Monday, October 9, 2017

Lawyer James F. Henry, of Birmingham's Cabaniss firm, contends our Ashley Madison report is false and defamatory, but his claim springs a number of leaks


James F. Henry
An Alabama lawyer claims via e-mail that our post about his presence on the Ashley Madison list is false and defamatory. That's curious because his wife left a comment on our post, admitting his name was on the list and making light of the whole thing. It's also curious because the e-mail came from a lawyer who does not appear on the membership roll of the Alabama State Bar, suggesting he might have been practicing law without a license.

James F. Henry, from the Birmingham firm of Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas and O'Neal, asks that our post -- about his name appearing on the list of paying customers at the Ashley Madison extramarital-affairs Web site -- be removed. Our post on Henry is dated March 23, 2016, when he was with the Bradley Arant firm in Birmingham. Why did Henry just now conclude that a fairly old post is false and defamatory? An answer to that question eludes us.

We've had a number of peculiar encounters with Ashley Madison types and their lawyers, demanding this and threatening that. The most recent came from Andy Schroeder, CEO of South Central Steel in Harpersville, AL. So far, nothing has come of any of them, and that might prove to be the case with the James F. Henry missive. But Henry's claim could be the oddest of an odd lot.

The e-mail, on Henry's behalf, came from a lawyer named David M. Deutsch. When I searched for Deutsch's name at the Alabama State Bar, I came up with nothing -- and that made me go "Hmmm." A general Web search turned up a lawyer by that name at the Deutsch Law Firm, with offices in New York City and Boca Raton, Florida.

Here is Deutsch's introductory e-mail to us on James F. Henry's behalf:

To Whom It May Concern:

Please be advised that we represent James Henry. It has come to our attention that the following article was posted and available for public view on your blog:

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.ca/2016/03/ashley-madison-customers-revealed-james.html

There are a number of false statements made in the post listed above:

1. Mr. Henry was not a paying customer of Ashley Madison.

2. Posting a picture of Mr. Henry's house and speculating on its value in conjunction with your false statements is a violation of Mr. Henry's privacy.
3. Mr. Henry has been divorced from Kelly Henry since 2007. You falsely state that he was married.

4. Additionally, you falsely imply that Mr. Henry was neglecting his family and his clients. In addition, you falsely speculate about whether Mr. Henry has children and imply that he may be neglecting them.

The continued publication of this defamatory post is causing ongoing compensatory damages and emotional distress.

We respectfully request that the link be removed from the blog. Your prompt assistance to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

If I can provide you with any further information, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Best,

David

I've had a fair amount of practice in dealing with stuff like this, so it didn't take me long to respond:

Mr. Deutsch:

You have cited nothing that is false or defamatory in the post, and it will not be removed.

1. Mr. Henry does appear on the list of Ashley Madison paying customers. That's what the post says, and it is true. His current wife admits in a comment on the post that it's true. You might want to check that out.

2. Posting a picture of a house, a picture that is available to anyone with an Internet connection, is an invasion of privacy? You must be joking. I guess you are going to sue the real estate firm that put the photo on the Web, or Google Earth, which puts millions of house photos on the Web?

3. You will notice that the post includes a comment from Linda Henry, who corrects the marital information and admits her husband's name is on the AM list. Mrs. Henry says he was married at the time of the post -- to her, not the other wife. Via that comment, I corrected the information about his wife's name. Overall, the post is accurate in regards to marital information.

4. This is as baseless and ridiculous as your other assertions.


A note: Anyone who files a groundless lawsuit against me will be met with counterclaims, bar complaints, and any other appropriate response. You have not, and cannot, point to anything inaccurate in the post -- and it will not be removed. You might have been wise to check with Mrs. Henry before dashing off this e-mail.


Regards,


Roger

James F. Henry's wife, Linda Henry, left a comment on our post, admitting her husband's name is on the Ashley Madison list? Yep, I'm not imaginative enough to make this stuff up, folks. Perhaps this thought flashed briefly through Mr. Deutsch's cranium after reading my response: "Yikes, that pokes a slight hole in the defamation claim we were planning."

Actually, that's not the only problem Mr. Deutsch would have bringing a defamation claim on Mr. Henry's behalf. More on that -- and Mrs. Henry's comments, which apparently were news to Mr. Henry and his lawyer -- in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

When are these people going to learn their names are on the list, that's what your posts say, it's true, and they have no case?

Anonymous said...

Glad to see another Ashley Madison post. Was afraid you had gotten off that topic.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:54 --

Never fear. The Schnauzer has much left in the tank on AM story.

Anonymous said...

