Has Arthur Alan Wolk Finally Learned That He Cannot Sue Every Critic?

by Paul Alan Levy

As I noted in an update to my previous blog post about him, Arthur Alan Wolk responded to the post by threatening to sue me, and then suing me three days later, albeit without filing an actual complaint that would tell me the basis for his complaint against me.  On the same day, he threatened to sue another lawyer blogger, Scott Greenfield, and two days later he threatened to sue the Techdirt blog. 

This time, however, Wolk had a new experience.   Instead of expressing concern about his threats, Techdirt, Greenfield and Public Citizen have defied him, promising not to be silenced.

Last Sunday night at 10 PM, Wolk filed a praecipe to discontinue the lawsuit that he had filed against Public Citizen and me.  Because he had previously dismissed the lawsuit that I originally criticized, this meant that there was no longer any lawsuit pending against the Levine Sullivan firm and various others of the defendants named in that suit.  Wolk did, however, follow that up this past Monday with the following warning:

    I am assembling a lawsuit against you and others that will be filed shortly. Many, based on your incredible misrepresentations, have followed suit to continue this non-stop defamation of a person who has done more for the protection of the rights you claim to support than your organization ever dreamed of.

    You owe me a public apology for not getting the facts right and then twisting them to damage me in my efforts to make sure that people who need it are compensated for aircraft accidents caused by  the manufacturers who through manipulation of our Government get away with murder. I have raised a thousand children , helped countless widows to pay their mortgages and health care and for food. How dare you diminish  my work and libel me like you did!

    I am appalled that knowing of my efforts and zeal to protect my clients that you didn’t at least reach out to me and get the facts. All you did was ask to see the exhibits which no doubt you would have published so that the false accusations of heinous crimes would be all over the internet again.  There are protections you should be fighting for that should protect people, citizens, children and others from internet and stalking and bullying. Instead you became a participant. Shame on you and your organization. Failing to get the facts straight for a lawyer is malpractice, but for someone who claims to be on the victims’ side, it is worse.

    For the moment, however brief, you are not a defendant but what you should do is correct the record so I don’t have to divert my resources and attention to something that never should have been published.
   

I responded by asking Wolk to specify what facts he contends I got wrong.  I have heard nothing from him since then, although I have continued to address his actions in other forums (here and here).  And neither Techdirt nor Greenfield has been sued, or received any further threats.

This leads me to wonder whether Wolk has finally come to the recognition that filing libel suits against his critics is not always the wisest way to respond to criticism.  In fact, I found it encouraging that Wolk posted a comment on the Volokh Conspiracy, taking issue with a blog post about the denial of Wolk’s motion to vacate based on the alleged “fraud on the court.”    Assuming that Wolk believes that he has persuasive arguments against the speech he doesn’t like, his best remedy ought to be more speech.

Wolk’s Specific Contentions Against Techdirt

Although Wolk has never told me the basis for his libel claims against me (other than his apparent belief that, as a consumer advocate, I should never criticize a champion of the widows and orphans of airplane crashes), his threat of litigation against Techdirt leads me to question his understanding of libel law.  In pertinent part, Wolk said this:

    You relied I believe on an equally erroneous posting by Paul Alan levy which is why he is now sued. Let me be very clear. I believe in the First Amendment but at the same time your abuse of it will not stand without a fight. I gave everyone including Mr. Levy and all the defendants in my lawsuit the opportunity to correctly report what they want and each declined. Fix this lying false and absurdly malicious article or I will sue you.
   
    I filed my original lawsuit on time. The judge was defrauded. The record is clear on that and if you had made even the slightest effort to read the complaint, read the Rule 60 Motion or anything else before running off at the mouth you would have known that. I am giving you the opportunity to correct your site without liability for your libel.

(A nitpick perhaps, but Wolk’s statement about giving me the opportunity to correct my report is inaccurate.  Indeed, I wrote to him before I posted to seek information about one aspect of his lawsuit; he never responded.  And his threat to sue me contained no specific statements about what he disputed and what he demanded I change)

Perhaps I am reading this too closely, but I understand Wolk to be telling Techdirt that its libel lay in disagreeing with Wolk about two statements: that Wolk’s original libel suit was filed on time, and that Judge McLaughlin was defrauded.

