Today I got a letter from the Bienenstocks lawyers threatening me with a lawsuit. Mr. Kienbaum says that because I re-published part of the original complaint consisting of 27 pages with multiple counts, four pages stricken because them judge thought the language in the complaint was overreaching and too dramatic, struck that hard language but let remain intact all of the important counts including conversion of what was rightfully money belonging to others, the Benenstocks converted those funds to be theirs.

Of course what the Bienenstocks are really wanting is to have any one of us exercising our First Amendment Rights to just express our personal feelings about the allegations.

Below is my email today back to Mr. Kienbaum copying both the Bienenstocks as well abs Kevin O'Shea the lawyer for the original 26 plaintiffs.
Tom, I have your letter of the 21st of June 2013.

No, I need no lawyer to represent me in this matter if your clients decide to sue me for libel.

I am well aware of my rights to comment on a Complaint that was published in the Courthouse News Service of May 13, 2013, notwithstanding what was stricken. I did not know.

How on Earth could I know. You are missing a very important element to justify a libel action, and it is malice with forethought amongst other elements to make your clients claim a slam dunk.

I have read about the elements that make for filing a meritorious libel action against a party and amongst other elements it includes deliberate maliciousness.

Dare I say, perhaps you should instruct your clients to also sue the newspaper that published the original complaint.

Just because the judge had the plaintiffs tone it down a notch does not make it a libelous action on my part to unwittingly repeat language taken from a public document, to wit, the original complaint publish in the press.

If your clients are seeking an apology, perhaps that is due them and therefore I do apologize but only to the extent that unwittingly and without malice in my heart I copy pasted the Complaint as it was presented on May 13, 2013 in the Courthouse News Service.

But you and your clients will not deter me for one moment from continuing to openly write in LinkedIn, CSRNation, FaceBook, and elsewhere on the remainder of the Complaint that the judge has allowed to remain to be adjudicated on by judge and jury unless of course there is a settlement and one of the most important counts is that of conversion.

Understand this. I do not hate you, Tom, or your law firm, or your clients especially. You only do what your clients order you to do.

I will publish your letter on the Net in these various blogs as well as this email to you.

It might stir up sympathy for me, even enjoy free legal advice, while others may say I bought the farm on this one.

You have two choices. Either file a legitimate complaint against me and I will defend it here in Circuit Court, Fairfax, County, Virginia.

Your second option is you on behalf of your clients accept my sincere apology for truly republishing part of the original complaint that one judge decided to strike while another judge might have well let the complaint stand as is, purely a subjective decision.

It would be interesting if your clients have filed an action against the Courthouse News Service.

I will contact them and show them your letter.

They might have every more reason to be reporter hounds and really follow your clients' case with the original 26 plaintiffs and as I have heard there are plenty of lawyers who are most likely going to be enjoined as plaintiffs seeking their own redress if Kevin O'Shea proves the collective plaintiffs case.

Let's wait and see what first happens to your clients in the main case and then they can decide to go after a lonesome, near retirement, court reporter who is exercising his First Amendment Rights.

Actually, do not bother to call me although I invited you to. Please only correspond with me by email or conventional correspondence.