This lawyer who wrote the email thinks it's an invasion of privacy to publish a photo of a house? Where did this guy go to law school?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Henry, the Cabaniss lawyer, waited a year or more to decide your post was defamatory? That doesn't sound the least bit fishy.

Anonymous said...

Still keeping the higher crust uneasy, I see. Good work, Mr. Schnauzer. The last thing we need are comfortable crusties.

Anonymous said...

You just outed yourself, Wiffle-ball man. In your original post, responding to his wife, you make note of his expenses of $611. I can verify that $611 WAS NOT spent on this account.
So you're in possession of the "Alabama Excel List" that was passed around on Facebook---nothing more. Or your "anonymous contributor" is. (several other states had similar Excel files passed around, too). Now it makes all too much sense why you’ve focused on Alabama, and a bit on Missouri----because you can’t expose Georgia or Tennessee or Florida if there was no Excel list passed around. So much for a good researching “journalist.”

If you had actually done research, downloaded the records (like a real journalist), you would know that MANY (if not MOST) of the amounts in the "Alabama List" were DOUBLED, some more wrong than that. Why is this?? Let me explain to your Ann Putnam-like pitchfork-wielding readers.

Had you done any research at all on the veracity of the stolen files, you would have come across a term called "relational databases." Had your "research" taken you down that rabbit hole, you would have learned about how easily amounts are doubled when using the SUM() function against these database tables. And why is that?

Let's say that one table contains transactions from VISA; another from MasterCard. If you GroupOn Address and SUM you're going to add the totals from both cards TWICE. If you SUM DISTINCT() this will not happen. Whomever compiled the original Alabama list and emailed it around either copied it from a bad source or poorly summed it up him/herself. And you've been "outing" people based on that poor information. So no; you don't have the good information at all---you have a copy of a stolen copy from an anonymous 3rd party. In fact, if you had the original stolen information you'd see things in the transaction files like "refund" or "error in billing" or "to fix charge on" and other outliers.

In fact, at least 2 people you have "outed" earlier appeared to have transacted, then canceled within 48 hours. Of course, if I had no idea how to Join relational databases, I might SUM() a 68 charge and 68 refund 24 hours later as $136.

Had you spent the last three years learning something instead of trying to become a "reading lawyer" to settle family scores, you might have saved yourself, and more importantly, some of these citizens from your scorched earth blogfare of humiliation. I’m sure you’ll respond with your rote:

a) “I print my name at the top of my blog, I notice you don’t provide yours”
b) “I notice you don’t dispute my assertion that the names appears there”



Blog this, bitch.

legalschnauzer said...

@5:16 --

I publish your comment only so readers can get a sense of the con artists who continue to defend the indefensible re: Ashley Madison.

What do we have with your comment? Someone, who provides no name or hint of expertise, claims he/she can verify $611 was not spent on the account in question. That issue isn't even raised in the post, so it's a non-factor, but go ahead -- verify it.

Not sure how you plan to do that, without identifying yourself, but I'm tingly with excitement. Let's see you give it a shot, and I look forward to learning the name behind this analysis.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 5:16,

You just outed yourself, bitch. Many of us have figured certain Ashley Madison bots still had their panties toasted because the LS reporting is too close for comfort. And you've proven that is true. Thank you very much.

Please answer this question: How low does one have to sink morally to where he's desperate enough to make a habit of defending a company that promotes affairs, divorces, broken families etc.?

Don't bother answering the question because I already know the answer: You have to go unbelievably low, and you have to be a truly sick individual to even think of going there.

Eat that, bitch.

Anonymous said...

5:16 . . .

Isn't it possible that LS focused on Alabama and Missouri because he has lived in those two states? That's been written here many times, but why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

What a douch-bee.

Anonymous said...

Can't you get in enough trouble without paying a bogus website. The world is dumb. Thanks for two great articles Mr. Shuler. A selfish indulgence for me after a rainy weekend, thanks sir!!!

Anonymous said...

If Mr Shuler had the real data he would attempt to point out the real charges. He tried with $611 and there is only one place that was “published” and that is the Facebook Alabama Excel list going around. He has shown himself devoid of the real data—�yet he continues to slash and burn

Anonymous said...

@5:16: You're an idiot. LS has stated numerous times (and it's also clearly stated in the blog description) that his blog is focused on legal issues in southeast states. LS also stated in a comment a while back (I don't have the link handy) that he may post about other states in the region, so I'm not sure where you get off claiming that some elusive "Excel list" is arbitrarily limiting him to AL and MS. Lastly, as an IT professional who's seen the AM list, I can also state that your analysis is incorrect, which returns us to where we started: you're an idiot.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:11 --

Thanks for the sound of an educated and reasoned voice. If you have the time, I would be interested in hearing an IT professional's thoughts on the specifics of why 5:16's analysis is incorrect. I had a feeling 5:16 was spewing BS at us, and I appreciate the fact you have confirmed that. If you can share any specifics, I know I would be interested, and I bet quite a few readers would be, too.

