Liberal Utopia

What your world would be if everything liberals wanted, they got. Open the door at the bottom of its Elysium fa├žade and take a glimpse of hell.

'Kill All The Lawyers'


When he wrote that, Shakespeare probably had in mind the likes of Alan E. Korpady, King & Ballow Law Offices, 1100 Union Street Plaza, 315 Union Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37201, telephone: 615/259-3456, facsimile: 615/254-7907, www.kingballow.com, Direct Dial: (615) 726-5471, Direct Fax: (615) 726-5419, Email: akorpady@kingballow.com; La Jolla Office: La Jolla Eastgate, 9404 Genesee Avenue, Suite 340, La Jolla, California 92037-1355, telephone: 858/597-6000, facsimile: 858/597-6008.


he aforementioned "law" firm, in my opinion, to which I am entitled, gives the legal "profession" an even worse name. Which in itself is quite a massive accomplishment. How else would a reasonable person characterize a commercial operation that exists solely by virtue of the licensed privilege generously granted by the people of the State of Tennessee through their duly elected and appointed representatives and agents, to conduct business therein, but which unduly harasses, with wrongful demands and unethical threats of both legal and financial punishments, one of the people of that state who, as a humble, upright citizen thereof, is lawfully exercising her fundamental rights under the freedom of the press and freedom of speech guarantees of her own state and nation's constitutions? Especially when among its heads and associates are persons who, in their capacity as officers of one or more of our courts, together hold a most sacred position of public trust and honor not intended by the people of that or any other state to be occupied by practitioners of the following sort of legalistic bullyism (PDF page 1, page 2):

April 10, 2007

Ms. Katherine Coble


Your Blog: "Just Another Pretty Farce"
February 27, 2007 posting regarding JL Kirk Associates®

Dear Ms. Coble:

This firm represents JL Kirk Associates.

Now forever linked, as is your "law" firm, to "this story via Internet searches with the words 'scam,' 'fraud,' 'rip-off,' and 'con,'" Robed-Master-in-Training Korpady, Esq. All because you felt it would be a great boost to your already overlarge but fragile ego — the same, tiresome type so commonly found feverishly blistering those otherwise dank, empty, pointy skulls of practically everyone within your "profession" — to abuse even that megalomaniacal sense of power you mistakenly believe you possess over all us mere plebes, by delivering in the form of such certified/return-receipt tablet from on high Mount Sinai King & Ballow your harsh commandment of Thou Shalt Not Speaketh The Real Trutheth Abouteth Mineth The Lordeth Thy Godeth's Clienteth Undereth Anyeth Circumstanceseths to one of our true Lord's children, threatening to crush her over the head with that tablet if she does not meekly obey, to the letter, this Word of A Lawyer God forthwith.

A client, moreover, previously the subject of other complaints of a much harsher nature at, appropriately enough, RipOffReport.com. In its "Corrupt Companies" category.

Not to not mention separate complaints as well as numerous unflattering newspaper articles about Kirk Leipzig of Bernard Haldane JL Kirk Asshats-iates, to whom you sent a copy of your stone tablet. Or another JL Kirk Associates horror story, and another, along with a Nashville Channel 2 TV news story about your client (Puppy-Blending Hobo Exterminator).

You have a case against the RipOffReport.com complaints since, as the site itself opines, "the five reports filed are bogus and untrue." Your decision to instead shake up if not shake down the present object of your seemingly vindictive threats has only resulted in what people with computers and Internet access refer to as "backlash." An entirely predictable and avoidable backlash that, with its dredging up of not just any bogus complaints but the non-bogus ones too, in no way serves your client's best interests.

