Connoisseurs of odd legal arguments might appreciate this item, but unfortunately it requires a bit of background explanation. Aviation lawyer Arthur Wolk sued Overlawyered.com and its bloggers for libel. Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), Marc Randazza (Legal Satyricon), Ed Whelan (National Review Online), and I signed an amicus brief on the side of Overlawyered. Now Wolk’s lawyers have filed an opposition to the motion for leave to file that amicus brief.
Here is the part of the plaintiff’s opposition that struck me as particularly unusual. (Note that Reason.com is described as our “blog forum host,” according to the plaintiff’s Exhibit 6, simply because Reason.com had published my Reason.tv interview and once published a column of mine, and because it had published a set of short items about D.C. v. Heller that include Glenn Reynolds as one of the authors. Note also that my supposed “treatise seeking to legalize parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, and sibling incest,” reproduced in plaintiff’s Exhibit 8, is actually my blog post that does not argue for legalizing adult incest. Indeed, the post says that “I tentatively incline” to the view that adult incest should remain illegal “[b]ecause legalizing incest would, by making a future sexual relationship more speakable and legitimate, potentially affect the family relationship even while the child is underage.”) Emphases are in the original.
C. The Amicus Bloggers are Appearing on Behalf of their Blog Forum Hosts Whom Wolk has Sued for the Heinous Defamatory [and False] Accusations of Child Molestation and Bestiality They Have Incited Against Him
Since the August 2, 2010 dismissal, Overlawyered and another entity, The Reason Foundation (a.k.a Reason.com), have waged an internet smear campaign against Wolk, which has given rise to a separate lawsuit in equity. It is no coincidence that the amicus bloggers are members of and bloggers for the blogging forum Reason.com against whom Wolk has filed a lawsuit in equity seeking to compel Reason.com to remove defamatory accusations against him from their website [falsely] accusing him of child molestation and bestiality. (Compare Ex. 1 naming Reason.com and the Reason Foundation with Ex. 6 showing amicus blogging for Reason.com). In an unbelievable display of malice, the Reason.com blogging forum has fostered a vicious and unprovoked internet smear campaign against Wolk and incited their readership into a feeding frenzy of outrageously defamatory statements, such as [UPDATE: At this point, the opposition quoted the insults, which said nothing about incest. -EV]
(Ex. 7 filed under seal.) (See also Appellants’ Motion to Enlarge Appellate Record with Evidence Concealed from the District Court.) Wolk is also seeking the identities of these unknown bloggers who have [falsely] charged him with child molestation and bestiality. It is of stunning coincidence that amicus blogger Volokh here, the day before filing this motion for leave, authored a ridiculous treatise seeking to legalize parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, and sibling incest. (Ex. 8.) Wolk thus has more than a reasonable basis to question whether at least one of the amicus bloggers seeking this Court’s audience, one of whom apparently has a penchant for discussing sexual misconduct, may be responsible for the horrible [false] accusations of sexual misconduct against Wolk on Reason.com….
It is no coincidence that the amicus bloggers are affiliates of Reason.com and members of their blogging community which espouses no rule of law, no Government regulation of business or banking, no court decisions against the interests of business and finance and have the penchant to blog about legalizing sexually deviate conduct such as incest. (Ex. 7.) …
[The amicus bloggers] are members of the blogging forum (and possibly the anonymous bloggers) which have [falsely] accused Wolk of child molestation and bestiality. Their interest in this case is not to advance the law, but to exonerate the Frank Blog and excoriate Wolk so they may defend the pending equity lawsuit against their blogging host and trustees….
There is no compelling interest to allow an amicus filing by people who espouse the view that there should be no courts in which to seek redress for the harm of defamation, no laws to restrict defamation, no regulation and no impediments to incest….
The amicus bloggers certainly do not support a bona fide interest in the outcome of this appeal. Indeed, their blogs reveal a bizarre and warped view of the law of incest, not to mention their anarchist views of the role of Government, Courts and the Law as it affects society as a whole.
There are no coincidences. All is connected. Incest law, banking, libel, anonymous comments on reason.com — truly, a seamless web.
UPDATE: Mr. Wolk has now stated that, having had further communication on the subject, he acknowledges that I didn’t write and wasn’t responsible for the Reason.com insults, and has asked the Court to withdraw the statements in his opposition questioning whether I was connected to the Reason.com insults. Because of this, I’ve agreed to redact the insults from my original post, which were quoted by Mr. Wolk in his original opposition that I in turn quoted; the insults were vulgar and false, and now that their text is no longer relevant, I’m happy to edit them out. I’ve also agreed to add “[false]” or “[falsely]” when the insults are discussed, just to make extra clear what I think was clear all along — that the insults are indeed false.