As you probably know, we've been under a months-long attack from somebody -- Ashley Madison bots, I call them, although I assume most are human, or close to it -- and I appreciate anyone with the expertise to show these loons are "fakes, flakes, and automobiles." (To butcher a phrase from one of the great comedies of yesteryear.)

Anonymous said...

@7:11:
l’ll avoid personal insults, but....if you’ve seen the data you know that there were only two unique dollar amount charges associated with this account—and using both those numbers I challenge you to arrive at 611. 611 was only printed in the erroneous Excel list for “Alabama” which is how Mr Shuler exposed himself of not really doing any research and just using this Excel file for his scorched earth blogfare.

He is using a bad Excel file from an anonymous 3rd party who supposedly aggregated the stolen data. Not hardly the type of journalistic integrity we should expect of someone who received tax-payer money at a University to teach the next generation of 4th estate practitioners. #sad

legalschnauzer said...

@5:16/@6:30/9:11 --

You said you could "verify" that $611 was not spent on the James F. Henry account. I invited you to go ahead and "verify" to your heart's content, but you haven't done a thing. Why should anyone take you seriously at this point?

I published your two follow-up posts out of morbid curiosity, to see if you could climb out of the hole you've dug for yourself. The answer appears to be "no."

BTW, I worked as an editor in the university's publications office. I've never claimed I taught courses, journalism or otherwise. So there, I've outed you as an ill-informed fraud. Comment on that, bitch.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 9:11 . . .

If the amount wasn't $611, what was it? And if you aren't going to share your identity, your affiliation, or your data, why should we believe anything you say? You are the classic "empty vessel," making much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Anonymous said...

9:11,


I don't get your obsession with the amounts AM customers spent. I read LS almost every day -- and I've followed the Ashley Madison saga closely -- and I don't recall any posts that focus on the amounts spent. It's possible I've missed one or two, but the tone of the posts I've read has been: "Here's who is on the list, and here is what they do in real life, and her is a little info about their home/personal lives."

Seems to me you are just pulling a wild card out of your butt, on a topic that Mr. Schnauzer has not even addressed.

Anonymous said...

"I'll avoid personal insults . . . "


Says the man who wrote, "Blog this, bitch."

Anonymous said...

Roger/Carol,

I didn’t bring the 611 up. Roger did—�in a comment.

He used the “comments” section as an example of “correcting” his story—�the comments therefore seem an extension of his story. I didnt make the 611 part of the story—�he did. And 611 only exists in the Excel file with bad data. If it’s bad—�-why would Roger use it as his source?

Ive already commented that there were only two types of charges associated with this account. One of those is 19 dollars—�-you IT professionals look up the other and see if you can arrive at 611.

Roger and Carol appear to be.......“fake news.”

Anonymous said...

"I'll avoid personal insults . . . "


Says the man who wrote, "Blog this, bitch."



What makes you think I’m a man? hmmmm :) Sleep well, guys.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:37 --

You are real simple to deal with. You claimed you could "verify" something, and you haven't done it. You can't do it because that would mean revealing your identity and the agenda you are trying to sell to a doubting audience. In other words, you would unmask yourself as a fraud, and I don't blame you for being uncomfortable with that prospect.

To be clear, I didn't do anything in the comments to correct the post because there was nothing incorrect in the post. I was addressing Mrs. Henry's claim that the whole sign-up was a lark, and I noted that was a strange lark because the data showed someone had paid money on the account -- and you seem to admit that.

You repeatedly claim I used "bad data," but you've presented zero evidence to support that. Just sound and fury from an anonymous commenter. I knew when your first comment appeared that you wouldn't be able to "verify" anything -- and you've proven me correct.

Anonymous said...

@7:11 here...

@5:16/10:39: To clarify, my comment regarding your analysis was specifically targeting your assertion that checking the "veracity" (i.e. truth/accuracy) of the AM data is somehow tied to knowledge of relational databases and SQL/Excel functions like Sum(). That statement is incorrect. Instead of analysis, I probably should've said "reasoning" or "logic." You made an impassioned argument based on a false premise, and that was the source of my disdain.

Now that said, I'm not familiar with the Alabama list you speak of and can't speak to its accuracy. Literally the only AM data I've ever laid eyes on is the actual data from the hack that was released back in Aug 2015 (the .7z files, the .7z.asc files, the MySql dumps, etc.) because I did some analysis on it 3 or 4 days after the hack. I deleted it in late August that year and am not going to pull it all again, extract all the files, etc. just to check one guy's account and add up numbers for you.