In the February 27, 2007, posting to your blog "Just Another Pretty Farce"

Links supplied via this Helpful Navigation Menu and Quasi Google Bombage®:

...you made the following false and defamatory statements about JL Kirk Associates:

Were ambulance chasers like yourself in possession of any real conscience, it might trouble a legitimate law firm's Entertainment Section associate to know: That the citizen he's been so vigorously threatening and viciously distressing with meritless lawsuits is actually telling the truth; That his firm has foolishly concented to represent an operation that resorts to such clearly unusual, highly unethical, if not blatantly unlawful business practices as asking "the person seeking a job put $4420 on a credit card, a non-refundable fee that allegedly puts all the efforts of the firm at the applicant's disposal," charging "a fee that sounds remarkably like what you just got on your tax return especially since, under the name Bernard Haldane, they built a reputation doing just that," insisting "that the spouse be brought along for the consultation in the hopes that one will be more scared than the other and they can play them against one another," and filing or threatening to file lawsuits against consumers who rightfully complain about those practices in a bald attempt to chill them from performing their civic duty to speak out as well as to silence their complaints; and That he himself is engaging in unethical practices of his own when he willfully misrepresents "the legal standard set out by Memphis Publishing Company v. Nichols" — a "case [that] was about a misleading newspaper article regarding a murder" — by, among other things, failing to "note the word 'misleading,'" and when he knows or should know that the "truth has always been a perfect legal defense in this nation, and always will be, despite the hackery of" himself.

1.JL Kirk Associates "...was formerly Bernald Haldane before it was purchased by Mr. Kirk Leipzig."


That JL Kirk Associates personnel "use fear to motivate" potential clients to pay for services "without question and without the possibility of a refund."


That, during your interview with your husband, there were questions "designed to help [you] as the insecure wife put more economic pressure" on your husband.


That the amount you were asked to pay "neatly" coincided with your tax refund "which is a matter of public record."

Francis, in his post "It's Not The Crime It's The Coverup" at The Shadow of the Olive Tree, ably responds:

Oddly a JK Kirk employ seems to directly contradict statement 1 in her response:

Mr. Kirk purchased the remaining assets of the BH organization here in Brentwood, changed the philosophy, company mission, replaced every BH employee, and put his name of the door!

I suppose there may be a technical difference between the statement made by the original blogger and the statement made by the employee but to a lay mind they sound remarkably similar. Statements 2 and 3 sound like opinion and while it is true they aren't hedged about with "it seems to me"s or "appears to" or other weasel words when you read them. Statement 4 is plain silly.

More important to his firm's reputation, if not his own career, it might behoove him to acquaint himself with and periodically review the facts: That The Internet Is Forever™; That nothing publicly published thereon becomes after just a day — much more so after the 42 it took you to respond with purposefully intimidating threats of dire consequences if your demands for outright censorship weren't promptly met — other than, in effect, an indelible record, electronically and digitally stored and transmitted worldwide on and between an unfathomable number and exceedingly diverse manner of devices, inextricably meshed with the many trillions of bytes of data coursing through it during any given microsecond; That even if his bullyism succeeds at coercing someone into meeting his demands for erasure of a particular copy of one infinitesimal portion of that universal, enduring, ever-propagating record, all his efforts will still prove ineffective no matter how many times he may double, triple, or more his workload afterwards trying to find and erase every present and future recopy of the same; That he would have to demand the impossible — namely, the full, immediate, and permanent shutdown of every electrical power plant on the planet — before he may truthfully inform his client he's confident he's done all he can to remove from the Internet a single consumer complaint about that client's shady business practices; and, most important,

It's the good advice that you just didn't take...

What Kirk did that is stupid (besides their alleged high pressure sales technique) is to try to silence a complaint through threat of legal force. However, in the era of the internet that's like squeezing a water balloon. Squeeze the complaint off of Coble's site, and the story pops up somewhere else. Squeeze there, and it surfaces again, and again, and again. . . Squeeze too hard, the balloon bursts, and you're all wet.

Or, to put it more succinctly: Don't sue your customers.