If that is all the threatened libel suit is about, Wolk would lose as a matter of law.  Both of these are largely questions of law and not questions of fact.  To be sure, there are underlying questions of fact – when did Wolk file his lawsuit? When was Frank’s content first posted on the blog?  What changes were made on the blogging site during the year 2008?  Did defense counsel tell the judge about the changes? But so far as I know there is no dispute about those facts.  The disagreement is about the legal consequences of those facts. Techdirt’s statements about those legal questions are opinions that not only are not actionable under Pennsylvania law (or the law of any other state) but, indeed, are protected by the First Amendment given the key principle that, under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea.

There are other serious problems with Wolk’s claim that he can sue Techdirt for disagreeing with his contention that Judge McLaughlin was defrauded.   First, as Techdirt’s second blog post about Wolk  points out, Judge McLaughlin rejected Wolk’s 60(b) motion, suggesting that she does not feel that she was defrauded.  Moreover, neither Techdirt nor I has accused anyone of fraud; it is Wolk who is accusing the lawyers for his litigation adversaries of fraud.  If anyone has published a libel, it would be Wolk (his briefs to the Court are absolutely privileged, of course, but his threatening communications are not).  The statement that lawyers other than Wolk have committed fraud is not “of and concerning” Wolk, and under libel law a plaintiff may only sue over statements “of and concerning” the plaintiff.   That is, in fact, a condition of liability under the First Amendment.  So, if the two statements identified in his threatening communication to Techdirt are what Wolk is threatening Techdirt over, his lawsuit would be frivolous.

Indeed, if I am reading his contentions correctly, one may well question whether Wolk has a firm grasp of modern libel law.  He is, to be sure, an aviation lawyer, so perhaps it is not fair to demand expertise in this very different area of tort law.  Still, he has been a plaintiff in about a dozen libel suits by now, so one would have expected that he would have picked up the rudiments by now.

Wolk’s Threat to Scott Greenfield

Questions about Wolk’s grasp of libel law are further confirmed by his public exchange with Scott Greenfield, a New York criminal defense lawyer and blawger who posted what seemed to me a pretty thoughtful piece entitled “Why Lawyers Can't Control the Web” and drawing together the cases of Joseph Rakowsky, Joel Hirschhorn, and Arthur Alan Wolk.  He suggested that many lawyers don’t understand the interplay between their legal contentions and sound public relations considerations.  Before quoting at length from Wolk’s (now dismissed) complaint, Greenfield said this: “Unlike Hirschhorn, Wolk sounds terribly sad and pathetic, an old lawyer trying to salvage his dignity in a world he doesn't know or understand, slinging some wild nastiness.” 

Wolk replied directly on Greenfield’s blog (as I had invited him to do on mine), but instead of addressing the facts his focus was on Greenfield’s adjectives:  
    “I am the pathetic old lawyer trying to salage his dignity you claim by suing internet stalkers and bullies like you.
    This old pathetic lawyer got an 89 million dollar verdict last year and has over one billion dollars in verdicts and settlements for air crash victims.” 

Wolk then went on to say,

“I don't mind honest criticism, but what you said about me is dishonest and a lie. Take the vindictives down and say you're sorry or join the crowd. Don't complain that I didn't give you a chance.
    I hope you have insurance.” 

Greenfield’s response, challenging Wolk to file suit, is classic and worth a read as well.

Does Wolk really believe that he can bring a successful libel suit over Greenfield’s use of “vindictives” (which, in context, plainly refers to the phrases “sad and pathetic . . . old lawyer”).  This is name-calling plain and simple, and one thing that is clear from libel law is that this sort of name-calling is non-actionable opinion.  So again, Wolk is threatening a libel suit he cannot possibly win on the merits.

An additional lesson can be drawn from the way his libel litigation is now being conducted.  Wolk’s original lawsuit against Olson and others was filed by a Philadelphia law firm on Wolk’s behalf; those lawyers filed the Rule 60 motion on Wolk’s behalf, and are still representing Wolk on appeal.   Wolk’s most recent suit against Olson — claiming that he reached a settlement with Walter Olson and trying to enforce that — was also brought for him by counsel.  But not even any of the junior lawyers in the Wolk firm have put their names on his new lawsuits against other defendants, perhaps because they are looking down the road to the Dragonetti Act stage of the case when the victims of Wolk’s libel litigation can turn the tables on him and proceed against him for damages and attorney fees, invoking a special Pennsylvania law that allows such countersuits.  Even lawyers may be joined as defendants if their culpability is sufficient. The number of typographical errors in Wolk’s pro se complaints and threats leads one to question whether he is even having his employees review his papers before he sends them out.
   