I don't know what LS' actual source of data is for all of this, but as I pointed out, one of your assertions was incorrect, and assuming LS does have real data, there's no arbitrary limit on the scope of his reporting. That was my point. If you claim his data's bad, then that's an issue for you and LS to iron out. I know he makes his contact info freely available for anyone who wants to have those discussions.

Anonymous said...

I'd be careful throwing around accusations of practicing law without a license.

Anonymous said...

So Mr. Shuler, are you standing by your "records" that state this account spent $611? Yes or No?

There is only one place $611 was associated with this account and it was a spreadsheet. Fan Fiction. Passed around on Facebook. Google and Facebook both took it down. It seems *this* infamous spreadsheet is your source of information.

If you had the actual files you could tell us the real amounts. You could tell us whether an account uploaded a picture. You could tell us whether an account had ever used the private messaging feature. {crickets}

legalschnauzer said...

@9:21 --

Are you going to identify yourself? Yes or No?

Are you going to disclose your contact information, where you live, where you work? Yes or No?

Are you going to disclose your qualifications -- if you have any -- that make you someone we should believe on this subject? Yes or No?

Are you going to disclose your affiliations, which might shine light on your reasons for having an agenda to protect Ashley Madison? Yes or No?

Are you going to "verify" anything regarding the Henry account, which you said you would do last night? Yes or No?

Crickets.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:32 --

I'm careful about everything I do here. If you read this post thoroughly, I think you will see that. If you have any knowledge or insights on the issue of practicing law without a license -- citations to cases, law-review articles, personal experiences, etc. -- feel free to share.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:57 --

Again, thanks for a well-reasoned and well-articulated comment.

Anonymous said...

@7:11, thanks for the clarification----you make a fair point---I have no problem with that. Regarding the files, yes; those are the ones. If Schnauzer/Schnauzette had the actual files they wouldn't be using bad data-- he could determine who actually used the site vs "going to the mall to people-watch instead of what the purpose of the mall brands itself for."

@Schnauzer/Schnauzette, why would I identify myself? So many others have sent you private emails only for you to blast their picture on your blog and write an article about it? I'm not an idiot. That poor girl who emailed you about her Uncle was grossly mistreated on your site.

If anyone wants to do what @7:11 discusses and download the actual files----not a bad Excel file created by someone named "Emily" ---- they can see that you are, in fact, full of shit. Blasting these names on your site with a dubious data file doesn't exactly rise to the level of journalistic integrity we should expect of our 4th estate.

This is my 5th or 6th time posting regarding your claim of $611 on this account. You won't address it. You won't address the Excel file. You could, but you won't because you know I'm right. Do some actual work like @7:11 did back in the summer of 2015----download the actual files, set yourself up an instance of mysql and go to town. But you won't. That's the stuff of actual journalists. Much like actual lawyers, you are a parody of those against whom you measure your self-worth.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:07 --

So, we're back to the tired, "You're going to be mean to me" scam. And you accuse me of rote responses? Hah, look in the mirror, bub. Geez, grow up and show some adult qualities. I've seen more maturity from a 6 year old. You can't even get your facts straight:

(1) The niece of Mike McGarity did not send me an e-mail. She sent a comment -- three actually -- and then deleted them on her own. I contacted her and gave her every opportunity to explain what she was doing, but she did not respond.

(2) Can you cite an example of me publishing a private e-mail, blasting a picture, etc.? Of course, you can't. How would know what is private and what isn't in my e-mail account? Are you claiming you've hacked my e-mail account.

My advice to you: Either grow a pair and act like an adult -- give us some reason to believe what you say -- or go away.

This is the fifth or sixth opportunity I've given you to ID yourself, disclose your credentials and affiliations, and act like an actual adult. You've failed to do it every time.

I've given you more of a platform here than you deserve. Until you show you can act like an adult, I'm pulling the platform out from under you. Ta-ta!

Anonymous said...

Alabama Code Section 6-5-180
Import of accusations of false swearing or commission of crime.
Every accusation of false swearing presumptively imports a charge of perjury, and every accusation importing the commission of a crime punishable by indictment must be held presumptively to mean what the language used ordinarily imports.

It's the second clause that you need to look into.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:36 --

Don't understand your point. Can you clarify?

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to 12:57 --

You don't have a point, you don't have a name. Try getting a name and some credentials -- in other words, act like an adult -- and maybe someone will care whether you have a point or not. Til then, you have all the credibility of a leaf blowing in the wind.