–Bob Krumm
That had he simply advised his client the comments of one blogger will, absent the extreme, unreasonable measure of attempting to gag a consumer and unduly pressure her into withdrawing her comparatively mild albeit valid complaints, remain relatively obscure, little more than an isolated incident or passing curiosity incapable of causing material and actionable damage to any business, especially one whose practices are not generally well known and thus considered by only a few to be shady, and will have no possibility of mushrooming into a renowned Blogospheric Event™, replete with Instalaunches®, massive linkings and HatTips, much deserved Fiskings, a new Internet Verb (© 2007 The 'Sphere), search-term shufflings, and other global-reaching firestorms blogstorms all coalenscing into one enormous Big Stink for said client.

Mix attempts to suspend, by law suit, the First Amendment and eviscerate the right of consumers to complain about any business, with the glaring arrogance of an egotistical lawyer who never once thought, before firing off his letter stone tablet, to politely ask the consumer that she reconsider her complaints about his client or to offer in the alternative an invitation to address and resolve those complaints as a genuine gesture of good will on the latter's part, and you have the entire recipe for what you and your "law" firm are smelling now. It was completely unnecessary of you to resort to such bullying tactics in this matter.

The finale of this backlash would be even more justifiable and ironic when JL Kirk Associates turns around and sues you and your Mount Sinai Law Offices for legal malpractice.

In addition, a number of statements made in you posting convey a meaning that is clearly injurious to the reputation of JL Kirk Associates.

Item No. 1 in the Annotated Guide To Red Flags & Other BS To Watch Out For Anytime Lawyers' Lips Move is: Whenever a lawyer argues something is "clearly" this or that, you can bet your house, boat, dog, Aunt Martha's brooch, and all the liters of empty space inside most every lawyer's head that it clearly isn't.

Under Tennessee law, any malicious publication expressed in writing intending to injure the character or diminish the reputation of a business is libel.

Whereas, the publication in this case is clearly neither malicious nor intended to injure or diminish anything or anyone not already publicly tarnished (Nashville for the 21st Century, inter alios; cf., BBB Wisconcin report). Posting on your own personal Web log your own personal accounts, experiences, observations, opinions, and conclusions which directly affect you and potentially others in a most personal way — whether that way be benign or profound, pleasant or disturbing — is materially the full intent and meaning of what the person you're threatening with further harassment wrote. Malicious, on the other hand, is what a reasonable person would view your untoward demands accompanied by threats of Dire Legal Consequences, all clearly intended to intimidate, coerce, and distress any of your letters' recipients, to be. It's clearly not what the writing you're clearly intentionally mischaracterizing here is.

Moreover, even if statements are literally true, the publisher of those statements is subject to monetary damages where "the meaning reasonably conveyed by the published words is defamatory." Memphis Publishing Company v. Nichols, 569 S.W.2d 412 (Tenn. 1978)

Before the Big Stink, which is solely the result of your written demands and threats, there was no publication in any reasonable sense of the word. If I put up a sign in my yard that says "Mount Sinai Law Office's Entertainment Section Associates Are A Mean-Spirited Bunch of Bullies" I am expressing in writing my opinion to no one other than my neighbors and any random passers-by. I am not going around attaching that sign to every side of a building and telephone pole in my neighborhood, city, state, nation, or world. If a Mount Sinai Law Office Entertainment Section Associate happens to see or hear about that sign, goes into a tither, and has his lawyer write me an obnoxiously contentious letter demanding I take down that sign or else, that lawyer will have no one but himself to blame when I become distressed and tell my neighbors about the trouble I'm experiencing, they become infuriated, copy my sign and put it up in their own yards, the driver of a passing TV-7 van sees them all and asks the station to get together a camera crew so they can film the spectacle for a report on the next six o'clock news, and thousands upon thousands see that report and become infuriated themselves, rinse, repeat.

Where once was a single sign posted by one homeowner in his own yard — a sign that's seen by just a relatively few — there's now a full-blown message ringing throughout the whole community.