Will the Blogosphere Now Be Emboldened to Express Views About Wolk?
 
In my view, with his latest threats against Public Citizen, Techdirt and Greenfield, followed by his inaction when each of us stood up to him, Wolk has crossed an important line that will ultimately cost him the chilling effect that his persistent threats and suits had earned him. 

Indeed, it seems to me that Wolk has put himself into Zugzwang, where none of his next moves can help him.  By bringing new lawsuits against the Reason defendants in Los Angeles and against Ted Frank and the Manhattan Institute in New York, it appears that Wolk is beginning to come to terms with the personal jurisdiction problems of trying to sue all of his critics in Philadelphia.   It will be increasingly difficult for Wolk to sue more and more critics; Scott Greenfield is also in New York, but Techdirt is in Northern California; he risks spreading himself thin if he sues there too.  And the more defendants he adds into the case, the wilder his conspiracy theories seem.  In fact, adding Public Citizen and me as defendants runs counter to the basic theory of his previous complaints, which is that the criticism against him is part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down trial lawyers.   Is that why he has not filed a complaint – because he can’t work us into his conspiracy theory?  As Wolk brings in more defendants, it is more likely that judges will stop taking him seriously and will be unwilling to let him continue.

Moreover, the more defendants he adds, the greater the risk he runs that someone will bring a Dragonetti Act suit against him.  My general advice to clients has been to seek an award of fees where they are warranted but to refrain from filing malicious prosecution actions once they win their cases, because such suits end up being a distraction.  However, not every defendant may be so restrained.  

And yet, the chilling effect he has achieved will dissipate if he does not add every one of the new critics, especially those whom he has threatened.   Otherwise, other bloggers will learn that it is possible to criticize Wolk and even to defy his threats without facing suit.  In the update to my last post on this subject, I noted that some bloggers have told me that they are pulling their punches about Wolk because even the threat of frivolous litigation is intimidating. 

The example set by Public Citizen, Scott Greenfield and Techdirt in standing up to his threats may have some effect.  It is my sense that there is now a perception that Wolk has gone too far, and that law and policy bloggers have some responsibility to step up despite the risk.  We will see whether that happens in the coming weeks.

Comments

[Rich Gienopie]

Have you seen his latest work?
http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2016/02/05/main_line_times/news/doc56b4d00044fa5242111779.txt

[Justin]

"I hope that was a lame attempt at humor."

How dare you say that. I just recounted yesterday, but I guess five is a large number. http://twitter.com/#!/ArthurAlanWolk

Lest you think I lamely jest, my ambivalence about having a male TSA agent fondle my package is also true, so do not slander me with your thoughts. http://arthurwolk.blogspot.com/2010/11/arthur-alan-wolk-commentary-tsa-has-its.html

My name shall be revered, so I'm warning you not to associate it with that damn dirty ape from Star Trek or you'll be sorry. I demand an apology now, or I hope your insurance is up-to-date.

Sir Arthur Alan Wolk, Esquired

[Arthur Alan Wolk is a Nut Job]

Wolkie,

"I also know everything about the web. I've got a Facebook page and I've sent out 5 Tweets." I hope that was a lame attempt at humor.

You are a bully and the profession would be better without you in it.

The only thing I've learned from your rants is never hire Arthur Alan Wolk, he looks like a total nut job.

[JustinUrrkunt]

I know perfectly well how libel lawsuits work. I sue you and you have to waste time and money defending or you can just listen to me to begin with. I can stretch a lawsuit for this kind of nonsense out for years. If I have to, I'll sue the whole goddamn internet to get you assholes to quit talking about me. In fact I was thinking of hiring this young fellow, Joseph Rakofsky, who told me he knows everything there is to know about suing trash talkers.

There is no downside for me. I've been suing for defamation since before you were a blogger. I've even blogged since 1994 - although I eased up in 2010 to enjoy my vast . . . err, to help my thousands of children and orphans and widows get the compensation they're due. I know how easy it is to talk shit about someone else in a blog because I used to do it all of the time.

I also know everything about the web. I've got a Facebook page and I've sent out 5 Tweets.

Ask my former insurance company whom I've sued twice for talking shit about me and costing me more money in insurance premiums. That litigation is still going on after five years and I've already been through the appeals process once. I did however lose the defamation part of the suit because I filed past that goddamn one year statute of limitations. I couldn't use the same lame excuse that I used in Olson's case (http://tiny.tw/8sQ). But it doesn't matter since I've tied them all up in litigation for years.

