Sunday, September 19, 2010

Anti Spam Attorney Daniel Balsam Follows the Money®

Imagine a world where attorneys represent one another because no one can afford their services?   Who then, in turn, seek media publicity for winning their own case for a whopping $7,000?  You've just imagined attorney Daniel Balsam, anti spam attorney extraordinaire. Whoo-hoo! 

Daniel Balsam's anti spam site DAN HATES SPAM® (Subtitled "Dedicated to Cleaning Up the Internet") is full of all kinds of interesting information about his 2009 case.  His site's name is even registered to prevent another Dan from unlawfully using the term he's coined.

I'm not sure how a psychologist would categorize an attorney who goes so far as to make a huge deal out of winning his own case for $7,000 having teamed up with another attorney, but I think "ultra large ego" might be a good place to begin analysis.  The psychologist might come up with something as follows:
"Dan thinks he's special that though the entire world of Internet users hate and commonly receive spam emails, he somehow deserves money for such seven (7) solicitations @ $1,000 per offense totaling $7,000.  Normal people simply apply their spam filters while Dan saw an opportunity to exploit for his own publicity and profit to make a name for himself.  Consequently, people who need the services of attorney can't find one because attorneys like Dan are all too busy filing their own lawsuits on behalf of one another and seeking publicity for it. In sum, DAN LOVES MONEY®"
I'm using Dan Balsam as an example of a problem in our legal system of greedy self-seeking attorneys who are largely unaffordable to the general public for good legal advice.  For much of the public, either Mr. Balsam's hourly rates are too high, or he doesn't have the time to be dealing with many people's cases because he's too busy filing his own and registering his web name with the big ®.  Such is why when I received a letter from Mr. Balsam back in March 2010 explaining the Anti-SLAPP statute for a lawsuit I filed against Jacob Harker, Esq. and his client earlier this year, a pattern began emerging to me of attorneys representing one another and their own interests.  In other words, the good ole boys club was beginning to rear its ugly head.

#3's definition of a prostitute applies to attorneys such as Daniel Balsam who advertise one thing about themselves while selling out to the very people they publicly claim to despise.

The fact of the matter is Mr. Balsam was well aware when he sent me his letter on behalf of Jacob Harker that he was also indirectly representing Harker's client who I had filed a lawsuit against in 2009 as a well documented spammer.  Harker had clearly chosen Mr. Balsam as a form of psychological warfare to distract from his client's long standing reputation.

Ironically, the attorney who partnered with Mr. Balsam in the spamming case against Trancos Inc.  was none other than Timothy Walton, Esq..  Mr. Walton was the attorney I spoke with earlier this year in my subpoena deposition served on his client Steve Burnett.  Mr. Burnett has had an entire web site on the Internet for many years having documented Jacob Harker's client's on-line spamming and other activities.   Essentially, when Mr. Balsam accepted representing Jacob Harker in his letter to me about the Anti-SLAPP statute, he knowingly was indirectly representing Harker's client, a well documented spammer and problematic person on the Internet.

Balsam partner Timothy Walton Esq.'s returned mail
from Harker's problematic spamming client

Not only did I inform Mr. Balsam of the fact of who Mr. Harker's client was, but Mr. Balsam had also been tightly partnered with attorney Timothy Walton who repeatedly had to deal with Harker's client's issues in a frivolous lawsuit years ago.  It was only last year that Mr. Walton had to also respond to a letter Harker's client sent alleging copyright infringement of another and later to my own subpoena deposition request of website owner Steve Burnett.

No Backbone - Just Lying Slithering Snakes!

One would  think these attorneys would have some kind of back bone and moral character after years of hard work at their law schools.  Surprise!  Many attorneys merely follow where the money leads. Many times the cases they choose are not about the law, principles or morals at all but following the all mighty dollar.  If following the money means publicizing oneself as an anti-spam attorney and then accepting a case on behalf of a well documented spammer in preventing a woman from defending herself from such activities, so be it.

Meanwhile, these very same type of attorneys are busy trying to prevent self represented people i.e., pro pers, from even presenting their own restraining order cases because they view it as their territory of law. I wasn't allowed to as much as testify as a Plaintiff in two hearings against Harker's defendant, having been blocked by political maneuvers the judge (a former partner attorney of 30 years from Latham & Watkins LLP) obliged to.

Harker also had the audacity to file a motion alleging I'm a vexatious litigant in spite of the fact I had already won a lawsuit judgment.  A San Francisco superior court judge had also reviewed evidence I provided in its granting my last RO hearing against Harker's client.  The lawsuit I filed against Harker's client in 2009 was never considered "frivolous" in a court of law.  I had even filed an opposition motion supporting valid causes of action  with which my case had survived a legal challenge to throw it out.  A mere oversite error of not including a "DOES" for an additional party doesn't qualify one's case as entirely frivolous.  In spite of these facts, Mr. Harker continued to lie on behalf of his client in his motion and to the court suggesting the 2009 case was frivolous.

In May, 2010 I had won a judgment  for $25,000 without an attorney's assistance.  I didn't  show up for Harker's vexatious litigant motion hearing because I never open any of his mail.  Harker's motion was way out of line because I haven't filed that many lawsuits.  Restraining order applications with declarations don't really count as "lawsuits" per se. They're merely applications for hearings to present a case.  The same goes for small claims cases, not really considered lawsuits per se.

People are generally allowed to make mistakes in good faith in the court system, but apparently Harker and his egocentric client don't think I should have any rights. I once spoke with a guy standing in line at the San Francisco civil courthouse who stated he had filed lawsuits in pro per as much as ten that  year to intimidate companies into settling out of court for $10,000.  At the law firms where I've formerly worked we've had a good laugh over crazy litigants  who have filed many lawsuits no one does anything about.  I'm not the kind of litigant Harker has alleged me to be.  Harker's motion was more the work of a bully who was well aware of his problematic client's history and my rationale for simply wanting to address the matter civilly in a court of law.

Attorney Jacob Harker's Latest Unopened  Mail Sent on September 15, 2010 Once Again
Has Triggered Another Article Referencing his Unethical Conduct

Harker's latest mail continues to arrive to my residence in spite of there being no active cases. Attorney Jacob Harker, who I've since politely nicknamed "cock snake" for his slithering reptilian lying behavior in a court room, refuses to leave me alone!  (See my former posts Symptoms of the Reptilian Brain in Human Evolution and Plugged Into the Matrix of False Reality)

Apparently all this standing up to slithering lying snakes scares the hell out of attorneys because their game's been rigged against the average American for a long time.  They know it's all about who has the most money and resources who usually wins.  Attorneys play the game accordingly by sniffing out where the money is. Judges often side with attorneys in pro per cases by ignoring facts and evidence in preference for politics. The U.S. lower court system thereby is largely rigged and can't be trusted to produce results based on justice or what's right.

So if you think for one minute attorneys like Mr. Balsam would turn down a large amount money in this economy because a client is a well documented spammer, convicted public nuisance and trespasser, don't bet your life on it.  Most attorneys Follow The Money® wherever it leads.  What this all means is that when the money supply eventually dries up, so will the attorneys.