Casino Planet Cash

After some back and forth via email, with Shady Promoter’s Attorney wanting Full Contact Fighter magazine’s mailing address but also expressing a desire to talk on the phone, MMA Journalist received this: “I have provided you information via email and by letter. The letter has been mailed to Full Contact Fighter. Your unethical, egregious, and despicable behavior indicate that a phone conversation would be inappropriate and contrary to my client’s and my best interests. I consider this matter concluded.”

In turn, I responded with: “No problem. I’m glad to have helped educate you on the law.”

According to an automated response, the Shady Promoter’s Attorney now blocks my emails. Did a newbie lawyer get in trouble for sending out frivolous cease & desist letters from his daddy’s law firm? MMA Journalist can only wonder…

“Thank you for your timely response. Please convey to your client Rick Huddleston that for the sake of fairness and truth I am eager to get his side of the story. The other interviews I’ve conducted, as well as the public records concerning his legal history, certainly don’t paint him in a favorable light and I would like the mixed martial arts community to have as accurate a story as possible.

As for your assertion that claims made by myself on my blog are false, your simple declaration that they are false does not make it so - especially when the statements of the injured parties connected to the March 21st Kansas City-area Close Quarter Combat event are considered. Mr. Huddleston did not pay the fighters and the check he wrote to the venue bounced. That sounds like a prima facie “screwing” to me, and clearly not a violation of the “actual malice” standard put forth in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Please explain how it is not a “screwing” and I will be happy to post a retraction.

Concerning your assumption that Sullivan does not apply to Mr. Huddleston as he “is not a public official or public figure”, I could point to Associated Press v. Walker, Curtis Publishing Company v. Butts, Time, Inc. v Hill, Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Falwell, Rosenbloom v. Metromedia and Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. v. Hepps, which expanded Sullivan’s standard to include prominent business leaders and sports figures, affirmed that matters of public interest are a form of protected speech, and placed the burden of proof squarely on your shoulders in proving the alleged falseness of any claims I may make. I could go on but will instead refrain, suffice to say that I still relish the chance to engage Mr. Huddleston and your firm in a battle over First Amendment rights and issues of “freedom of the press”.

I look forward to speaking to you - to “clear the air” as you’ve suggested. Information on Full Contact Fighter is widely available on the Internet.

Sincerely,
MMA Journalist”

“I have placed a call to my client regarding your interview. He will not be speaking to you directly. However, I will make a few comments on his behalf if he authorizes me to do so. I feel that it is very important to clarify a few points.

1. Shady Kansas City Promotion Trying to Screw One of Fred Ettish’s Fighters. (FALSE)
2. “A shady Kansas City-based promotion called CQC, which held an event in the KC area on March 21st, is trying to screw one of Fred Ettish’s fighters.” (FALSE)

These are both false statements and I have duly notified you, through my cease and desist letter, that these statements are false. I’m glad you cited New York v. Sullivan in your email dated April 6, 2009. That case stated: public officials cannot recover in a defamation suit unless he/she can show the statement was made with “‘actual malice’ - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” I am telling you for the second time that Rick Huddleston is not trying to screw any fighter. If you continue to publish articles stating that he is, you will be making statements in “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Furthermore, New York v. Sullivan is only relevant in regard to “government and public officials.” Rick Huddleston is not a public official or public figure. He is a private individual.

Ultimately, I would like to speak to you, on behalf of Mr. Huddleston, to clear the air. While I am not at liberty to discuss much of the factual information relating to this case, I have some information that I would like to provide for you. This information should be quite helpful to you in your search for the “truth” in this present matter. I don’t know if you have spoken to Mr. Francis or Mr. Kuny (Francis’ attorney), but I do not believe it would be ethical for me to reveal all facts relating to the present breach of contract dispute.

In closing, I would like some information from you, in return for the information I will be providing you. You are the editor for Full Contact Fighter Magazine. I would like some information about this publication. Corporate office? Address? Number? In case I ever need to contact you directly.

Sincerely,

Shady Promoter’s attorney”

“I have placed a call to my client regarding your interview. He will not be speaking to you directly. However, I will make a few comments on his behalf if he authorizes me to do so. I feel that it is very important to clarify a few points.

1. Shady Kansas City Promotion Trying to Screw One of Fred Ettish’s Fighters. (FALSE)
2. “A shady Kansas City-based promotion called CQC, which held an event in the KC area on March 21st, is trying to screw one of Fred Ettish’s fighters.” (FALSE)

These are both false statements and I have duly notified you, through my cease and desist letter, that these statements are false. I’m glad you cited New York v. Sullivan in your email dated April 6, 2009. That case stated: public officials cannot recover in a defamation suit unless he/she can show the statement was made with “‘actual malice’ - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” I am telling you for the second time that Rick Huddleston is not trying to screw any fighter. If you continue to publish articles stating that he is, you will be making statements in “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Furthermore, New York v. Sullivan is only relevant in regard to “government and public officials.” Rick Huddleston is not a public official or public figure. He is a private individual.

Ultimately, I would like to speak to you, on behalf of Mr. Huddleston, to clear the air. While I am not at liberty to discuss much of the factual information relating to this case, I have some information that I would like to provide for you. This information should be quite helpful to you in your search for the “truth” in this present matter. I don’t know if you have spoken to Mr. Francis or Mr. Kuny (Francis’ attorney), but I do not believe it would be ethical for me to reveal all facts relating to the present breach of contract dispute.

In closing, I would like some information from you, in return for the information I will be providing you. You are the editor for Full Contact Fighter Magazine. I would like some information about this publication. Corporate office? Address? Number? In case I ever need to contact you directly.

Sincerely,

Shady Promoter’s attorney”