Even absent all this exacerbation and escalation, the fundamental question remains. What law says I can't publicly complain about the practices of any business which I personally perceive had in any way took undue advantage of, upset, or otherwise injured me? Is it not among my most basic duties as a citizen and member of my community to do everything I believe I can to warn others about those practices so they won't have to experience, unawares, the same bad things? Or am I required to suck it up, keep quiet, cower in fear of Dreaded Lawsuits, stand idly by, and merely allow that business to inflict such things on the next poor sucker? I wouldn't be a very good citizen if I did the latter; nor would my government and its courts be very good servants of the people if they compelled me or anyone else to do that.

Thus your citation of Memphis is inapposite here since the statements regard not an individual's reputation but a public concern. Specifically, a business and its practices affecting members of the public who may seek its services.

As the "publisher" of your blog, you control, and are responsible for, the content appearing in it. References by persons posting to your blog to JL Kirk Associates as "crooks" and its services as a "scam" are equally false and defamatory as your own.

Leaving aside for now the fact that "crooks" and "scam" appear nowhere in the original "publication" by the person at whom you're targeting your demands and threats, you cannot pluck out a word here or phrase there from some textual matter and declare, based on that word or phrase alone, your client was defamed. You must base such declaration on the matter's content as a whole. Accordingly, if you're attempting to include non-parties' comments subsequently posted about and with that "publication," you first must clearly define exactly what content you're declaring "equally false and defamatory." Are you referring to that "publication" and its comments dated on or before April 10 of this year, found only on the Internet at the following Uniform Resource Identifiers?


(That is, before the entire Web log and its earlier posts and comments were respectively moved and copied to a new Web address on or around March 16.) Or to the copy of such "publication" and comments along with different comments, similarly dated, found only on the Internet at the URIs below?


Or both?

For those keeping score at home, the only correct answer is neither.

You cannot legally hold anyone accountable for the uncoerced, independent actions of another person. Doing so would be the worst injustice imaginable. Applying that maxim here, there's no justice in making the "publisher" liable for comments the submission of which are open to everyone, including your client and its representatives — a circumstance it clearly took full advantage of when someone claiming to be such representative submitted a comment at one of the above URIs, as did whoever anonymously submitted a separate comment in its defense, viz.,


The "publisher" cannot predict and therefore has no control over what her commenters submit in such open forum.

In addition to your liability for defamation, under Tennessee law, the defamatory statements made in your blog are, by your own admission, intended to "discourage anyone who stumbles across this entry from even going through the JL Kirk & (sic) Associates 'interview process'." As such, you may be subject to liability for monetary damages for tortuous interference with the business relationships of JL Kirk Associates. See Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company et al[.], 71 S. W. 3d 691, 701 (Tenn. 2002).

No, you see "public concern," supra.

Businesses, even in Tennessee, aren't free to strong-arm potential customers with impunity, scare or upset their spouses with shameful manipulations, do a bait-and-switch with some out-of-the-blue credit card "offer," or be less than totally up-front with what all they're getting themselves into if they turn who all knows what over to it. See Unsavory v. Entirely Forthcoming, 1 G.Y.P. 2 many (Anywhere 2007).

Claims that a person's exercise of his duty to warn as best he can his fellow citizens and other members of the public, either close by or at large, about any threats or dangers to their lives, liberties, property, or pursuits of happiness which he in good conscience believes exist, is in some way wrong have no legal standing. That person's intent is not to cause harm but to help prevent it from being inflicted on any otherwise unsuspecting person. In the case of a business he's seen firsthand engaging in a number of things that clearly smack of shady practices he has a clear duty to warn whoever else may be affected by them about those practices. For example,

She was particularly concerned that JL Kirk was looking for nearly $5,000 in payment for their services. Those who have been on either side of a placement by a headhunter know that this is not industry standard. Customarily, at least in my decade-plus experience as a VP level hiring manager on Wall Street and CFO/CAO of a start-up oil services company, the company pays the headhunter's fee, even for entry level positions, and even for temporary help.

