for Malonis.

Did you get one of those emails she sent to everybody in her address book when she changed law firms?

An acquaintance of mine did because she communicated with him via email to threaten him too if I remember correctly.

The Pharisee said...

Nah, never got one of those, I rarely mail others, on the "other side."

Frankly, at the moment, I'm trying to brush them all off.

Malonis and Blues have made a huge blunder.

Because they have both acknowledged a "lawyer-client" relationship, I get to treat Malonis as Blues representative when I want to. She purports to know and represent Blues.

I don't have to treat hear claims seriously when I don't want to. The entity she purports to represent is ill defined.

For all I know several people contribute to "Coram," it might account for why it is so hard to nail down who Blues is.

To prove to me she represents Blues, Malonis must identify Blues.

For me to communicate with her as a proxy for Blues, I can take her at her word. I can switch horses whenever I want to.