Hell, in 1996 when I crashed my rare Korean war era jet in Kalamazoo, MI - it went off the end of the runway - and the NTSB said I caused the accident. I sued them. http://tiny.tw/8t8

I sued Teledyne - I'm not afraid of the Terminator either - and five other defendants who were saying stuff that a judge had said I did that they shouldn't have said. I can't tell you what they said (but it rhymes with mitigation obtuse) because I had asked District Court Judge Julie Carnes to reconsider that order as I had worked out a settlement for some orphans and widows and she went and sealed it. http://tiny.tw/8sN

Because Judge Carnes had stated in the now sealed order that I had done something wrong, I pursued her impeachment. I know she's against me because she was appointed by G. H. W. Bush.

I also sued the USA because the FBI refused to turn over Judge Carnes' investigative file that they make for anyone being considered for a district judge.

I've also been encouraging Congress to pass some legislation that is called "The Carnes Bill," which would create certain procedures to review the conduct of federal judges.

I also filed a confidential proceeding with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Judge Carnes bias against me because of some of the motions she denied (I had also asked her to recuse herself).

I was also writing a book entitled "The Judge," which is "about the corruption of power that is possible for a federal judge and how the system is designed to overlook the predilection to engage in such conduct, the subject being the litany of personal attacks by Judge Carnes on a man even she admits apparently was not the lawyer handling the case." http://tiny.tw/8sY

I'm debating whether to sue the USA for setting up that stupid 9/11 victim's fund. Not having all of that litigation cost me many millions of dollars. The terrorists won since I was unable to collect any contingency money on those claims.

Whatever you do, don't write what I said on my blog about my privates being groped by the TSA and me not knowing whether to be happy or sad.

So you see, I'm not afraid of dragging anyone that says anything bad about me to court and suing the pants off them, but if you grab my privates I'm ambivalent. You can't say I didn't warn you.

-Arthur Alan Wolk

P.S. Do you know what Barbara Streisand's house looks like?

[Gloria Grening Wolk]

It riles me that he has the same last name as the one I added through marriage. But we have nothing to do with each other (thank goodness), other than the infamy he is creating for the name.

I am in complete sympathy with all who he accuses since I've been the false victim of similar suits designed to shut me up. In my case, most of those who filed these lawsuits against me are either in federal prison or defending against criminal charges, or sweating out the likelihood of a criminal lawsuit.

I read Scott Greenfield's missives every day. He impresses me enormously. And that is saying a great deal because I have become terribly jaded about most lawyers. So, between Paul Levy and Scott Greenfield I have to conclude that the alien (to me) Wolk is not someone I care to know.

[Wolk is a Hack]

Wolk's first issue was not understanding how the internet works. By filing these idiotic claims and ridiculous threats all the unwise attorney did was be the primary instigator that will leave a permanent legacy online about what a totally mean-spirited and vindictive jerk he has proven himself to be. He brought the fuel and the match to his own stake burning.

His own actions have eroded the good reputation he may have developed suing propeller manufactures and helping orphans and widows. He's proven to be an illogical opponent and the next time I go up against him I now know the buttons to push to get him crazed with idiotic logic so I can nail him in court.

Even his own attorneys at his firm have said they want to run for cover and steer clear of this defective aircraft known as "The Wolk" which has just had an instrument panel failure and is about to auger in taking their reputations with him.

Thankfully we have people like Public Citizen, Scott Greenfield and Techdirt who are willing to stand up against the Wolk playground bullies of this world. And that's the way it should be.

Wolk is acting like a crazed child who needs a timeout and to repeat the last year of school in order to take internet criticism 101 over again. He obviously failed that class. His recent actions make me ashamed he's a member of our profession.

What would be interesting would be if we applied the many claims he's proffered in cases against defendants over his many years that were stabs in the dark and outright fabrications and applied the same hissy-fit approach he is taking. I'm sure his opposing counsel and defendants didn't like some of the statements he made. I didn't. Would Wolk like for his idiotic ass to be sued by them over that?

I did read Greenfield's piece and I have to agree with his statemet "Unlike Hirschhorn, Wolk sounds terribly sad and pathetic, an old lawyer trying to salvage his dignity in a world he doesn't know or understand, slinging some wild nastiness."

Oh Arthur Allan Wolk, the sad part is this didn't have to be the headstone on your career. You dug your own grave and it was all completely avoidable.