Consumer complaints such as these, which warn members of the public about a business' practices that could adversely affect any of them, are acts of good citizenship, not "tortuous interference" with its relationships. Indeed, your attempts to exact what amounts to legalistic retribution against any consumers who, in good faith, publicly complain about your client's business practices, should be deemed a tortuous interference with their lives, liberties, property, and pursuits of happiness.

Fortunately for the people they're still intended to serve and sworn to protect, our laws and courts brook no "law" firm's meritless attempts to exact these retributions against them.

We hereby demand that you take down the blog entry regarding JL Kirk Associates together with the entire thread of comments.

Does anyone at this point still wonder why there's so much public hatred of lawyers?

She's required to "take down" no such thing when she allows real opportunities for rebuttals and contrary opinions by anyone, including your client.

It's also, given the indelible nature of Internet records, impossible for her to really "take down" anything. That entry and every one of those comments are all permanently stored, each in their entirety, in search-engine caches such as Google's, which are even further beyond her control. (If you want to get laughed at by the best of them, try suing Google, which claims no responsibility for the content of its caches: "Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.") Seeking their "taking down" is akin to demanding that a newspaper physically destroy, in whole or part, all issued copies of any of its editions which allegedly contains defamatory content.

In short, your demand that anyone "take down" anything anywhere on the Internet will always be completely without merit.

We further demand that you cease and desist from any further attempts to injure and interfere with the business of JL Kirk Associates.

What is this "further" of which you speak?

So far, a consumer has faithfully exercised her duty as a citizen to warn the public about what she perceives are corrupt business practices that have personally and adversely affected her. A warning that was (Sir George): made upon a proper occasion (promptly following the infliction of those practices on her), from a proper motive (to warn others about those practices so they can avoid being inflicted by them as well), and based upon reasonable or probable cause (those practices as described and directly witnessed by her).

You, on the other hand, are here engaging in an abusive behavior that can only further discredit what generally is already an all but thoroughly discredited "profession."

It is regrettable that you decided not to engage the services of JL Kirk Associates.

Successfully escaped the full brunt of those "services" is more like it.

Who with a number of functioning brain cells greater than an average amoeba's could reasonably regret that?

That, however, does not entitle you to publish defamatory statements in an attempt to interfere with its business.

However, it does entitle her to publicly express her opinions and concerns about it. Which she has done immensely to her credit and, due to this onerous stone tablet carved by your "law" firm, with the gratitude of a much wider public.

If you do not comply with these demands on or before April 13, 2007, JL Kirk Associates intends to sue you for damages. Please direct any communications regarding this matter to the undersigned.



Alan E. Korpady

cc: Mr. Kirk Leipzig

Wonder if Shakespeare completely understood the course of action he had in mind would just wind up eternally consigning its condemned subjects to that lowest tier in Hell reserved solely for them.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share  

Comments (registered users)

Post a Comment

Liberal Utopia

LC Local 666, VRWC
Never Submit

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Liberal Utopia

Site Feed

Subscribe to Liberal Utopia by Email


March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
May 2017
June 2017
July 2017
August 2017
January 2018
February 2018
June 2018
July 2018
October 2018
January 2019
June 2019
July 2019
January 2020
March 2020
April 2020
May 2020
July 2020
August 2020
October 2020
January 2021
February 2021
June 2021
July 2021
August 2021
September 2021
February 2022
July 2022
December 2022
July 2023


Gab @LiberalUtopia

Gettr @LiberalUtopia

Parler @LiberalUtopia

TruthSocial @LiberalUtopia

Tw*tter @LiberalUtopia


G o o g l e
b o m b s
miserable failure
culture of corruption
sus barbatus
wicked witch of the east
great president